lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 24, 2019 14:33:21 GMT
And let's face it, it'll be Boris. Big bad funny, fluffy, BoJo. The cuddly buffoon who, like a Slitheen, hides a truly ghoulish and self-serving persona behind a carefully constructed mannequin. This prejudiced, caricature will be in charge of the Brexit process. So we can expect no deal, no compromise, no jobs, no respect. Sorry about the negativity, but the future is looking worse than it has looked for a long time. Brave heart paz! The members do seem to love him but he isn't popular among Conservative MPs and they control who the final two candidates are that members will vote on. (And they have Labour as a current example of what can happen if members get the chance to choose a leader who MPs don't want.)
Personally I would be surprised if he got many MPs' votes beyond the 50/60 of the ERG and probably not all of those. Making him Foreign Secretary so his true ministerial abilities could be seen by all was imo one of May's very few masterstrokes as PM... The only thing I would say about Boris, and whether it is a good or bad thing I don't know, is that he is an unprincipled opportunist. This is the guy who wrote 2 articles before the referendum, one for Leave and one for Remain, before deciding for reasons of ambition to back Leave in the hope/expectation that Leave would lose. I don't think that deep down he is a true brexiteer in the way that say Jacob Rees Mogg is - the only political cause he truly believes in is himself. So of all the candidates standing he is possibly the only one who might be prepared to execute a U-turn on brexit and would have the best chance of getting away with it. Do I think that's likely? No, not really, but nothing is impossible and it is slightly less unlikely with Boris than with any of the others. But as a proposition "Vote Boris because he's the one most likely to rat on is promises" - whilst true - is not really a good enough positive reason for anyone to vote for him.
The other point in favour of a hardline PM is that it would mean the Leave voters would find it harder to maintain their belief that brexit was a good idea poorly executed by the ex-Remainer Theresa May. When a hardline PM fails to get a better deal from the EU, then some of them might start to finally realise that brexit itself was a bad idea in the first place regardless of how it was executed. But maybe I am giving Leave voters too much credit.
I think the longer the contest the more likely Boris is to say or do something silly that will ruin his chances, he would benefit from a shorter contest. The one Tory MP that has emerged from all this with real credit (in my eyes) is Dominic Grieve, but sadly he has about as much chance of being the next Tory leader as Jeremy Corbyn.
As for what happens, prediction is a fool's game, but I think George Osborne called it right earlier this week when he said it would come down to a 2nd referendum between no deal and no brexit. I think it unlikely any PM would want to chance a general election that they were not fairly certain of winning, and I think it unlikely any Tory rebels would vote with Corbyn to trigger one. I do no think any PM would opt for no deal with out the political cover of a popular vote for no deal, as I think it is fair to say that 52% did not vote for leaving with no deal, and the fickle voters would be quick to blame the government that left with no deal for the ensuing economic pain. If the EU will not change the deal on offer then the next Tory PM will try to go for no deal but will be forced by Parliament to get a democratic mandate for no deal and that will be the eventual compromise in Parliament.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 17:28:58 GMT
Great news!
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on May 24, 2019 18:34:53 GMT
Hello again.
And so it begins... However, Mr Brump might not get things his way. I thought this was interesting.
"Opponents of the nightmare scenario must not succumb to defeatism. Sure, the procedural task in the Commons might be more complicated now. But that does not make it impossible. If there’s the political will in the chamber and the country to prevent no deal, there will be a procedural way.
Tory remainers will still hold a powerful weapon: they can threaten, as Dominic Grieve did on Thursday, to join the opposition parties in backing a no-confidence vote and bringing down the government, if that’s what it takes to stop a Brexit catastrophe.
This is the argument to press: that there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit, a scenario that was not even countenanced, let alone approved, in the 2016 referendum. If a new Tory prime minister wants to exit that way, he or she will need fresh public consent. That could be a new public vote or a general election, although it’s hard to imagine the Tory leader eager to face the country with Brexit still undone. Which is why campaigners for a second referendum believe that all roads still lead back to them: even Brexiters, they say, will eventually conclude that a public vote is the only way to break the impasse.
