Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill


A

BILL

TO

Confer power on the strong and stable Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament indefinitely.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

  1. The Prime Minister may dissolve parliament.
    (1) Once Parliament dissolves, Her Majesty may not issue the proclamation summoning a new Parliament.
    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or any other enactment.
  2. Short title
    This Act may be cited as the Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Act 2018.

The Houses of Parliament, seen across Westminster Bridge

Photo By Adrian Pingstone

EXPLANATORY NOTES

What these notes do

These Explanatory Notes relate to the Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 13 June 2018 (Bill 132).

  • These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department for Exiting Parliamentary Democracy in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

  • These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area.

  • These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill.

Overview of the Bill

  1. The Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill (“the Bill”) has a number of clauses which you do not need to concern yourself with. A summary of, and background to, the Bill is provided below.

  2. The Bill would give the strong and stable Prime Minister power to dissolve Parliament indefinitely.

Policy background

  1. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (section 1) provided for the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union to be put to a referendum. That referendum took place on 23 June 2016. A majority of those who voted in the referendum voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

  2. On 2 October 2016 the strong and stable Prime Minister announced that the Government would commence the formal process of leaving the European Union before the end of March 2017.

  3. The formal process of leaving the European Union was commenced on 29 March 2017.

  4. On 18 April 2017 the strong and stable Prime Minister announced her Government’s intention to hold a snap election to put a stop to the political gameplaying that was threatening the will of the people.

  5. On 8 June 2017 the people voted to twart the will of the people making the strong and stable Prime Minister’s job of delivering the will of the people, which she is very clear about, bloody difficult.

Legal background

  1. The procedure for withdrawing from the European Union is set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’). The first step in the procedure is for the Member State that has decided to withdraw to notify the European Council of its intention (Article 50(2)).

  2. In R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 the traitorous Supreme Court considered whether it would be inconsistent with the terms of the European Communities Act 1972 for the strong and stable Prime Minister to give notice to the European Union, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU Treaties, without a prior Act of Parliament. In an 8‐3 judgment the traitorous Supreme Court concluded that a prior Act of Parliament is required. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was intended to provide the strong and stable Prime Minister with the necessary power to give notice of withdrawal under Article 50(2) however this is yet to be proved in court.

  3. The traitorous Supreme Court also considered arguments relating to the devolution acts and whether consent of the devolved administrations is required before notice to withdraw can be served. The unanimous decision of the court was that EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to the UK Government and Parliament and that the devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU.

Territorial extent and application

  1. This Bill extends, and applies in relation to, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  2. The Government does not care whether any provision gives rise to the need for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Fast-track legislation

  1. The Government intends to ask Parliament to expedite the parliamentary progress of this Bill by voting in favour without any debate. It would be a terrible shame for the strong and stable Prime Minister to have to leak any of the emails she has intercepted over the course of her career. In their report on Fast‐track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the Undemocratic House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution recommended that the Government should provide more information as to why a piece of legislation should be fast‐tracked but the Government is not interested in what the Undemocratic House of Lords recommends.

Commentary on provisions of Bill

Clause 1: Power to dissolve Parliament

  1. Clause 1(1) provides power for the strong and stable Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament

  2. Clause 1(2) provides that the powers in clause 1(1) are conferred regardless of any restrictions which may arise from any other legislation.

Clause 2: Short title

  1. Clause 2 confirms the intended short title of the Act.

Financial implications of the Bill

  1. By avoiding the high costs of running Parliament and elections, the Bill is expected to save £350m per week which we could spend on the NHS

Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights

  1. It is considered that the provisions of the Bill would allow the strong and stable Prime Minister to completely remove the Convention rights.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Trust in me. Trust in meeeeeee.


Rant alert. Look away now!

Trust me, I’ll take back control — but I’ll need your help

Teflon Theresa, zombie leader of the current UK zombie government, needs a bit of help. All that kicking cans down the road can take it out of a person. Putting off the inevitable is kind of understandable since she has zero chance of making anyone happy when we leave the EU, whether they voted for Brexit or cake.

So, how can we help?

Amid all the noisy debate and technical discussions about our departure from the European Union, I want to take this opportunity to remind the British public of my mission in the negotiations.

Now is not the time to get distracted by tiresome technical details like gravity. We’ve got plenty of time to worry about those in the next 10 years, 45 years, however many years it takes to sort out the mess I’m making of this.

Brexit provides the opportunity to build a new relationship with the EU where we are close trading partners and strong allies but with the British Government in control of our laws, our immigration policy and how taxpayers’ money is spent. It provides the opportunity to develop closer relationships with fast growing nations around the world. And in doing all this we will put the values that make us so great as a nation at the forefront: openness, tolerance, diversity and innovation.

