As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President," which I know waxes over tonnes of detail.
The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and illegal?
The situation now is that the prime minister doesn't have majority support in parliament and is using powers like prorogation to act against the majority of parliament.
> I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament.
Short prorogations are normal in order to prepare for Queen's speeches. However, this one is unusually long, with a political context of preventing parliament from exercising their powers.
> what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do?
Normally this kind of conflict doesn't arise, because the government has a large majority, and if they cease to have a majority then the PM is replaced by a no-confidence vote.
Normally the PM is supposed to Be A Good Chap and Do The Decent Thing, which are ill-defined concepts from British honour culture, but have basically gone out the window with Johnson's behaviour.
Recess is just a quick break for the conference season, and is normal at this time of year. Progrogation brings all parliamentary business to an end, bills are not carried over to the next session (so work on them has to start from scratch), and select committees can't sit. That's a very different state of affairs.
In US terms the role of the PM in European parliamentary democracies is closer to the role of the head of a US government agency than the president, i.e. the head of the DOD, USDA, DOE etc.
Except the role of this "agency" is "run the country". But it's the same in the sense that the head of a US agency serves at the pleasure of the president, the PM serves at the pleasure of parliament.
We elect a parliament. Then one of them goes to the Governor general and says "I have support of the majority of the members", and voila: they are the Prime Minister.
Could be any member, from any party, for any reason, just so long as the majority of MPs support the person.
And once that person is PM, that just means they sit in and control the Prime Minister's office, and choose the Cabinet.
After that, they're just a figurehead who happens to be the MP with the most power.
My Hail-Mary hope for this next election is that Jody Wilson-Rayboul reruns as an independent, wins, then Trudeau gets a minority and gets kicked out as head of the Liberals. This leaves a strange minority government situation that is perfect for Jody to take charge as the first independent PM. (It could happen!)
Of course, the convention could change, and the Queen take someone else's advice. But that would be a major constitutional change that would make today's relatively small development pale into insignificance.
And the issue people have is the alternative. There is no alternative.
The implication of the decision is that Parliament is now going to do something...well, the European Council won't meet until before Oct 31 anyway...which is when Parliament would get to scrutinise the final deal.
And the big plan that the opposition has is: to go to the EU, negotiate the same exact deal that has been voted down 4 times, and then whip their MPs to vote it down again.
The lack of actual practical understanding here, not just here but on the part of journalists, is astonishing.
The only comparison that comes to mind is in football: journalists and fans will turn on a manager, they will laugh at them on Twitter, write endless articles about how they are washed up, clubs will then panic and fire the manager...and then only then realise that there is no-one else to do the job, and they just fired the only person who can.
He doesn't hold a majority.
> And the big plan that the opposition has is: to go to the EU, negotiate the same exact deal that has been voted down 4 times, and then whip their MPs to vote it down again.
No it isn't. The plan of the opposition is to get an extension, and hold a general election as a proxy for what should happen: Tory party for no deal fuck you up the arse brexit, Lib Dems for revoke it and put out the fire, Labour for a 2nd referendum with clear options that involves significantly less self-mutilation than an empty "leave" deal.
And you don't appear to have thought out what the practical impact is. They will still have to negotiate a deal and it is not going to be any different to the deal that May got because they are taking exactly the same approach. Stick head in sand, delay, hope something changes.
Tory party policy is deal. They have never suggested anything otherwise. What people are confusing is the strategy and the deal. The strategy is to, attempt to, resolve the constant crisis and delay. Part of this involves accepting that the EU has red lines that they won't shift on.
This is true. But accepting that means throwing all the promises of the referendum campaign out of the window and accepting that leaving the customs union means significant damage to the economy and that the EU will not allow them to leave free movement while remaining in the customs union.
And yes, I believe the independents will vote against the government every time until the extension is got and then they will VONC/FTPA into an election.
Like how Angus King (I-VT) can be relied upon to vote with the Democrats in the US Senate.
The people you are defending are traitors.