Perhaps this will be the endgame, a referendum offering two final options: no deal or no Brexit. With no withdrawal deal to approve or reject, there will be no other question to ask.
Both remainers and hardcore Brexiters should feel their palms grow clammy at that prospect. By holding out and refusing to back May’s deal, they may well have seen off the possibility of a phased exit. The result will be that we either stay in the EU – or crash out altogether. May has gone, and suddenly the stakes have got much higher."
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian newspaper columnist.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 24, 2019 21:45:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on May 24, 2019 22:17:51 GMT
Hello again.
Nice one Sherlock! As a fan of the original Radiohead classic cheery anthem, this ingenious mash up has cheered me up no end. What do the Germans call it? Schadenfreude...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 23:13:41 GMT
Thinking of the 2nd referendum proposal between no-deal or no-brexit, I may add that whilst I myself wondered the day after voting to exit, how it may be phased, and assumed that the matter would be entrusted to a hard pressed civil service, that many voters simply voted to exit. Having discussed the matter in recent months with a variety of people here in NE England, it is clear that they just want to get out and see no problem with no-deal. I suspect therefore that the potential issues of a no-deal would not persuade them to change their minds. Projections indicate that it is this region that would be most adversely affected by a no-deal scenario. But then again, predictions have been disproved so far and the wheels have kept turning. The WTO argument only persists as we agreed to forestall trade negotiations with other entities until our divorce settlement with the EU was settled.
To my mind, the vote was conclusive and the wishes of the majority needs to be met, for better or worse. The sooner we move on, the sooner we can start to make the best of the situation. Three years have been wasted with absolutely no progress. I agree with Boris that its perhaps time to crash out. Thomas Sowell perceptively warns against giving power to those who seek to satisfy their ambition as opposed to being selected owing to the expediency of their being the best person for the job, but perhaps right now we need some recklessness and less self doubt, in order to just get the first stage over and done with. So many seem paralysed by the potential negative consequences, whilst may more are motivated by the opportunities, to the extent that they are more engaged with politics than ever. If anything, it seems to have broken the two party state system of voting, based on outdated class structures, that has dominated for so long.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on May 25, 2019 16:19:33 GMT
Thinking of the 2nd referendum proposal between no-deal or no-brexit, I may add that whilst I myself wondered the day after voting to exit, how it may be phased, and assumed that the matter would be entrusted to a hard pressed civil service, that many voters simply voted to exit. Having discussed the matter in recent months with a variety of people here in NE England, it is clear that they just want to get out and see no problem with no-deal. I suspect therefore that the potential issues of a no-deal would not persuade them to change their minds. Projections indicate that it is this region that would be most adversely affected by a no-deal scenario. But then again, predictions have been disproved so far and the wheels have kept turning. The WTO argument only persists as we agreed to forestall trade negotiations with other entities until our divorce settlement with the EU was settled. To my mind, the vote was conclusive and the wishes of the majority needs to be met, for better or worse. The sooner we move on, the sooner we can start to make the best of the situation. Three years have been wasted with absolutely no progress. I agree with Boris that its perhaps time to crash out. Thomas Sowell perceptively warns against giving power to those who seek to satisfy their ambition as opposed to being selected owing to the expediency of their being the best person for the job, but perhaps right now we need some recklessness and less self doubt, in order to just get the first stage over and done with. So many seem paralysed by the potential negative consequences, whilst may more are motivated by the opportunities, to the extent that they are more engaged with politics than ever. If anything, it seems to have broken the two party state system of voting, based on outdated class structures, that has dominated for so long. An interesting and thoughtful comment. But it does leave (ha!) out one vital thing, a thing that Boris (that mendacious sack of manure) also conveniently leaves out (plus the ERG etc), there's no such thing as no deal. There's a deal made now with the EU for leaving, while the UK still has membership and rights and some position of leverage for negotiation, however badly managed, or there's the deal that has to be made after crashing out, where the UK has none of that and has squandered any good will it had. It's taken Canada TEN YEARS to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and that's where both sides wanted it and neither side was acting like a petulant child. The vote was conclusive? Was the 1975 vote not conclusive? Where 67% voted to be in the EU (EEC as was then)? Is it fine for UKIP and the Brexit party et all to agitate for 40 years to overturn that vote but 3 years on those who voted Remain in 2016, where the result was a much closer 52% to leave, are told they're traitors and to suck it up and "that's democracy"? And I say that as someone who voted Remain and then accepted the result, because that IS how democracy works. I expected the UK to be out by now and we'd all be tightening our belts one way or another. "Perhaps right now we need some recklessness and less self doubt", maybe we need less self doubt, but the recklessness part is what got us in this mess in the first place. We're right now in the absolute fallacy of "sunk capital", in that there's been so much of the country's political life devoured by Brexit that it just has to go through, it can't have all been for nothing. That's nonsense. It's nonsense in regular life, in business and here. Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses. Do I think anyone will see this light? Nope. Or if they do they don't care. Anyhoo. Thanks again for the thoughtful comment Daver. I meet too many Leavers who shout slogans at me and think Brexit is a version of "Make Britain Great Again".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 17:20:19 GMT
