Has Boris “suspended” Parliament? And if so, so what?

Parliament will reassemble on 3 September, rise again for the annual conference recess on 10 September and return on 14 October. The hysterical reaction to this routine announcement of the parliamentary timetable — Dominic Grieve calls it “an outrageous act”, Tom Watson “utterly scandalous” — is summed up in the BBC headline: “Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament.”

In reality, no such thing is proposed. Last year, Parliament rose on 13 September and returned on 9 October. So Boris Johnson is proposing that the recess before the Queen’s Speech should be a week longer than usual. That’s it.

What is truly scandalous is that Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor, and the rest of the political media have bought into the last-ditch Remainer narrative. Thanks to that narrative, the chattering classes have been talking about a possible prorogation of Parliament for months. The suggestion was that Boris would prevent Parliament from having its say on a no-deal Brexit. Needless to say, that is not what is happening.

On the contrary, it is the last-ditch Remain camp that has backed away from calling a vote of no confidence. Dominic Grieve is now suggesting that such a vote might be back on the agenda: “This Government will come down.” Either way, there is nothing to stop Jeremy Corbyn, or indeed another party leader such as Jo Swinson from calling such a vote of confidence next week.

What is really exercising the partisans of Remain — who do not include the Labour leader — is that they will have a week less in which to take control of Parliament, rule out a no-deal Brexit and force the Government to ask the EU for another extension of Article 50. That they wish to do all this is perfectly legitimate, but it is equally legitimate for the Government to use its powers to remove such obstacles. The idea that the Queen might choose to ignore her elected Government and rearrange parliamentary timetables to suit the Opposition is a novel one. It is, however, likely to recommend itself neither to impartial constitutional experts nor, more importantly, to the Queen herself.

The reason given for the slightly longer recess of just over a month is that the Government is preparing a much more substantial Queen’s Speech than any seen in recent years. There will, we are told, be a radical programme of reforms, looking ahead to a post-Brexit Britain. One of the main criticisms of Theresa May’s administration was that it had very few legislative achievements, due to the parliamentary exigencies of Brexit. Boris Johnson has no such excuse. It would indeed be a dereliction of duty if, on the morrow of Brexit, the Government turned out to have no long-term prospectus. The country might well feel betrayed if, having boasted that he had recovered legislative independence, the Prime Minister had no idea what to do with it.

More immediately, Boris Johnson is engaged in Britain’s first serious negotiations with the EU for nearly a year. Brussels has confirmed that the Withdrawal Agreement is being looked at again and alternatives to the backstop are in play. Under these circumstances, not only would it be deeply unhelpful (and virtually unprecedented) for the Commons to pull the rug from under a Prime Minister in mid-negotiation, but there is a strong argument that MPs should wait and see. Until they can scrutinise whatever new deal is agreed, a rush to judgement would not only be unwise but unpatriotic.

In other words, it is not the Government that is suspending Parliament, but Parliament that should suspend judgement on Brexit. There will be time enough in October to debate the Queen’s Speech and to scrutinise either a new deal with the EU, or — if there is still none — to debate both the principles and practice of a no-deal Brexit.

The battle that is being fought now is not a legal one. The Queen, now in Balmoral, has already given her approval to the date of her Speech on 14 October. She knows that Parliament is prorogued (“suspended”) every year from mid-September to mid-October for the party conferences. She has, after all, been granting permission for this ever since she succeeded to the throne some 67 years ago. Such prorogations are a normal and necessary part of carrying on her government.

What is at stake is a war of words: did the Prime Minister bounce the Queen into “suspending Parliament”? Downing Street says no; the media, led by the BBC, and the Opposition parties say yes. There are no prizes for guessing whose narrative will prevail.