Boris Johnson took the decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks in the run-up to Britain's deadline for leaving the EU on October 31. His government argues that he was legally able to do so. The preceding parliamentary session was the longest on record and the prorogation was designed to bring it to a natural close. Opposition MPs believe Johnson's motives were to stymy debate and were, therefore, unconstitutional.
Parliament is the master of its own fate and as the leader of the majority party in parliament, Boris Johnson was well within his rights to bring the longest parliamentary session in history to a close.
Parliament is the master of its own proceedings
Parliament alone decides when it will sit and when it should be prorogued. As leader of the majority party, Boris Johnson is allowed to prorogue parliament whenever he chooses.
No codified constitution
The UK does not have a codified constitution, leaving very few formal restrictions on executive power.
Johnson's decision was without legal precedent and in breach of the British constitution. It was illegal in the purest sense of the word.
In breach of the British constitution
The constitution does not allow a Prime Minister to prorogue parliament for the purpose of stymying debate and bypassing the democratic process.
No legal precedent
Parliament has never been prorogued for as long as Mr Johnson proposed, leaving it without legal precedent.
He lied to the Queen
Boris Johnson lied to the Queen in his request to prorogue parliament. He was not honest in his intentions for doing so, making the move unlawful.
Johnson doesn't command a majority in the House of Commons, therefore, any prorogation to outline his legislative agenda is pointless as it will never materialise.
The Conservative Party no longer have a majority in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is pointless proroguing parliament to outline their legislative agenda as none of it will pass.
This page was last edited on Monday, 16 Sep 2019 at 09:04 UTC