Thinking of the 2nd referendum proposal between no-deal or no-brexit, I may add that whilst I myself wondered the day after voting to exit, how it may be phased, and assumed that the matter would be entrusted to a hard pressed civil service, that many voters simply voted to exit. Having discussed the matter in recent months with a variety of people here in NE England, it is clear that they just want to get out and see no problem with no-deal. I suspect therefore that the potential issues of a no-deal would not persuade them to change their minds. Projections indicate that it is this region that would be most adversely affected by a no-deal scenario. But then again, predictions have been disproved so far and the wheels have kept turning. The WTO argument only persists as we agreed to forestall trade negotiations with other entities until our divorce settlement with the EU was settled. To my mind, the vote was conclusive and the wishes of the majority needs to be met, for better or worse. The sooner we move on, the sooner we can start to make the best of the situation. Three years have been wasted with absolutely no progress. I agree with Boris that its perhaps time to crash out. Thomas Sowell perceptively warns against giving power to those who seek to satisfy their ambition as opposed to being selected owing to the expediency of their being the best person for the job, but perhaps right now we need some recklessness and less self doubt, in order to just get the first stage over and done with. So many seem paralysed by the potential negative consequences, whilst may more are motivated by the opportunities, to the extent that they are more engaged with politics than ever. If anything, it seems to have broken the two party state system of voting, based on outdated class structures, that has dominated for so long. An interesting and thoughtful comment. But it does leave (ha!) out one vital thing, a thing that Boris (that mendacious sack of manure) also conveniently leaves out (plus the ERG etc), there's no such thing as no deal. There's a deal made now with the EU for leaving, while the UK still has membership and rights and some position of leverage for negotiation, however badly managed, or there's the deal that has to be made after crashing out, where the UK has none of that and has squandered any good will it had. It's taken Canada TEN YEARS to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and that's where both sides wanted it and neither side was acting like a petulant child. The vote was conclusive? Was the 1975 vote not conclusive? Where 67% voted to be in the EU (EEC as was then)? Is it fine for UKIP and the Brexit party et all to agitate for 40 years to overturn that vote but 3 years on those who voted Remain in 2016, where the result was a much closer 52% to leave, are told they're traitors and to suck it up and "that's democracy"? And I say that as someone who voted Remain and then accepted the result, because that IS how democracy works. I expected the UK to be out by now and we'd all be tightening our belts one way or another. "Perhaps right now we need some recklessness and less self doubt", maybe we need less self doubt, but the recklessness part is what got us in this mess in the first place. We're right now in the absolute fallacy of "sunk capital", in that there's been so much of the country's political life devoured by Brexit that it just has to go through, it can't have all been for nothing. That's nonsense. It's nonsense in regular life, in business and here. Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses. Do I think anyone will see this light? Nope. Or if they do they don't care. Anyhoo. Thanks again for the thoughtful comment Daver. I meet too many Leavers who shout slogans at me and think Brexit is a version of "Make Britain Great Again". Thanks - for me the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains an unforgivable blot on Boris' copybook which cuts through his attempts to sell himself as intelligent, competent and sharp witted, boys own book of Latin quotations at hand. Certainly he seems to feel that the hard work needs to be done by lesser persons whilst he takes credit. His tenure as Foreign Secretary seemed to expose him as the type of public schoolboy who expected others to do his homework for him. Hi usefulness to the Brexit situation would rest on the Bull in a chinashop approach, ala Trump, but I doubt he will ever win over the support or even loyalty of the necessary talent to build a decent cabinet.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 26, 2019 16:37:51 GMT
So the candidates so far are: -Michael Gove -Matt Hancock -Jeremy Hunt -Boris Johnson -Andrea Leadsom -Esther McVey -Dominic Raab -Rory Stewart
More could declare. I believe so far McVey, Raab and Johnson have all floated the possibility of no deal exit at end of October, so that’s not great.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 27, 2019 9:03:58 GMT
Results so far (excl. NI) from BBC website, based on 301 out of 372 counts.
