This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sir John Major suggested, during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, on 10 July, that ".. nobody has done that since King Charles II in the 1640s and it didn't end well for him". I thought he was getting his Charlies mixed up there. But I see that Charles I of England says this: "In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the English Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue." Should this be added to the article, perhaps with a bit more detail? Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Given the political climate I think we need to be particularly careful about the exact words chosen to describe historic events here. I wonder if the way in which we are presenting prorogation isn't a little misleading to the layman reader. For example John Major "controversially prorogued parliament" is perhaps not quite as impartial (and perhaps not even as correct) as stating John Major "called a general election which had the effect of proroguing parliament". We could then follow it up with "this had the effect of avoiding parliamentary debate of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair." The latter sounds more impartial to me but I won't make the edit until others agree or disagree. Munchingfoo ( talk) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Prior to the statement that on September 11, the Court of Session ruled (on appeal that) the prorogation was unlawful, it must be added that on September 4, Lord Doherty had ruled in the same court that there had been no contravention of the rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.252.29 ( talk) 10:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states "... Johnson's prorogation would add around four days to the parliamentary break." . To my knowledge, this is not true: recess due to party conferences is three weeks, Johnson's prorogation is more than five weeks. Therefore, should rather be "... Johnson's prorogation would add around two weeks to the parliamentary break.". In my opinion, this is especially important since the supreme court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful because of its extensive length beyond the usual 4-5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.30.233 ( talk) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: @ Carewolf: Rather than continuing to revert each other, please discuss the background section for the 2019 prorogation here. Personally, I think the content is - on the whole - worth keeping, but it needs reducing to probably just the one paragraph that summarises the fact there were discussions about prorogation for some time beforehand. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the coming 2019 prorogation, am I reading this article correctly? Is there actually an attempt being made to strip the monarch of the ability to prorogue parliament? GoodDay ( talk) 14:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was going to write a sub-section just about the grassroots opposition to prorogation. How do others think this would best fit into the article? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The current section might be getting a bit too unwieldy in comparison to the rest of the article, becoming longer than the 1831 section. Furthermore, given the upcoming Supreme Court case next Tuesday, and the government's heel-dragging regarding the EU(W)(2)A, there is a case to be made that the burgeoning constitutional drama/crisis should really get its own article. Thoughts? Sceptre ( talk) 16:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: I have already edited the draft to add some text. you can view it at this link: Draft:2019 British prorogation controversy. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: I've moved the article into main space in response to the quick and unanimous response, but we can continue discussing the merits of the split if you all so want. Sceptre ( talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article professes to include 'notable' prorogations, but doesn't say how it decides what is notable. Would there be scope to include other prorogations? Two examples were mentioned in the deliberations of the recent court case. The ones in 1914 and 1930.
From CASE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (from the Supreme Court documents), we have:
- (1) On 18 September 1914, shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, Parliament was prorogued until 27 October, with the King’s Speech on prorogation noting that the circumstances “call for action not speech.” On 16 October 1914, Parliament was further prorogued by proclamation until 11 November 1914. In total, Parliament was prorogued for a period of 53 calendar days during wartime.
- (2) On 1 August 1930, Parliament was prorogued until 28 October, a period of 87 days. This was during the onset of the Great Depression following the 1929 Wall Street Crash and when the then government of James Ramsay MacDonald did not command a majority in the House of Commons.
They even helpfully give sources (Hansard and London Gazette: "Hansard, 18 September 1914, vol. 66, col. 1018; London Gazette, 16 October 1914, Issue 28940, p.8241." for 1914 and "Lords Hansard, 1 August 1930, vol. 78, col. 1216." for 1930).
What would be the best way to include those? And do we cite direct to Hansard or do we also need to include the fact that they were mentioned in the court case to show that others have commented on them? (Also, as far as I can tell, parliament was not prorogued during the Second World War.) Carcharoth ( talk) 16:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Our article claims that (emphasis added)
Parliament, while prorogued, can be recalled by proclamation in accordance with the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
The source given is the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords 2017, para 2.13. However, the Companion states that (emphasis added)
Parliament, while prorogued, can be summoned by proclamation pursuant to the Meeting of Parliament Acts 1797 and 1870[5] and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
The change of wording on our part seems potentially problematic because the terms "recalled" and "summoned" are apparently, at least for some commentators, not interchangeable in this context. See eg the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 8589 (11th June 2019), which specifically states on p 7 that (emphasis added)
Neither House can be 'recalled' when Parliament is prorogued: this can only be done when the House in question is adjourned.
(while nonetheless acknowledging that "certain statutes require Parliament to meet notwithstanding the fact it may be adjourned or prorogued", giving the example of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 28).
