Last month, Conservative Isle of Wight MP Robert Seely declared his support for the Prime Minister’s plans to prorogue Parliament for five weeks.
However, the previous month, Bob didn’t support the idea.
On 9th July at 23:13 in response to a Guardian article in which Dominic Grieve said “proroguing parliament would be end of democracy in UK”, Bob tweeted:
I don’t support proroguing Parliament, but actually, Grieve, Parliament trying surreptitiously to overturning or undermine the mandate we voluntarily gave the British people would do much greater damage to our democracy.
Shortly afterwards, his tweet was deleted.
What’s changed?
Having been alerted to Bob’s deleted tweet, when only week ago he was supporting proroguing of Parliament, we asked him,
With Prorogation expected next week, can you let Islanders know what changed your mind since that Tweet in July, for you to now support proroguing Parliament.
Seely: “I have only ever once taken down a tweet“
Bob replied,
“I don’t remember the circumstances, but I have only ever once taken down a tweet because of what I said so if you want to go back, I suspect you will find that I edited it or correct a typo and put up a very similar version.”
We did go back through Bob’s timeline, as well as searching for prorogue, prorogation and proroguing, but could not find an amended version of the tweet he deleted, or any tweet by him containing those words.
“Damage to democracy”
Bob’s deleted Tweet also implied that proroguing Parliament would damage democracy.
His comparison was that proroguing would damage democracy to a lesser extent than “Parliament trying surreptitiously to overturning or undermine the mandate we voluntarily gave the British people”.
We asked him,
“What were the points that won you over, that the ‘damage to our democracy’, you say proroguing Parliament would create, would become acceptable?”
Having read and read his response a number of times (shown in full below), we couldn’t find anything that seemed to answer this question.
Seely: Five weeks not “abnormal time”
Bob did however go on to explain that he felt five weeks was not an “abnormal time” to prorogue for,
“I am/was against proroguing Parliament for an abnormal time, i.e. from July or early Sept until after 31 Oct or after Brexit. That would not be in keeping with practise. This isn’t that. It’s proroguing it for barely half a dozen days longer than normal, and starting with a Queens Speech in Oct.”
Vernon Bogdanor (Professor of Government at King’s College London) disagrees with that, telling Channel 4 News’ FactCheck, the length of time proposed in this case is “abnormal”.
Recess and proroguing are different
When Parliament takes its usual three-week break for their annual Party conferences, it goes into recess, no prorogation.
In recess it is just the House of Commons and House of Lords that do not sit. Other business, such as that of the Select Committees can still continue.
However, when Parliament is prorogued, no other business can take place during that time.
Motions (including early day motions) lapse when the House becomes prorogued, questions which have not been answered fall, nothing more will happen with them. If they have not been answered then they will stay unanswered. No motions or questions can be tabled during a prorogation.
Online petition
Over 1.7million people have now signed the petition (3,036 from the Island) demanding that:
Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.
The petition will be debated in Parliament on 9th September. You can watch it live via the Parliament You Tube Channel.
Our thanks to MatesJacob for the heads-up.
Full question and answer
For openness, here’s what we asked Bob and what he replied in full.
We asked
We see that in July you Tweeted (and deleted) the following:
“I don’t support proroguing Parliament, but actually, Grieve, Parliament trying surreptitiously to overturning or undermine the mandate we voluntarily gave the British people would do much greater damage to our democracy. “
1 – With Prorogation expected next week, can you let Islanders know what changed your mind since that Tweet in July, for you to now support proroguing Parliament.
2 – The comparison you make in your Tweet implies that proroguing Parliament would damage democracy, albeit, by your comparison, to a lesser extent than “Parliament trying surreptitiously to overturning or undermine the mandate we voluntarily gave the British people.”
What were the points that won you over, that the ‘damage to our democracy’, you say proroguing Parliament would create, would become acceptable?
He replied:
I don’t remember the circumstances, but I have only ever once taken down a tweak because of what I said so if you want to go back, I suspect you will find that I edited it or correct a typo and put up a very similar version.
I am/was against proroguing Parliament for an abnormal time, i.e. from July or early Sept until after 31 Oct or after Brexit. That would not be in keeping with practise. This isn’t that. It’s proroguing it for barely half a dozen days longer than normal, and starting with a Queens Speech in Oct. All sides, including the Opposition, have been arguing for a Queen’s speech for weeks if not months. It’s a bit rich to moan now they have one.
I agree, proroguing Parliament now does make it more difficult for MPs opposed to Brexit to hijack the agenda. But I feel we need to deliver.
This Parliament is unable to agree anything. It’s become a joke, a laughing stock. We need a Government/Parliament that respects the mandate given to it, and delivers on that mandate. We then need to get our focus back to governing. I want an Island Deal. Boris has agreed it. The last time we spoke about it was on Tuesday in the Tea Room over a cuppa.
I want to continue to deliver. We have had the extra costs of being an Island recognised. We have nearly £50 million extra for capital investment for the Island’s NHS. We have had guarantees over the future of Ryde Pier. There is more that needs to be done.
This crisis has been caused because the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs have not delivered on their manifesto commitment to respect the mandate. They had three chances to vote for a deal. They refused. I voted for a deal three times. We need to move on. Most Islanders I talk to about this are utterly fed up and wanted MPs to honour promises made. I agree.