Remain - 40.3% (Lib Dems 20.3%, Greens 12.1%, SNP 3.5%, Change UK 3.4%, Plaid Cymru 1%) No deal / hard brexit - 34.9% (Brexit party 31.6% and UKIP 3.3%) Some sort of negotiated / softer brexit - 23.2% (Labour 14.1%, Tories 9.1%)
Ultimately it comes down to the 23.2% of Tory/Lab voters. If their parties' position of a negotiated brexit becomes untenable, as it appears to have, how will they swing? On a very crude simplistic analysis if Tories voters swung to no deal and Labour voters swung to remain that would put no deal on 44% and remain on 54.4%. However it would not be as black and white as that in practice, plus a general election or a 2nd referendum would have a significantly higher turnout so it really is anyone's guess what would happen.
Allowing for all of the above caveats, I do think that once you get past the brexiteers' sound and fury, the chances are that support for Leave has declined since the 2016 referendum and a 2nd referendum would vote remain.
The lack of leadership is truly appalling. May has already thrown the towel in and her would-be successors look to be following the line of least Tory resistance towards a no deal brexit. Corbyn seems to have locked himself in the toilet and doesn't want to come back out until someone else has sorted out brexit.
EDIT
I see figures up on Guardian website that put no dealers up a couple of % and remainers down, which is a narrower lead for remain than the figures form the BBC website I used. However, I think my my basic point still holds up.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 27, 2019 9:41:13 GMT
I think we are definitely headed for a 2nd referendum.
My reasoning?
1. New Tory leader is either an out and out no-dealer, or else a re-negotiator who ends up going for ne deal when the EU won't budge, or won't budge sufficiently enough. 2. Tory govt going for no deal suddenly makes things very easy for Labour and solves their problem. Under those circumstances they can come out for 2nd referendum to stop no deal brexit and keep the Labour party and trade unions reasonably united, with the added bonus of business on their side. 3. Labour + smaller parties + a significant number of moderate Tories do whatever it takes in House of Commons to frustrate the government. 4. Assuming Government doesn't prorogue Parliament (last tried by Chalres I in 17th century and it didn't end well for him) they can then either go for general election or 2nd referendum. I think there is just too much uncertainty about the outcome of an election for either party to be comfortable going into one with brexit unresolved. From both their points of view it has to be better to get brexit out of the way and then hopfully it will be back to business as usual for the 2 party system in 2022. From the Tories' point of view following the EU election results a 2nd referendum would look like the better option than an election with a split party competing with Nigel Farage for Leave voters. Plus Tory remainer rebels more likely to vote against government for a 2nd referendum rather then for general election in which they might lose their seats.
End result = 2nd referendum
All massively speculative I know. But I begin to be more optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 27, 2019 9:50:52 GMT
I wish I shared your optimism. To me, this made no deal seem more likely. The Tories will be terrified by the Brexit Party’s success, increasing the likelihood of a no deal candidate becoming PM. There is very little Parliament can do to prevent no deal if the PM is set on it; the bill which forced May to ask for an extension in March only passed by one vote-in light of last night I don’t know if many Tory MPs would be willing to back a bill like that again.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 27, 2019 9:59:43 GMT
I wish I shared your optimism. To me, this made no deal seem more likely. The Tories will be terrified by the Brexit Party’s success, increasing the likelihood of a no deal candidate becoming PM. There is very little Parliament can do to prevent no deal if the PM is set on it; the bill which forced May to ask for an extension in March only passed by one vote-in light of last night I don’t know if many Tory MPs would be willing to back a bill like that again. A number of Tories (Philip Hammond etc) were cabinet ministers and bound by collective responsibility last time round. If some of them end up on the backbenches, as Hammond for one seems likely to, they will be liberated to oppose the government potentially increasing the number of Tory rebels. Hammond has already hinted at as much in his weekend interviews and I imagine there would be some others - not very many, but a few is all it would take.
