Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Good reads:

  • Canadian forces are packing up in Mali ready to leave, but some will return in September to teach their Romanian replacements the ropes (but not cover the gap).
  • The government announced $8.3 million to help clean up “ghost gear” – lost or abandoned fishing gear – in Canadian waters.
  • The Privacy Commissioner is launching an investigation into CBSA after their licence plate readers were victim of a cyberattack in the US.
  • Here is a look at how Canada is lagging behind in agriculture tech.
  • The former Army reservist accused of being a Neo-Nazi has gone missing.
  • Parks Canada has released new footage from inside the wreck of HMS Terror.
  • The Liberals still haven’t decided if Justin Trudeau will attend the Maclean’s or Munk debates during the election.
  • Doug Ford has decided to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on the federal carbon price to the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • Economist Lindsay Tedds sets the record straight after several Conservatives have tried to advance StatsCan Truther conspiracy theories.
  • Philippe Lagassé makes  a plea for media to stop using American language in election night coverage, as it only creates confusion about our system.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation”

  1. Trudeau should skip the MacLean’s debate. Wells has an axe to grind and is going to make the whole thing about the Emailghazi Affair. They should have had Tabatha and Andray instead — some younger, more diverse voices instead of another tired old white guy with a bent against JT. If the reaction to the all-female panel on the official leaders’ debates is any indication, a woman and a black man would cause the stale pale male pundit class to freak out. And I would be so here for it. But I digress.

    As for Boris Harper, the Munk foreign policy debate might be interesting — if whoever’s moderating it asks Steve’s own boy if he still thinks Brexit is cool. All the better if they make the obvious connections to separatism in Canada — we know a Trudeau is a staunch federalist no matter what, but does Kenney’s dumb-waiter to the provinces think Canada should keep calm and Albexit on?

Comments are closed.