What's the Big Deal? The Queen Prorogues British Parliament and all Hell Breaks Loose
The historical significance of the British Parliament and why Queen Elizabeth's move is seen as a history defining moment.
Since British Prime Minister Boris Johnson took office on 24 July 2019, he has maintained a hard line stance on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union by 31 October 2019, deal or no-deal. The issue of no-deal Brexit has hamstrung many across the British political spectrum since the results of the UK’s referendum, commonly referred to as “Brexit”, on 23 June 2016. Many parties in the UK Parliament, such as the Opposition Labour Party led by MP Jeremy Corbyn and the Scottish National Party led by Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, have repeatedly stated their opposition to a no-deal Brexit plan, so in a move designed to give Parliament less time to deliberate a Brexit deal, Boris Johnson submitted a request to Queen Elizabeth II of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), to close British Parliament (called “proroguing”) for five weeks. This would prevent MPs from extending Brexit negotiations. The extension has been the opposition’s main line of attack since the referendum results were announced. On 28 August 2019, Queen Elizabeth II approved the request. The response from pro-Remain parties and British Republicans (people who want to abolish the British monarchy) was thunderous, with protests springing up all over the United Kingdom in the days that followed. But most of the ire was directed at the Queen, and the monarchy itself, rather than at Johnson. Why is this, and why did Johnson need the Queen’s sign-off in the first place?
The issue of suspending Parliament, and question of the necessity of constitutional monarchy itself, lies in British history. In the 17th century, the British monarchy was ruled by the Stuarts. James I, the first Stuart monarch, had been raised a Protestant in Scotland, so there was little dissension in England when he succeeded Elizabeth I as King of England in March 1603. It was of the upmost importance that the monarch be a Protestant because the Anglican Church was founded on the principle that the King or Queen was Head of the Church. James I’s son Charles I succeeded him in 1625, and Charles, who had a French Catholic wife, supported a policy of religious tolerance towards Catholics as well as supporting reforms to the Anglican Church that many saw as a return to papacy. Charles I was also a believer in the divine right of kings, and thus he clashed with Parliament over administrative and fiscal issues. In 1629, Charles I dissolved Parliament because they would not levy new taxes to fund his planned war with Spain. Parliament did not meet again for 11 years (1629-1640) and during that time, Charles I levied many unpopular taxes that were paid to the Crown directly. In 1640, an armed revolt broke out in Scotland when Charles I attempted to force the Scottish Calvinists to use the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and since no one would give him any money, he called Parliament back into session in the hopes that the ministers would be able to convince the people to support and finance this war. Angry at Charles’ financial mismanagement, Parliament refused to fund Charles and after three weeks, Charles dissolved Parliament again.
Charles ended up losing the war in Scotland and was forced to pay the Scottish burghs (noblemen) restitution that he did not have. In 1640, with no other options, Charles I called Parliament again and was forced him to agree that he could never dissolve Parliament again. But Charles had not given up on his divine right just yet. In 1642, civil war broke out in England over a dispute between Charles and Parliament over who controlled the British Army and Navy. Charles lost this war as well, and Charles fled to Scotland for protection. Instead of protecting him, the Scots turned him over to Parliament and in 1649, King Charles I of England and Scotland was tried, convicted, and executed by Parliamentary forces led by Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army.
Following Charles I’s execution, Scottish Parliament crowned his son, Charles II, as King of Scotland, and he maintained his claim to the English throne as well. However, in England, what followed Charles I’s execution is a time period known as the Interregnum, when the England was ruled by a succession of republican governments. In 1660, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II was invited to London to become King of England. Although Charles II was initially well received in England, Parliament enacted a series of laws known as the Clarendon Code, to establish the Church of England as the preeminent religion in the country. Although Charles II preferred a policy of religious tolerance like his father, he acquiesced to the Clarendon Code and it seemed like all would finally be well in England. However, Charles II promoted many religious tolerance bills, such as the 1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence, and when it was revealed that his brother and heir, James of York, was a Catholic, it sparked the Exclusion Crisis. This created the birth of the two main political parties in British politics, the pro-exclusion Whigs (ancestors of the current Labour Party) and the anti-exclusion Tories (whose party now exists as the Conservative Party). The Whigs wanted to exclude all Catholics from the line of succession and the Tories did not, and Charles II sided with the Tories. Charles II dissolved Parliament over the Exclusion Crisis and the plots against his life that followed, and ruled alone until his death in February 1685.
James of York, brother to Charles II and fervent Catholic, took the English throne as James II & VII of England and Scotland in February 1685. Although his Catholicism did not sit well with the Parliaments of England and Scotland, James was deposed because of his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the rulings of Parliament. Whenever Parliament refused to pass one of his bills, James would attempt to enforce them by decree and ultimately, James was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parliament invited his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange, to rule England. The Glorious Revolution led to the beginning of constitutional monarchy in Great Britain, with laws put in place to restrict the power of the monarchy, such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Acts of Settlement of 1707. From that era onward, the primacy of Parliament as the lawmaking body in Great Britain was established, and the role of the monarchy became largely ceremonial over time.
So what does all this have to do with the response to Queen Elizabeth’s approval of suspending Parliament? Well, according to some British legal scholars, it’s illegal. The Queen of England is acknowledged as the Head of State, but is bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of her Cabinet. Approving a suspension of Parliament goes against constitutional convention, even when it is suggested by her Cabinet, which is in this case Her Majesty’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Further evidence that this move is a violation of constitutional convention can be found in the case of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Governor-General of Australia removed the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and installed the leader of the opposition party in his place, Malcolm Fraser. (Unofficially, there are 53 sovereign nations in the Commonwealth of Nations, but only sixteen have Governor-Generals who can remove an elected Prime Minister. The others are members of the economic Commonwealth and are designated as republics, such as India and Trinidad and Tobago.) With Fraser in power, the appropriations bills that Whitlam had wanted Australian Parliament to vote on, were approved by decree and and the Governor-General dissolved Parliament in order to call a new election that saw Fraser and his party come to power. This is what is referred to as a “constitutional coup”. This led to an outcry across Australia and speculation among Whitlam’s supporters, as to whether or not the Governor-General acted appropriately. As the monarch is unelected, and her Governor-General is appointed by Her Majesty, it is generally thought to be a contravention of constitutional convention for her unelected Governors General to dismiss any elected politician or elected governmental body. Although Charles I lost his head for it, and his brother his crown, in the 1975 case in Australia, Fraser’s party was able to eliminate their political adversary using the Royal prerogative rather than letting the people decide in a general election. And now it seems Boris Johnson and his political allies will be able to push through a no-deal Brexit bill without having to go through the elected Parliament as well. Early estimates show that if Boris were to call a snap election, he and the Conservative Party could gain a clear majority in British Parliament, much like Malcolm Fraser did in the 1970s. If the Queen had said no to Boris Johnson’s request, he would not have had the ability to suspend Parliament and thus circumvent any opposition to his no-deal Brexit plan, and that is why most of the ire is falling on the Queen.