I cannot imagine those who were prepared to rebel last time round moving in the other direction in equivalent numbers.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 27, 2019 12:12:51 GMT
I wish I shared your optimism. To me, this made no deal seem more likely. The Tories will be terrified by the Brexit Party’s success, increasing the likelihood of a no deal candidate becoming PM. There is very little Parliament can do to prevent no deal if the PM is set on it; the bill which forced May to ask for an extension in March only passed by one vote-in light of last night I don’t know if many Tory MPs would be willing to back a bill like that again. Agree - I think No Deal became very much more likely. It's incredible we are now so polarised that Brexit is starting to be equated with No Deal Brexit but there we are. I think this Parliament is more likely to allow No Deal than to vote for a second Referendum even if they get the chance to vote on anything. There won't be many weeks of legislative time between the new PM and October 31st and 'do nothing' means No Deal.
Even if some Conservative Remainers went for the 'nuclear option' of backing the Opposition in a VONC (the only binding vote that can be forced, isn't it?), wouldn't the PM get 14 days to try again under the FTPA (if I have that right?) So a first VONC would have to be called and won by mid-October, only a couple of weeks after the conference season ends.
And would the EU even be willing to grant another extension? Macron wasn't keen last time and EM and Merkel's CDU also had bad nights last night - will preventing a British No Deal be any kind of priority for them now?
Total chaos.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 27, 2019 12:25:18 GMT
I wish I shared your optimism. To me, this made no deal seem more likely. The Tories will be terrified by the Brexit Party’s success, increasing the likelihood of a no deal candidate becoming PM. There is very little Parliament can do to prevent no deal if the PM is set on it; the bill which forced May to ask for an extension in March only passed by one vote-in light of last night I don’t know if many Tory MPs would be willing to back a bill like that again. Agree - I think No Deal became very much more likely. It's incredible we are now so polarised that Brexit is starting to be equated with No Deal Brexit but there we are. I think this Parliament is more likely to allow No Deal than to vote for a second Referendum even if they get the chance to vote on anything. There won't be many weeks of legislative time between the new PM and October 31st and 'do nothing' means No Deal.
Even if some Conservative Remainers went for the 'nuclear option' of backing the Opposition in a VONC (the only binding vote that can be forced, isn't it?), wouldn't the PM get 14 days to try again under the FTPA (if I have that right?) So a first VONC would have to be called and won by mid-October, only a couple of weeks after the conference season ends.
And would the EU even be willing to grant another extension? Macron wasn't keen last time and EM and Merkel's CDU also had bad nights last night - will preventing a British No Deal be any kind of priority for them now?
Total chaos.
You are right, there is a 14 day window after a successful no confidence vote before a general election is automatically triggered. It would be constitutional carnage if a no confidence vote happened, which the Times was suggesting on Friday could happen within days of new PM taking office:
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 27, 2019 13:15:08 GMT
Agree - I think No Deal became very much more likely. It's incredible we are now so polarised that Brexit is starting to be equated with No Deal Brexit but there we are. I think this Parliament is more likely to allow No Deal than to vote for a second Referendum even if they get the chance to vote on anything. There won't be many weeks of legislative time between the new PM and October 31st and 'do nothing' means No Deal.
Even if some Conservative Remainers went for the 'nuclear option' of backing the Opposition in a VONC (the only binding vote that can be forced, isn't it?), wouldn't the PM get 14 days to try again under the FTPA (if I have that right?) So a first VONC would have to be called and won by mid-October, only a couple of weeks after the conference season ends.
