Members of Parliament and Britain’s withdrawal from the EU without agreement or ‘no deal’ opposition have reacted strongly to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament.
Thousands of protests took place Wednesday night in several cities, including the UK’s capital London, and more than a million people signed a petition within hours.
The government believes that despite a five-week suspension in September and October, the Brexit deal will find time to discuss each other, but critics say it is an “undemocratic” attempt to prevent MPs from failing the new deal. Is.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet member Michael Gove told the BBC that the parliament’s suspension was certainly not a political move and the House had a deadline for Britain’s exit from the European Union, before 31 October. There will be plenty of time to talk.
The country on Wednesday approved Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan to suspend parliament.
It is likely that the parliament’s meeting on September 10 will be postponed indefinitely and cannot be called again until October 14, leaving only 17 days left in the UK’s EU separation deadline. Will
About this, the British Prime Minister said that it was important for his government to do so so that they could create a ‘brilliant agenda’ for the country. They insist they want to introduce new legislation.
Prime Minister Johnson said the UK speech on October 14 would spell out his “most exciting agenda”.
Leader of the House Jacob Mugg, who was in the meeting with Boris Johnson with Queen Britain, said the session of Parliament was the longest in its four-hundred-year history, so it was advisable to suspend it so that a new session could be launched.
According to The Daily Telegraph, Jacob Mogg says he is calling it a constitutional crisis as opposed to the 2016 referendum.
Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn criticized the government’s decision, saying “suspending parliament is not acceptable. What the Prime Minister is doing is to disrupt and force our democracy through an agreement.”
Opponents of the government believe that the suspension of parliament is aimed at preventing parliamentary obstacles in the way of Brexit.
Supporters of the government think it is necessary to suspend the parliament so that the UK can address the parliament which has already been delayed.
How can the government stop Parliament?
Suspending or suspending Parliament is a purely governmental option when the Parliament will meet, and neither the House, the Darul Uloom nor the Darul Umra can change that decision.
The Queen’s Parliament is addressed at the beginning of every parliamentary year.
The country enters the UK and reads a speech prepared by the government, summoning the representatives of the House, which describes the prime minister’s plans on which he intends to legislate.
This tradition dates from the 16th century and occurs only once in the parliamentary year. However, no rules have been written about it.
The UK has not addressed the Parliament since 2017.
Why is time so controversial?
Opponents of the government believe that the time was chosen so that public representatives could not express their views on Britain’s separation from the European Union.
“No one should think that this is a British-style insurgency,” said Labor Party shadow Chancellor John McDaniel.
He said that whatever your opinion about Bridget is, but if you allow the Prime Minister to stop the free operation of democratic institutions, then you are on a very dangerous path. ‘
According to Shadow Chancellor John McDaniel, British Prime Minister Boris Johns wants parliament to not go its way without leaving the European Union without agreement.
The UK is to be separated from the EU by October 31, but some MPs want the separation date to be amended and taken away if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU.
If the parliament’s meeting was adjourned for five weeks, the date of the UK’s departure from the European Union would not be possible.
The Speaker of the House, John Barko, appears to be supportive of the idea and has termed the government’s plan as ‘constitutional disgrace’.
He said that whatever the decision of the Parliament to suspend should be worn, but it is clear that the purpose of postponing the meeting is to prevent the representatives of the public from discussing Brexit and to give them the responsibility to set the path for the country. The goal is not to do it.
He said that at such a critical juncture of national history, it is very important for the elected representatives of the people to play their role.
Is this normal?
Of course, the government does not agree.
When Prime Minister Boris Johnson was told that Parliament’s suspension was a disgrace to democracy, in which public representatives would not be able to express their views in regard to Brexit, the Prime Minister said ‘no, this is absolutely false.’
Prime Minister Boris Johnson says the aim is to give the government a chance to give it its agenda.
The Prime Minister said, “We need new legislation. We have to introduce new bills for laws. The UK will address the parliament on October 14 and we have to move forward with a new legislation program. ‘
But some supporters of the prime minister agree that the timing of the suspension of parliament is linked to Britain’s possible separation from the European Union.
“I’m convinced that Boris Johnson is doing what Britain needs to do to separate the European Union and the public has expressed their opinion,” said Conservative MP Paul Letham.
A divided country
Whether people consider the Prime Minister’s decision to be legal or democratic disgrace, it all stops at one point and that is Brexit.
Bridgette has overtaken the domestic alliance. This has not only divided society but has also caused cracks in the unity of political parties.
For those who support Brexit, suspending the parliament for a few weeks is a small cost to the EU.
Supporters of living in the European Union believe suspending parliament is at the heart of British democracy.
In the eyes of those who support the separation of the European Union, members of parliament want to stop Bridgette from ignoring British public opinion.
In the 2016 referendum, 52% of British voters voted to leave the EU, while 48% voted in favor of staying in the EU.
The backbone of this debate is the British Constitution, unlike many other countries, and covers centuries of democratic traditions, parliament-approved laws and judicial decisions.
The whole system works well when politicians are willing to abide by the principles but in today’s fragmented Britain where there is a wider interest in separation from the EU or living in it, politicians from both sides do anything to win. They are ready and parliamentary traditions have no meaning for them.
Labor Party Senior Member of Parliament Margaret Beckett said in her remarks: “In our history there have been no ideologies of governments without parliament, but the last time this happened was civil war.”
Regardless of whether Britain remains a part of the European Union or isolation, British politics will remain bitter and fragmented for a long time.