Concerns over a ‘no deal’ Brexit outcome have soared once more, as appointed prime minister Boris Johnson announced plans to suspend parliament, making it more difficult for pro-remain politicians to prevent the UK leaving without a deal. 
The ‘proroguiing’ of parliament would delay the official opening to within just a few weeks of the EU’s exit deadline.
Under Johnson’s proposals parliament would commence on 14 October just days before a key meeting of the EU Council to secure a Brexit new deal and a few weeks ahead of the 31 October Brexit deadline, leaving little time for debate or for new laws aimed at preventing a 'hard Brexit'.
Johnson said that the weeks leading up to meeting of the EU council taking place on 17/18 October, “are vitally important” for the sake of negotiations.
“[EU] member states are watching what parliament does with great interest and it is only by showing unity and resolve that we stand a chance of securing a new deal that can be passed by parliament.
“In the meantime, the government will take the responsible approach of continuing its preparations for leaving the EU, with or without a deal.”
The news has divided public opinion once more as opposition parties and politicians struggle to build an effective coalition against a ‘no deal’ outcome while Brexit supporters have welcomed the plans.
Performance of euro & US dollar in sterling terms since EU referendum
Source: FE Analytics
Gilles Moëc, group chief economist at AXA Investment Managers, said that while a sense of “détente” around Brexit issues had set in more recently following meetings with German leader Angela Merkel and French president Emmanuel Macron, Johnson’s bold move to ‘shut down’ parliament had further raised the prospect of ‘no deal’
“Our fundamental view has not changed: it is unlikely that any positive outcome on Brexit – such as a deal, an extension or even a second referendum – can occur without the UK – and UK assets – first going through an exacerbation of the current crisis sentiment,” he said.
Moëc (pictured) added: “It is not constitutionally absolutely clear that those in parliament refusing a ‘no deal’ can actually, within the current time limits, impose their view on the government, just as it is also unclear whether changing the ‘backstop’ would be enough for the eurosceptic wing of the Tory party to support a new deal sponsored by Boris Johnson. 
“New elections may be needed before any final clarification, and given the British ‘first past the post’ electoral system and the current dispersion of the electorate, uncertainty would be very high.”
Edward Park, deputy chief investment officer at wealth manager Brooks Macdonald, said Johnson’s proposals would remove seven days from the parliamentary calendar but most would fall within the party conference season when parliament does not sit.
Brooks Macdonald’s estimated parliamentary timetable
Source: Brooks Macdonald
“With only 22 scheduled business days for the House of Commons between now and the Brexit deadline, removing around a third of these will cause procedural issues for opposition plans to legislate to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit,” said Parks.
Nigel Green, chief executive of advisory firm deVere Group, said it could be argued that the move was “unconstitutional and has the hallmarks of a tin-pot dictator’ although it could also be argued that the prime minister of “fulfilling, one way or another, the will of the British people”.
“What we do know for sure though is that this step will inflict further unnecessary economic damage on an already extremely vulnerable UK economy,” he said. “Depressingly, recession is looming for Britain and Johnson’s highly controversial tactics seriously increase the uncertainty which will further drag on investment and trade.
“In addition, it will further batter the beleaguered pound, which reduces people’s purchasing power. Weaker sterling means imports are more expensive, with rising prices typically being passed on to consumers.”
“The situation in the UK is deteriorating,” Green added. “As such individuals as well as businesses will, inevitably and quite sensibly, be looking to grow and safeguard their wealth by moving assets out of the UK through various established international financial solutions.
“Brexit has plunged Britain into an existential crisis that will last for generations.”
The deVere Group chief said the move would have far-reaching economic effects “many of which will not be known for years to come”.
He concluded: “Domestic and international investors in UK assets need to watch the situation carefully and ensure that their portfolios are best-positioned to deal with the growing uncertainties.”
Johnson’s actions could open pose significant constitutional questions, according to Ed Smith (pictured), head of asset allocation research at Rathbones. 
“The monarchy is answerable to parliament, not the government. And prorogation is not a matter of statute, but of royal prerogative,” he said.
“At the very least, the queen would need to consult with opposition leaders.
“We had a revolution in 1688 to prevent the monarchy from undermining the sovereignty of parliament, so for the government and the queen to do so would be seen as a major step backwards in terms of the quality of our institutions,” said Smith. “And there is a large body of literature relating institutional quality to an economy’s cost of capital and potential economic growth.”
“But of more immediate concern would be that it pretty much assures a ‘no deal’ Brexit,” he added. “We would expect a further depreciation in the pound and a mild-to-moderate recession, but we do not think notions of mass divestment or a total collapse in trade are plausible.”