And would the EU even be willing to grant another extension? Macron wasn't keen last time and EM and Merkel's CDU also had bad nights last night - will preventing a British No Deal be any kind of priority for them now?
Total chaos.
You are right, there is a 14 day window after a successful no confidence vote before a general election is automatically triggered. It would be constitutional carnage if a no confidence vote happened, which the Times was suggesting on Friday could happen within days of new PM taking office: That would be off the political Richter scale. Although I have to say that decisive action and this Parliament are not often connected. Unless the new PM was foolhardy enough to say definitely No Deal at the outset, I imagine MPs going on doing what they've been doing and waiting to see what happens and hoping something turns up... (It won't.)
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 27, 2019 14:37:33 GMT
I wish I shared your optimism. To me, this made no deal seem more likely. The Tories will be terrified by the Brexit Party’s success, increasing the likelihood of a no deal candidate becoming PM. There is very little Parliament can do to prevent no deal if the PM is set on it; the bill which forced May to ask for an extension in March only passed by one vote-in light of last night I don’t know if many Tory MPs would be willing to back a bill like that again. Agree - I think No Deal became very much more likely.
Both no deal and no brexit have become more likely. The only thing that has become less likely is May's deal, which seems to be the only deal on offer.
I'm a glass half full person, so no brexit becoming more likely means I am more optimistic than pessimistic. However, I totally accept that no deal is alsonow more likely and there are scenarios in which that could be the eventual outcome.
But given the forces that would be ranged against a no deal brexit - a majority of MPs and peers, the CBI, the TUC, I just find it hard to believe it would actually happen. Yes, the government will be able to use royal prerogative powers to ignore Parliament, but only up to a point. And although the legal means by which Parliament could thwart the executive are limited, there are political means that have a moral force.
1. There remains the reality the a no deal brexit was not what was offered/promised in 2016 and therefore is arguably not what people voted for and any government would be on weak ground trying to argue that the 2016 referendum was a mandate for no deal. Would any government really want to take the risk of being blamed by fickle voters for the economic pain that would ensue from a no deal brexit?
2. Parliament could instruct the government via a humble address to the Queen & finding government in contempt of Parliament (the method used to get Geoffrey Cox's legal advice published). Or what if, for instance, a cross-party majority of MPs signed a letter to the Queen asking her to sack the PM - no one knows would happen, it would be uncharted territory (the precedent of Australian PM Gough Whitlam's sacking in Australia in 1975 is closest parallel - not that long ago really). But a minority government trying to engineer a no deal exit by running down the clock against the will of a majority of MPs would, I believe, bring us into the kind of scenario were things like that were being talked about seriously.
3. Things that are suggested like proroguing Parliament are constitutionally acceptable in theory but in practice it would be akin to a coup d'état and there would be protests on the streets, the like of which we have never seen before.
So yes, I agree no deal is more likely than it was, but I can't quite bring myself to believe it would actually happen without at least a general election or 2nd referendum to endorse no deal.
But, as I said above, maybe I am just a glass half full kind of person.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 27, 2019 14:58:11 GMT
Agree - I think No Deal became very much more likely.
Both no deal and no brexit have become more likely. The only thing that has become less likely is May's deal, which seems to be the only deal on offer.
I'm a glass half full person, so no brexit becoming more likely means I am more optimistic than pessimistic. However, I totally accept that no deal is alsonow more likely and there are scenarios in which that could be the eventual outcome.
But given the forces that would be ranged against a no deal brexit - a majority of MPs and peers, the CBI, the TUC, I just find it hard to believe it would actually happen. Yes, the government will be able to use royal prerogative powers to ignore Parliament, but only up to a point. And although the legal means by which Parliament could thwart the executive are limited, there are political means that have a moral force.
1. There remains the reality the a no deal brexit was not what was offered/promised in 2016 and therefore is arguably not what people voted for and any government would be on weak ground trying to argue that the 2016 referendum was a mandate for no deal. Would any government really want to take the risk of being blamed by fickle voters for the economic pain that would ensue from a no deal brexit?
