Talk:Prorogation in the United Kingdom

Previous prorogation(s)

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)

On John Major's controversial use of prorogation in 1997, see "Major denies sleaze report cover-up"[1]. Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the deep (blue) irony of it all. I'm not so sure Tarzan would be quite so keen to support "the new leader" this time round. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Impartiality of chosen language

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)

That would be better, but still not quite right: because the Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair wasn't published until 4th July. That's more than two months after the general election (1st May) and almost two months after Parliament reassembled (7th May). So the prorogation didn't have the effect of avoiding parliamentary debate of the report. Nor do we know (unless someone can show otherwise) that that was the intention of the prorogation). Also, a prorogation almost always precedes a dissolution, and a dissolution was necessary due to the general election being called. The debate then is whether Parliament was prorogued unnecessarily early and why. 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 (talk)

2019 Prorogation

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)

2019 background

@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)

This is an article about prorogation in general, and not about Brexit or speculation about prorogations or prorogation threats that never actually came to be. Sure we should mention the Johnson government prorogation, but one short paragraph will suffice, and from a neutral POV - without the editorialising and without any particular spin. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems perfectly clear that this article should mention what the reliable sources have mentioned, which is that the effect of the 2019 prorogation is to diminish the time in which Parliament could avoid a no-deal Brexit. Since we follow the reliable sources, that seems like a no-brainer. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but that isn't the only thing the reliable sources have mentioned, so we should not give that particular effect undue weight by qualifying the opening senence with it alone. A balanced supplementary sentence, including it along with other reliably sourced commentary, would do the job. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

One must question what we refer to as 'reliable' with regards to this particular topic. As many of you know, it is no secret that the vast majority of media corporations including ones cited in this section (e.g. The Guardian) have an inherent political bias. In these cases it may be necessary to ratify any information used via a secondary source. The one exception to this would be the BBC, who are legally obligated to remain impartial. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"...The impartiality of the corporation’s news output has come under attack from all sides in recent years, especially following the Brexit referendum....",[2] and see Criticism of the BBC. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Challenges to 2019 prorogation.

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)

In the case being taken by Gina Miller and Sir John Major: "It is not possible to mount a legal challenge to the Queen's approval of the suspension - known as prorogation - which was confirmed on Wednesday. But Sir John and Ms Miller believe they can legally challenge the advice the Queen's prime minister gives her.". The article wording may need to be tweaked slightly to reflect the up-to-date position now that prorogation has been agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Street protests

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)

This article is for Prorogation in general, I don't think a sub-section is necessary nor right in this circumstance. Personally I think the section regarding the 2019 Prorogation is already too big when compared with the others listed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps all of the opposition could be split into a new article of "2019 Opposition to the prorogation of parliament"? Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a big (though not total) overlap between those protesting against prorogation, and those opposed to Brexit, and/or opposed to a "no deal" Brexit in particular. It is not always a simple matter to differentiate between them. We have an article - Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom - and one option might be to cover all the related protests there, with a link back to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Split discussion

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)

I *agree*. Lots could be written about this issue, especially as it continues to transpire. --krimin_killr21(talk) 16:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)