During the BBC debate on Tuesday, Boris Johnson, who is the clear frontrunner to become the Conservative Party’s next leader and the country’s new Prime Minister, was asked to guarantee Britain will leave the EU on October 31. Mr Johnson failed to answer the question, claiming it was “eminently feasible”. In the previous weeks though, both him and former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab suggested they would be prepared to prorogue parliament and push through Brexit without MPs’ approval in order to meet the deadline and leave on time.
The proposal sparked fury from many MPs, including Rory Stewart, the latest contender to drop out of the leadership race, who vowed to “bring down” Mr Johnson if he suspends Parliament.
Speaking to Sky News last week, Mr Stewart said: "I guarantee you, if he were to try, I and every other member of Parliament will sit across the road in Methodist Central Hall and we will hold our own session of Parliament and we will bring him down because you do not, ever, lock the doors of Parliament in this country or indeed in any other country with any respect in the world.”
He added: “Somebody who attempted to subvert our constitution, our liberties, our parliament, this place, who dared to stand as Prime Minister and claim they could lock the doors on Parliament would not deserve to be Prime Minister."
Mr Stewart later asked Attorney General Geoffrey Cox if indeed his rhetoric was right.
Is proroguing Parliament to push no deal really unconstitutional? (Image: GETTY)
Boris Johnson is the clear frontrunner to replace Theresa May (Image: GETTY)
The Government’s senior law officer said that proroguing Parliament would not be unlawful but branded the decision “improper” and “unconstitutional”.
By “unconstitutional”, Mr Cox means that prorogation would breach the unwritten rules and understandings that form Britain’s uncodified constitution.
Unlike many European countries, the UK does not have a codified constitution as rather than in a single written document, it is contained in Acts of Parliament, treaties, principles and conventions.
This "unwritten" constitution rests on two central concepts – the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.
The former is the idea that the nation and the Government should be governed by law and the latter that Parliament is the country’s supreme law-making authority.
Therefore, Mr Stewart and Mr Cox argued that prorogation of Parliament would go against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
However, according to historian David Starkey, not respecting the vote of the 2016 referendum would also be a violation of the constitution's rules and understandings.
Britain was originally supposed to leave on March 29, but as the House of Commons rejected every possible approach to