2. Parliament could instruct the government via a humble address to the Queen & finding government in contempt of Parliament (the method used to get Geoffrey Cox's legal advice published). Or what if, for instance, a cross-party majority of MPs signed a letter to the Queen asking her to sack the PM - no one knows would happen, it would be uncharted territory (the precedent of Australian PM Gough Whitlam's sacking in Australia in 1975 is closest parallel - not that long ago really). But a minority government trying to engineer a no deal exit by running down the clock against the will of a majority of MPs would, I believe, bring us into the kind of scenario were things like that were being talked about seriously.
3. Things that are suggested like proroguing Parliament are constitutionally acceptable in theory but in practice it would be akin to a coup d'état and there would be protests on the streets, the like of which we have never seen before.
So yes, I agree no deal is more likely than it was, but I can't quite bring myself to believe it would actually happen without at least a general election or 2nd referendum to endorse no deal.
But, as I said above, maybe I am just a glass half full kind of person.
On that point. If I understand the constitution correctly, by convention a PM has to have the confidence of the Commons to be appointed by the Queen. This is usually a formality, as in the case of both Brown and May the governing party had a functioning majority at the time of their appointment. This time round, they don’t. If (big if) Tory moderates, or even just the DUP come to think of it, turned against the winning candidate entirely and refused to have confidence in them (not entirely sure how they would demonstrate this; a direct letter to the monarch as you suggest might be enough) then I’m not sure whether the Queen could actually appoint the winner of the contest as PM. Logically the only other option is the Leader of the Opposition, but of course he can’t command the confidence of the Commons either. So that would be a bit of a constitutional conundrum. Such are the drawbacks of an uncodified constitution. Creating such a situation would be something of a nuclear option on the part of moderates though, so I’m kinda doubtful they’d risk it.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on May 27, 2019 16:16:16 GMT
Both no deal and no brexit have become more likely. The only thing that has become less likely is May's deal, which seems to be the only deal on offer.
I'm a glass half full person, so no brexit becoming more likely means I am more optimistic than pessimistic. However, I totally accept that no deal is alsonow more likely and there are scenarios in which that could be the eventual outcome.
But given the forces that would be ranged against a no deal brexit - a majority of MPs and peers, the CBI, the TUC, I just find it hard to believe it would actually happen. Yes, the government will be able to use royal prerogative powers to ignore Parliament, but only up to a point. And although the legal means by which Parliament could thwart the executive are limited, there are political means that have a moral force.
1. There remains the reality the a no deal brexit was not what was offered/promised in 2016 and therefore is arguably not what people voted for and any government would be on weak ground trying to argue that the 2016 referendum was a mandate for no deal. Would any government really want to take the risk of being blamed by fickle voters for the economic pain that would ensue from a no deal brexit?
2. Parliament could instruct the government via a humble address to the Queen & finding government in contempt of Parliament (the method used to get Geoffrey Cox's legal advice published). Or what if, for instance, a cross-party majority of MPs signed a letter to the Queen asking her to sack the PM - no one knows would happen, it would be uncharted territory (the precedent of Australian PM Gough Whitlam's sacking in Australia in 1975 is closest parallel - not that long ago really). But a minority government trying to engineer a no deal exit by running down the clock against the will of a majority of MPs would, I believe, bring us into the kind of scenario were things like that were being talked about seriously.
3. Things that are suggested like proroguing Parliament are constitutionally acceptable in theory but in practice it would be akin to a coup d'état and there would be protests on the streets, the like of which we have never seen before.
So yes, I agree no deal is more likely than it was, but I can't quite bring myself to believe it would actually happen without at least a general election or 2nd referendum to endorse no deal.
But, as I said above, maybe I am just a glass half full kind of person.
On that point. If I understand the constitution correctly, by convention a PM has to have the confidence of the Commons to be appointed by the Queen. This is usually a formality, as in the case of both Brown and May the governing party had a functioning majority at the time of their appointment. This time round, they don’t. If (big if) Tory moderates, or even just the DUP come to think of it, turned against the winning candidate entirely and refused to have confidence in them (not entirely sure how they would demonstrate this; a direct letter to the monarch as you suggest might be enough) then I’m not sure whether the Queen could actually appoint the winner of the contest as PM. Logically the only other option is the Leader of the Opposition, but of course he can’t command the confidence of the Commons either. So that would be a bit of a constitutional conundrum. Such are the drawbacks of an uncodified constitution. Creating such a situation would be something of a nuclear option on the part of moderates though, so I’m kinda doubtful they’d risk it.
