quote:

Boris Johnson defended his decision to request the longest parliamentary suspension in 40 years, saying it was a normal part of forming a new government and making clear he didn’t see why people were worrying about a possible constitutional crisis.

While his supporters say the suspension is only an extra three days, since Parliament was going to be on hold for party conferences anyway, Johnson’s detractors -- including senior figures in his own Conservative Party -- have described it as a “constitutional outrage.”

They both have a point, but, as ever, context is the key.

With just over two months until Johnson’s self-imposed deadline to leave the European Union with or without a deal on Oct. 31, every day is going to count. And since Johnson wants a new Queen’s Speech to set out his government’s legislative agenda, which is usually followed by five days of debate, it will be more like two weeks of parliamentary time lost.

While suspensions of as much as two months were common in the 19th century, most prorogations of Parliament in recent decades have lasted for less than a week. Johnson’s suspension for 35 days will be the longest since the 1970s, according to the House of Commons library.

The U.K. doesn’t have a written constitution and, within reason, governments can do whatever they like as long as they have a parliamentary majority. But given that a number of ex-ministers -- including former Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond and Theresa May’s Justice Secretary David Gauke, have already attacked his move, that is far from guaranteed.

They say that, for all his protestations of business as usual, Johnson is suspending Parliament to dodge scrutiny and stop it from thwarting his plans.

In British history, that hasn’t always ended happily.