Unfortunately, I lack sufficient knowledge of UK constitutional law to make any changes myself. — Pajz ( talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
In the "notable prorogations" section, there is a subsection dealing with Johnson 2019. But this was *not* a prorogation. The SC has unanimously said that no such prorogation ever took place. The section should be renamed "Notable Prorogations (Real or Purported)", and the fictional nature of the 2019 "prorogation" must be given greater prominence. Also, the biased language in the section on Major 1997 is still present. It is simply untrue that prorogation in 1997 avoided debate on the cash-for-questions report; the report hadn't yet been published, and wasn't published until after prorogation was over and a new parliament assembled. 18:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 ( talk)
What on earth does the phrase "Brexit Withdrawal" mean? Does it mean withdrawal from the EU, or does it mean withdrawal from/of Brexit, i.e. remaining in the EU? The heading seems biased, since the justices clearly stated they were not ruling against Brexit nor trying to prevent it in any way whatsoever.10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.180 ( talk)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sir John Major suggested, during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, on 10 July, that ".. nobody has done that since King Charles II in the 1640s and it didn't end well for him". I thought he was getting his Charlies mixed up there. But I see that Charles I of England says this: "In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the English Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue." Should this be added to the article, perhaps with a bit more detail? Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Given the political climate I think we need to be particularly careful about the exact words chosen to describe historic events here. I wonder if the way in which we are presenting prorogation isn't a little misleading to the layman reader. For example John Major "controversially prorogued parliament" is perhaps not quite as impartial (and perhaps not even as correct) as stating John Major "called a general election which had the effect of proroguing parliament". We could then follow it up with "this had the effect of avoiding parliamentary debate of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair." The latter sounds more impartial to me but I won't make the edit until others agree or disagree. Munchingfoo ( talk) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Prior to the statement that on September 11, the Court of Session ruled (on appeal that) the prorogation was unlawful, it must be added that on September 4, Lord Doherty had ruled in the same court that there had been no contravention of the rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.252.29 ( talk) 10:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states "... Johnson's prorogation would add around four days to the parliamentary break." . To my knowledge, this is not true: recess due to party conferences is three weeks, Johnson's prorogation is more than five weeks. Therefore, should rather be "... Johnson's prorogation would add around two weeks to the parliamentary break.". In my opinion, this is especially important since the supreme court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful because of its extensive length beyond the usual 4-5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.30.233 ( talk) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: @ Carewolf: Rather than continuing to revert each other, please discuss the background section for the 2019 prorogation here. Personally, I think the content is - on the whole - worth keeping, but it needs reducing to probably just the one paragraph that summarises the fact there were discussions about prorogation for some time beforehand. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the coming 2019 prorogation, am I reading this article correctly? Is there actually an attempt being made to strip the monarch of the ability to prorogue parliament? GoodDay ( talk) 14:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was going to write a sub-section just about the grassroots opposition to prorogation. How do others think this would best fit into the article? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The current section might be getting a bit too unwieldy in comparison to the rest of the article, becoming longer than the 1831 section. Furthermore, given the upcoming Supreme Court case next Tuesday, and the government's heel-dragging regarding the EU(W)(2)A, there is a case to be made that the burgeoning constitutional drama/crisis should really get its own article. Thoughts? Sceptre ( talk) 16:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: I have already edited the draft to add some text. you can view it at this link: Draft:2019 British prorogation controversy. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: I've moved the article into main space in response to the quick and unanimous response, but we can continue discussing the merits of the split if you all so want. Sceptre ( talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article professes to include 'notable' prorogations, but doesn't say how it decides what is notable. Would there be scope to include other prorogations? Two examples were mentioned in the deliberations of the recent court case. The ones in 1914 and 1930.
From CASE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (from the Supreme Court documents), we have:
- (1) On 18 September 1914, shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, Parliament was prorogued until 27 October, with the King’s Speech on prorogation noting that the circumstances “call for action not speech.” On 16 October 1914, Parliament was further prorogued by proclamation until 11 November 1914. In total, Parliament was prorogued for a period of 53 calendar days during wartime.
- (2) On 1 August 1930, Parliament was prorogued until 28 October, a period of 87 days. This was during the onset of the Great Depression following the 1929 Wall Street Crash and when the then government of James Ramsay MacDonald did not command a majority in the House of Commons.
They even helpfully give sources (Hansard and London Gazette: "Hansard, 18 September 1914, vol. 66, col. 1018; London Gazette, 16 October 1914, Issue 28940, p.8241." for 1914 and "Lords Hansard, 1 August 1930, vol. 78, col. 1216." for 1930).
What would be the best way to include those? And do we cite direct to Hansard or do we also need to include the fact that they were mentioned in the court case to show that others have commented on them? (Also, as far as I can tell, parliament was not prorogued during the Second World War.) Carcharoth ( talk) 16:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Our article claims that (emphasis added)
Parliament, while prorogued, can be recalled by proclamation in accordance with the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
The source given is the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords 2017, para 2.13. However, the Companion states that (emphasis added)
Parliament, while prorogued, can be summoned by proclamation pursuant to the Meeting of Parliament Acts 1797 and 1870[5] and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
The change of wording on our part seems potentially problematic because the terms "recalled" and "summoned" are apparently, at least for some commentators, not interchangeable in this context. See eg the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 8589 (11th June 2019), which specifically states on p 7 that (emphasis added)
Neither House can be 'recalled' when Parliament is prorogued: this can only be done when the House in question is adjourned.
(while nonetheless acknowledging that "certain statutes require Parliament to meet notwithstanding the fact it may be adjourned or prorogued", giving the example of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 28).
Unfortunately, I lack sufficient knowledge of UK constitutional law to make any changes myself. — Pajz ( talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
In the "notable prorogations" section, there is a subsection dealing with Johnson 2019. But this was *not* a prorogation. The SC has unanimously said that no such prorogation ever took place. The section should be renamed "Notable Prorogations (Real or Purported)", and the fictional nature of the 2019 "prorogation" must be given greater prominence. Also, the biased language in the section on Major 1997 is still present. It is simply untrue that prorogation in 1997 avoided debate on the cash-for-questions report; the report hadn't yet been published, and wasn't published until after prorogation was over and a new parliament assembled. 18:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 ( talk)
What on earth does the phrase "Brexit Withdrawal" mean? Does it mean withdrawal from the EU, or does it mean withdrawal from/of Brexit, i.e. remaining in the EU? The heading seems biased, since the justices clearly stated they were not ruling against Brexit nor trying to prevent it in any way whatsoever.10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.180 ( talk)