Iain Duncan Smith
Nothing so defines the absurdity of the Brexit debate as the howls of anger, sounds of fury and crocodile tears at the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue.
These objectors were all in Parliament when it overwhelmingly voted first for the referendum, then to uphold the result and then to trigger Article 50. In voting for Article 50, they must have known that at the end of the process the UK was legally bound to leave with or without a deal, which ironically is the policy of Boris Johnson.
Then the Speaker entered the fray with the very partial comment that what the Prime Minister had done was a constitutional outrage. Actually, following his comment, it appears almost everything and everyone was suddenly either outrageous or outraged. Prorogation is outrageous, this is an outrageous power grab, the Government is outrageous and their supporters are collectively outrageous.
BBC reports say people are talking to each other in outraged tones discussing their outrage and Remainers are outraged at the constitutional outrage and the Government’s outrageous behaviour in defending such an outrage.
So, was the Speaker right that it is a constitutional outrage? And was it right for the Speaker to accuse the Prime Minister of committing a
constitutional outrage? The answer, I am certain, is no on both counts.
First, by definition it cannot be a constitutional outrage when prorogation is a constitutional practice that has, under normal circumstances, been used in Parliament pretty much every year. Furthermore, it has always been the government which decides when to use it and for how long. So it is neither an ancient device, nor is it outrageous.
Ah, cry the outraged, but this is for four weeks, which is unprecedented. Not so. In fact, the prorogation is a total of 6 sitting days and the other days are days when the house always rises for the party conferences.
This Parliament has sat for the longest period in more than 400 years. The Opposition has constantly demanded a new parliament and a Queen’s Speech, only to cry that it is outrageous when they do get one.
Furthermore, I believe that the Speaker should not have weighed in at this stage because, in attacking the Government, he does little service to the role of the Speaker. Convention, a vital part of our unwritten constitution, has it that the Speaker does not express their own opinions on constitutional issues but leaves that for the House of Commons to decide.
It’s worth recalling this is not the first time. In April, the Speaker made a fundamental change to Standing Order 24 without even a debate. This was to allow MPS to use SO24 to initiate legislation, in effect stopping Brexit.
I believed that to be an enormous and very partial decision to break precedent in such a manner for what appeared a singular purpose, yet that objection was dismissed by the Speaker in a peremptory manner. Strangely, at the time, none of those now outraged felt quite the same way.
I believe there is much that this Speaker has done to improve backbench MPS’ opportunities to hold the Government to account and to improve the rights of MPS as scrutineers of legislation. It is a record which will stand the test of time.
However, in the past few months, I have become concerned that his own views on the subject of Brexit have led to strong and angry attacks on both the Government and individual MPS.
I would hope instead, knowing how strongly he felt on the issue, that he would be extra careful not to express his own opinions as he did the other day.
As the Leader of the House said yesterday: “The Speaker, by convention and long-standing tradition, has no tongue with which to speak or eyes with which to see, other than which is directed by the House.”
I agree with that. Otherwise his good record of reform in Parliament may be lost in the mire of the Brexit debate, which I believe would be a pity. At this time of all times, we need impartial stewardship in the midst of all this faux outrage.
‘It appears that almost everything and everyone was suddenly either outrageous or outraged’