Obviously not as close, or as strong. I don’t like other people telling me what do do. Once I’ve got rid of the ECJ, the ECHR, the Lords, those pesky MPs, and the judiciary, I’ll be able to decide exactly how to spend all the money. It won’t be on you, sorry.

Obviously I’m very open and tolerant of the right kind of people, but I will find diverse and innovative new ways to be hostile to everyone else.

You can trust me to deliver.

I triggered Article 50 exactly when I said I would, because I’m strong and stable. There will definitely not be any more elections.

I will ensure that we take back control of our borders. The public want their own Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union and that is what we are going to do.

I’m very good at controlling borders, just not when it’s my actual job, or my responsibility, or when I’m running the government. I’ve been very clear that I will find someone to blame if anyone does manage to get into Britain from Europe. Except in Northern Ireland of course, where I get a bit confused about taking back control of borders.

I will ensure that we take back control of our money. We have agreed a settlement with the European Union and the days of vast contributions from taxpayers to the EU budget are coming to an end. So Brexit means there will be billions of pounds that we used to send to Brussels which we will now be able to spend on domestic priorities, including our National Health Service.

There is no magic money tree you know, and the magic money bus only delivers to people who keep me in power, so don’t get your hopes up. Boris told me to say that we could spend some money on the NHS but we’ve already made lots of other promises about maintaining EU funding with that money and spending it on the NHS would only encourage people to be lazy about staying healthy.

I will ensure that we take back control of our laws. So Brexit means that, while we may sometimes choose to take the same approach as the EU, our laws will be made in Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, with those laws tried by British judges.

I’ve been very clear that it’s not possible for me to break the law. I will just keep changing it until I get my way and, while we may sometimes choose to give the impression of an independent judiciary, our legal system will not be properly funded and judges will be accused of being the enemy of the people if they step out of line.

We will leave the Single Market because staying in the Single Market means continued free movement of people, but we will maintain the strongest possible trading partnership with our European neighbours and create new trade deals around the world ensuring that we seize the opportunities to build an economy that works for everyone.

Did I say everyone? I meant everyone with money in a tax haven. There might be a slight interruption in service as we attempt to renegotiate trade deals with countries that already have trade deals with the EU. I’m sure everyone will recognise the UK’s proud tradition of trade around the world and reward us with the trade deals we deserve.

We will get a fairer deal for our farmers and fishermen by leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, regaining control over access to our waters and safeguarding the interests of the UK fishing industry.

British fish will at last have British passports. And if the US can build a wall across a continent, we can easily build one to protect our territorial waters.

We will take back control of our social policy and our tax policy so rather than being decided in Brussels, we will decide them in the interests of ordinary working people in Britain.

I know I sometimes claim to care about the just about managing but I’m very proud of our country’s anti-social policy and rotten tax system. I hope you’ve been enjoying austerity because you haven’t seen anything yet.

And we will leave the Customs Union so we can establish our own independent trade policy and negotiate trade deals in our interests. I have proposed different options for a new customs arrangement with the EU and the government will continue to develop them during the negotiations.

We should have agreed on the kind of customs arrangements we wanted with the EU before triggering Article 50 but it turned out we couldn’t. We still can’t agree. We will continue to develop our proposals until enough people agree that we are never going to agree. Even if we could agree on one of the current innovative proposals, the EU has already told us that they don’t agree. All very agreeable I think you’ll agree.

I have three clear tests for the outcomes that we want to see.

Let me be clear.

First, as a proud unionist and Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom I am clear that any deal with the EU must protect our precious union and also honour the agreements that were reached in the historic Northern Irish peace process. This means there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We will uphold the Belfast Agreement in full – and we will ensure the constitutional and economic integrity of the whole United Kingdom.

We’ll definitely be taking control of all the other borders, just not the one with Northern Ireland because that one turned out to be much trickier than anyone who didn’t care about peace realised. We’ll probably create a quantum border in the process. How innovative is that?

Second, any agreements must create as little friction as possible for trade to protect the jobs that rely on speedy and integrated supply chains. These are a valued part of our economy, particularly for our manufacturing regions.

And I care deeply about manufacturing and those regions that do that manufacturing where ever they are.

And third, we must not constrain our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries around the world by being bound into a customs union as the Labour Party would have us. We must be a Global Britain that makes the most of the opportunity to create jobs and growth by trading ambitiously with partners across the world, old and new.

It would be much better to be entirely constrained by our own incompetence than admit that we could already be a Global Britain that makes the most of the opportunities that we already have.

I have put forward a plan to negotiate all these outcomes and to leave the European Union. Throughout this process I have tried to balance the legitimate concerns of those on both sides of the debate and I believe that our negotiating objectives answer those concerns.

I tried to balance the legitimate concerns of those on both sides of the debate but then I remembered that you lost and should have got over it by now. Traitors.