I was only suggesting a majority of MPs writing to the Queen in the unlikely scenario where the government had prorogued Parliament and they were unable to act in any other way, such as the normal parliamentary devices of no confidence votes, humble addresses etc or if the government was trying to run down the clock and we were days away from a crash out on 31st October and there was insufficient time for the normal processes to take effect. I don't see it as very likely at all.
Because it is an unwritten constitution so much rests on convention, but convention can be broken or changed. If the PM loses the confidence of the Commons the monarch has to appoint a replacement who can command the confidence. Labour would doubtless argue that constitutionally the leader of the 2nd largest party has to have the next go at forming a government, but the monarch is not obliged to do so. She would consult and take advice, probably with party leaders and elder statesmen, and choose whoever she thought was most likely to be able to pass a queen's speech.
Monarch can appoint whoever they like as PM and dismiss the PM. In practice, by convention, they choose the MP who can command the confidence of the Commons. And in recent british history it has always been very clear and uncontroversial who that was. the queen had to exercise discretion before the Tory party started electing leaders, with Edward Heath the first elected leader in 1965. Prior to that the leader emerged, but it was fairly clear who that was most of the time, until 1963 when Douglas-Home was controversially chosen in a process managed by Harold MacMillan.
In the twentieth century it was often a done deal and there was an obvious heir apparent (1902, 1908, 1937, 1955) However the monarch did exercise judgement when there was not a clear cut obvious successor -1923 George V chose Baldwin over Curzon on the advice of Tory grandees -1931 George V involved in formation of National government under Ramsay MacDonald -1940 George VI chose Churchill over Halifax -1955 Elizabeth II chose MacMillan over Butler
The monarch's power to choose the PM still exists but since 1963 it has never been exercised since there has never been any need to exercise it, because parties had leadership elections and the next PM has always been obvious.
The PM does not need to be an MP either, a member of the Lords can still be PM in theory, but by convention it has to be an MP. Last PM to sit in Lords was Lord Salisbury who retired in 1902.
I gave the example of Australia 1975 as the last time the royal prerogative powers were exercised in a way that was arguably undemocratic, i.e. the dismissal of elected Australian PM Gough Whitlam, but because the replacement PM Malcolm Fraser won the subsequent election the governor general got away with it. The queen still has the equivalent powers in the UK today but would be VERY VERY reluctant ever to use them and would only conceivably ever do so as a last resort in the event of a major constitutional crisis, which is possibly where we might be headed in the UK.
The other prerogative power that it has been suggested by brexiteers that the Queen should use, to prorogue Parliament so MPs were unable to prevent a no deal brexit, is constitutionally permissible, but would be highly controversial. It would amount to the executive trying to govern without Parliament, which was what got Charles I into such trouble. However, it is not without modern precedent - Canadian PM Stephen Harper got the governor general to prorogue Parliament in December 2008 / January 2009 to avoid a no confidence vote.
I think the Queen would only exercise her prerogative powers in defiance of the current PM after taking advice from, say other party leaders & former PMs, and if it could be demonstrated that she was acting in accordance with the will of a majority of MPs. All highly highly highly unlikely, and I'm not suggesting any of this is actually likely to happen, but given the extent of the crisis we are in and the extremely febrile atmosphere of British politics, I would say nothing is impossible. And if we cannot get ourselves out of this mess by ordinary means, then it is not implausible that we will resort to extraordinary means of one sort or another.
All I am really saying is that if it looks like no deal is going to happen by default, those opposed to it will pull out all the stops to try and prevent it happening. And when you think that those opposed would be the CBI, the TUC and a majority of MPs I find it hard to imagine that we could end up with no deal without an awfully big fight and/or a 2nd referendum and/or a general election.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on May 27, 2019 16:39:34 GMT
Would the omnishambles of Brexit lead us to believe that the UK needs a written constitution?
|
|