Prorogation of Parliament 2019

Combining the full film transcripts from the House of Commons and the House of Lords parts in the Prorogation of Parliament in 2019. Prepared in compliance with the terms and conditions of UK Parliament for using its material for personal use on my RUclips channel. The following restrictions apply:
The video or audio of the recordings cannot be edited in any way.
 UK Parliament can remove the recording without notice.
 UK Parliament makes this recording available at your own risk.
 The Recordings cannot be placed on sites that contain illegal or offensive material.
 The Recordings cannot be placed on certain sites that contain advertising.
 The embedding of UK Parliament recordings is not a UK Parliament endorsement of your website.

[@margaretmassey8213]

This was absolutely fascinating. Never seen it before. Could feel the tension. Thanks for posting !

[@J.B24]

I think the whole process is interesting. Not just the theatrics of the commons, but the process in its entirety.

[@J.B24]

As someone born in the US, its very hard for me to comprehend what living in a monarchy would feel like. Showing deference to people who are "royal" simply because they were born isn't something I can remotely understand.

[@niro4833]

The deference is to the institution, not the monarch themself. All the arcane procedures of Parliament are that way because that’s how it’s been done for centuries, and each action or statement has a story of why it started, usually involving the restriction of the monarch’s power and the primacy of Parliament. It’s all symbolism. America has similar symbols, you give the flag and the idea of the Presidency (if not always the man) a reverence that we don’t, since for us that is reserved for monarchy and Parliament. Our flag is just a piece of cloth, and our Prime Minister is nothing more than an interchangeable bureaucrat.

[@Falcrist]

@@niro4833 It's certainly not mere deference to the crown. The members of the royal family are shown deference and regarded with reverence not only because of their office, but because of their ancestry.
This is foolish because all bureaucrats _including the royals_ are interchangeable and replaceable. But of course, those in power will hold onto power by any means necessary... including (but not limited to) creating arcane and pseudo-religious displays of nonsense to create an appearance of legitimacy.
The arcane practices are fascinating, but as the choreographed ceremony plays out and the Blackrod bangs 3 times on the specific spot on the right door of the house of commons... in the back of my mind I hear the voice therapist sitting in St. Edward's chair arguing with the future King George VI about the Stone of Scone... because after all... it really is just an old chair "held in place by a large rock".

[@raphaelledesma9393]

@@FalcristCS Lewis once wrote that where men are forbidden to honor a king, they will inevitably honor someone else. Indeed, reading history and current events shows this to be true. People are prone to rallying around a person who personifies their ideology and beliefs. In republics, many times this is a celebrity or a political candidate. In Communist countries, this is often Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc. I'd say the modern constitutional monarchy mitigates this tendency by providing an official figure around whom the nation can rally around and show deference to: one who personifies the nation but is without de facto political power. A cult of personality around a President can be dangerous since he holds actual power. Around an old man or woman with a crown but who doesn't practice political powers? More harmless.
Also in recent years, monarchs are increasingly aware that due to their lack of democratic legitimacy, they cannot be seen to practice interference in politics. They know that their continued existence is reliant on public opinion which means they must always be respectable, neutral, and dutiful. This was actually supported by a political study that showed that comparing parliamentary monarchies and republics, monarchies were less likely to interfere (such as by dissolving Parliament or dismissing the PM) than republican Heads of State were probably due to a lack of democratic mandate. So, although many consider it anachronistic in the contemporary world, a constitutional monarchy answers human nature while guarding against the possibility of totalitarianism.

[@Falcrist]

​@@raphaelledesma9393 Crowns don't magically create stability, and certainly the English crown hasn't helped in any meaningful way.
Your whataboutisms regarding autocratic regimes don't support your central point about the legitimacy of monarchs. Likewise, C.S. Lewis' words hold no weight for me, and haven't since I grew out of Christanity.
Down with the divine right of kings. All monarchs should lose their crowns...along with their heads.

[@raphaelledesma9393]

@@Falcrist I didn't argue for the legitimacy of monarchies since ultimately in a modern constitutional society, legitimacy of all political systems or leaders should be derived from the people. Even the Westminster system is no exception since the Crown rules with the consent of Parliament which (ideally) is freely elected by the people. But noted on your views. As for me, I'll enjoy the sights, smells, and bells.

[@leowise206]

I think Mrs Sarah Clarke would be a great headmistress.

[@ivankolinic5679]

What the fuck

[@DIOGOSANTOS-ny3kc]

História of Paraguai eu sou português e inglês e britânico eu falar português e inglês eu teu ensino médio completo!

[@npdfpdgb5293]

👍

[@zavaraninoveuhorky]

11:00
Swearing wtf

[@thesmithersy]

That's labour and the snp for you. Bunch of uncouth peasants.

[@Osindileyo1]

@@thesmithersybetter to be called uncouth than be a lying, racist Tory.

[@williambartlett7483]

It’s good to see some Tory mps standing up for parliamentary sovereignty and staying in the commons

[@JConfrey]

That thing with bowing and the hats is just thick.