Good ol’ sensible Daniel says it best -
Proroguing row: It’s rarely a good idea to unite your opponents like this
Daniel FinkelsteinAugust 28 2019, 1:20pm,
comment | daniel finkelstein
new
Is this a constitutional crisis? No. Might there be one? Yes. Is this a democratic and political crisis? Absolutely.
The British constitution, in so far as such a thing really exists, gives the executive a huge amount of political control over parliament, largely through its control of parliamentary time. The ability to choose the time of a Queen’s Speech is part of that power. In using it, the government is simply using its discretion. They are using their constitutional position to make life more difficult for those who oppose their policy.
But that is simply a formal view. We now have, effectively, a new government with a quite different policy to its predecessor. It is trying to reduce the amount of time parliament has to rule on whether it supports this new policy. In circumstances in which it seems overwhelmingly likely that it does not. So of course it is a democratic and political crisis.
Parliament will now struggle even harder to assert its control, perhaps through a no confidence vote or legal ways of forcing the government to act. The government may try to frustrate such manoeuvres — delaying an election, for instance until after Brexit, or refusing to seek an extension when mandated - and this would turn the political crisis into a constitutional one.
The fact that the government is able to use its power as it has done, does not make it wise or right to do so, of course.
In the short term, it is true, it is showing determination. It is signalling to the European Union that it cannot expect parliament to stop no deal, so the EU must come to terms. I doubt very much that this will happen, but the government disagrees and thinks there is a good chance if they are firm enough.
And they are also taking advantage of the weakness of their opponents. Unable to agree on how to replace the government, even for long enough to stop no deal, the alliance of remain parties needs to prise time out of this government’s hands in order to pass legislation. Naturally the government is trying to make this as difficult as possible.
They are entitled to point out that parliament has had at least a year to come forward with a policy and has not done so. While everyone is very keen that the Commons should assert its power, the truth is that the more it has asserted itself, the worse things have got. What did they think would happen?
Yet beyond the short run, it is rarely a good political idea to unite your opponents in righteous indignation. Fury may propel them to act together or encourage their supporters to vote together. It could produce an election, and one in which the Conservatives lose more through tactical voting than they gain from leave voters defecting from Labour.
It would also be one in which two central messages against Mr Corbyn — that he isn’t a proper parliamentary democrat and is excessively ideological — are instead turned against Mr Johnson.
Opposition unity might also make it easier for a non Tory coalition to be assembled after an election, whenever it comes, and one which decides on a policy of joining the customs union and the single market, making the no deal pointless.
It is also rarely a good idea to use parliamentary tactics in power that you would not wish to see used against you.
So the Conservative Party may regret later what is doing now, especially if no deal does not go as well as some members of the government expect. But such regret may take a while.
Previous article