Brexit was democratically approved. It should be effected. But Parliament must approve its precise terms.
Correspondingly, former British Prime Minister John Major was right on Wednesday to oppose Parliament’s prorogation over Brexit. Prorogation would suspend Parliament in order to see Brexit effected without parliamentary assent.
That would be unacceptable for three reasons. First, it would politicize Queen Elizabeth II in a toxic manner; second, it would undercut the executive’s accountability to Parliament; and third, it would adopt an extremist position which damages the national interest.
Regrettably, however, the front-runner to become Britain’s next prime minister, Boris Johnson, refuses to rule out prorogation. Johnson says that a suspension Parliament might be the only way to enact Brexit. With Brexit’s newly effective date of action now October 31, Johnson is unlikely to get a deal with the European Union that can win parliamentary support. Parliament has rejected every Brexit option thus far presented to it. And if Parliament is unable to authorize a prospective Brexit arrangement prior to October 31, Brexit will again be suspended.
Prorogation would be wrong.
For a start, it would require an effecting statement by the queen in the House of Lords. The sight of the queen standing in Parliament and ordering it closed would be deeply disturbing in example and in meaning. It would also introduce Britain’s head of state to that which she greatly opposes: a perception of formal support in a matter of political controversy. This would damage the royal family’s credibility as an impartial incarnation of the national interest.
To prorogue Parliament would also undercut Britain’s 800-year tradition of executive accountability to the people. Born in the Magna Carta in 1215, this tradition now exists with governments that rise or fall on the support of Parliament. To remove Parliament, even temporarily, would be to reduce its importance to British democratic life.
Boris Johnson cannot ignore this concern. After all, a successful vote of no confidence would likely follow prorogation, as soon as Parliament was restored. And if Johnson’s government were to fall, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a fanatical anti-American socialist, would have a clear pathway to power.
Finally, seeing as there was no common understanding by pro-“Leave” voters as to what they wanted Brexit to entail, prorogation of Parliament would be an act of undemocratic extremism. The economic risks of a no-deal split from the European Union are grave. But more important here is how a hard Brexit would reject those who wanted Brexit carried out in a way that retains Britain’s close alignment with the EU. That takes us back to Parliament’s role in finding a Brexit compromise that can command the respect of the House of Commons.
So yes, Brexit should be carried out with expediency. Parliamentarians must do more to compromise. And prorogation should not be an option. It would achieve just one thing while shredding many other far more important things.