The path I am setting out is the path to deliver the Brexit people voted for. Of course, the details are incredibly complex and, as in any negotiation, there will have to be compromises. But if we stick to the task we will seize this once in a generation opportunity to build a stronger, fairer Britain that is respected around the world and confident and united at home.

You may have noticed that I’ve already made a few compromises along the way. Like the ministerial code for example. There will definitely be more. Whatever happens I will claim that we have delivered exactly the Brexit people voted for. I am the only one who can know the will of the people.

If we stick together and crush the saboteurs we will seize this once in my lifetime opportunity to create a totalitarian regime in the UK that is feared around the world and hostile at home.

I will need your help and support to get there. And in return, my pledge to you is simple: I will not let you down.

I will not let you down again. Strong and stable. Strong and stable.

Lies, damned lies, and more damned lies


It was tough to settle on just the one rant today but the general election had barely been announced before I spotted the first reminder on twitter about the Lib Dems broken tuition fee promise…

Yep, no arguments there. Broken promise. Bad. Still, Nick Clegg did actually apologise, which is something. And, to be fair, Labour had already let students down on tuition fees. Is that broken promise a good enough reason not to vote Lib Dems though?

I guess it’s hard to quantify or compare broken promises. (I’m not a student, although I have another reason for caring about tuition fees who is rapidly growing up.) Having said that, there seem to have been a few broken promises about lately. “We say: yes to the Single Market”, “Let’s give​ our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week”, “There should be no general election until 2020”, and so on.

Perhaps if the only dishonest politicians were Liberal Democrats, I might vote for a party that supports brexit. (More likely I’d spoil my ballot again.) Back in the real, post-truth, world, I’ll probably be voting for the only pro-EU party I can.

350 million squirrels


If you’re unfortunate enough to follow me on twitter, you’ve probably noticed that I’m currently just a bit grumpy about the UK’s crazy course towards the worst possible exit from the EU.

To be clear, unless someone can convince me otherwise (I’m still waiting for a reply from my pro-brexit MP), I will be voting to remain in or rejoin the EU at every available opportunity. I’ll also be at the Unite for Europe march on the 25th March.

But the thing that really makes me grumpy is the lack of any kind of sensible opposition. What usually gets me yelling at clouds is when someone pops up moaning about the pledge to spend more money on the NHS. (Apparently some people don’t think the bus was really misleading but the billboard seems less ambiguous.) The whole thing reminds me of a larger scale version of distracting a toddler. Oooooo, look, squirrel…

Photo © Patrick Wagstrom

Even if, and this is clearly never going to happen, the current government suddenly do decide that they’ll give any of the supposed £350 million to the NHS, it kind of misses the bigger picture. That £350 million is already worth less than when it was plastered on the side of a bus and we haven’t even started to leave yet. Pointing out that the Conservative manifesto included a commitment to the single market would probably do more to help the NHS than complaining about a bus. Actually ensuring MPs get a meaningful role in shaping the UK’s future relationship with the EU might also be a good idea. There are plenty of issues that will impact the NHS at least as much as extra funding, all of which deserve more scrutiny than they are going to get as things stand. For example, the European Medicines Agency or staffing from the EU. I’ll stop before this turns into even more of a rant but the point is that Brexit could mean anything and it’s about time we started taking it seriously.
It’s not that I don’t have a problem with misleading busses. For some reason you can get away with saying whatever you like in a referendum, which needs to change if we’re going to persist in having them. I’d personally prefer never to have another referendum again but if we must have one, perhaps it could be on the NHS? Unless the government know the will of the people on that as well.

Epic referendum fail


 

Arg. I had been mostly managing to avoid looking directly at the referendum, unfortunately a ‘myth buster’ and some ‘facts’ dropped through the door today.

FACT: Adding ‘FACT:’ in front of anything you like doesn’t make it a fact!

I know, life would be so much more fun if that did work…

Sadly there has been a distinct lack of facts from both sides of the debate. If I’m being charitable, that could be because the whole thing is a massive unknown. The substitute has not exactly been constructive though.

Perhaps it would have been better not to have the referendum at all? Our recent track record of referendums hasn’t exactly been stellar, and the EU referendum in particular is even more problematic. Perhaps we could all agree to stop having referendums whatever the result is this time. Or would we need a referendum to decide that?!

I did at least spot a couple of more interesting looking articles during the predictably depressing campaign:

Plus this discussion on twitter:

I know that the EU is far from perfect but unless I hear any compelling reason otherwise, I think I’ll be voting remain on Thursday. There are probably pros and cons for either choice but ultimately where you draw borders is so completely arbitrary that I’d personally prefer to live in a larger area that allows free movement of people, than a smaller one. I don’t want to live in a gated community for similar reasons!

I also tend to agree with Ben Goldacre’s reasons.

Having said all that, the real issue of the whole campaign is, why isn’t the official leave site on a .uk domain, and why isn’t the official remain site on an .eu domain?

Update: Uh oh…