Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[McHrozni]

Really the only way that PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could produce a No Deal exit on 31st October (assuming that is what they really wanted to do), is to allow a vote in the HoC, in which they persuade the majority of MPs to vote against any motion that asks the House to rule out a No Deal. The PM would really have to get that authority from the House in a vote for or against a No Deal.

Boris has one powerful ace in his sleeve: allow a vote in HoC asking the house between another extension and a no-deal Brexit. He would best do so by making sure he tried to prorogue Parliament but was blocked by it's sheer illegality and have the Speaker force the vote upon him.

After that is done and Parliament ordered BJ to go to EU and beg for more time, he goes to Brussels and asks for more time, in order to renegotiate the WA but rule out an early election or a referendum. EU would probably say you can have more time if you use it for a referendum, BJ says no and that is that.

Parliament can prevent that by telling him to agree to a referendum in exchange for an extension, but referendums are notoriously difficult in UK and this is a difficult referendum to begin with. Legislating and holding one takes six months on average, BJ can tell the EU he needs a year to hold one. This isn't even false: it took over three years to hold the EU membership referedum, it took 10 months from when the Tories had the majority in HoC to hold it and Parliament rejected the option of a second referendum in the two indicative votes.

Even BJ can claim he can't promise what he can't deliver. Irony aside, it is a reasonable thing of a politician to say in his situation. If EU gets him a two tiered deadline again (i.e. two weeks to pass basic legislation for another referendum, six months to hold it) all BJ needs to do is hold off for those two weeks. There would be a vote, but if the vote fails to pass he gets his no deal Brexit - legally. I imagine there are quite a few things PM can do to frustrate debate and fail to pass something he doesn't want to pass. Offering a choice between ratifying WA and no deal Brexit, but not Bremain, is one. Besides, Parliament is against everything, including another referendum.

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

By the way, despite the above (which is any case not my own opinion, but just giving the opinion of legal and constitutional political experts ... I gave several more such links in the other thread), I would not personally rule out the possibility of the HoC voting to allow a No Deal exit.

That is – in a vote that asked MPs to rule out a No Deal exit on 31st Oct., I think there is actually a reasonable chance that MPs might reject that motion (ie failing to vote against a No Deal exit). So that would be one way in which PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could indeed cause the UK to leave the EU with No Deal.

 

[McHrozni]

By the way, despite the above (which is any case not my own opinion, but just giving the opinion of legal and constitutional political experts ... I gave several more such links in the other thread), I would not personally rule out the possibility of the HoC voting to allow a No Deal exit.

That is – in a vote that asked MPs to rule out a No Deal exit on 31st Oct., I think there is actually a reasonable chance that MPs might reject that motion (ie failing to vote against a No Deal exit). So that would be one way in which PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could indeed cause the UK to leave the EU with No Deal.

That's true. Parliament rejected No Deal Brexit under any circumstance amendment by a narrow margin: 312-308.

https://www.dw.com/en/british-lawmakers-vote-to-reject-no-deal-brexit-by-321-to-278/a-47895802

It could be that in a vote actually bringing about something, anything, that would prevent it Parliament will come short. Is there a way to frame a British Parliamentary question in a way different than "Yes or No"?
Example: Referendum to the left, No Deal Brexit to the right?

That would give some clarity. MPs can vote against everything with little consequence, but if the question is framed between two positives their ground for constructive ambiguity shrinks to zero.

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

Boris has one powerful ace in his sleeve: allow a vote in HoC asking the house between another extension and a no-deal Brexit. He would best do so by making sure he tried to prorogue Parliament but was blocked by it's sheer illegality and have the Speaker force the vote upon him.

After that is done and Parliament ordered BJ to go to EU and beg for more time, he goes to Brussels and asks for more time, in order to renegotiate the WA but rule out an early election or a referendum. EU would probably say you can have more time if you use it for a referendum, BJ says no and that is that.

Parliament can prevent that by telling him to agree to a referendum in exchange for an extension, but referendums are notoriously difficult in UK and this is a difficult referendum to begin with. Legislating and holding one takes six months on average, BJ can tell the EU he needs a year to hold one. This isn't even false: it took over three years to hold the EU membership referedum, it took 10 months from when the Tories had the majority in HoC to hold it and Parliament rejected the option of a second referendum in the two indicative votes.

Even BJ can claim he can't promise what he can't deliver. Irony aside, it is a reasonable thing of a politician to say in his situation. If EU gets him a two tiered deadline again (i.e. two weeks to pass basic legislation for another referendum, six months to hold it) all BJ needs to do is hold off for those two weeks. There would be a vote, but if the vote fails to pass he gets his no deal Brexit - legally. I imagine there are quite a few things PM can do to frustrate debate and fail to pass something he doesn't want to pass. Offering a choice between ratifying WA and no deal Brexit, but not Bremain, is one. Besides, Parliament is against everything, including another referendum.

McHrozni

None of that is changing or disputing anything I said in the above post, though.

Point is - it's extremely unlikely that the PM could circumvent the democratic will of parliament to force the UK to leave with No Deal.

Whether or not we end up with a vote in the HoC that forces either a new referendum, or that forces a General Election, is another matter entirely.

But the point is – much as a pro-Brexit Tory PM might wish to prevent the HoC voting on various options, the PM almost certainly could not in the end prevent such democratic votes in the HoC.

What the result might be in a new referendum, heaven only knows (though afaik the opinion polls have suggested a win for Remain by perhaps 6% or more … but polls like that have been shown to be seriously wrong in recent years).

The result of a General Election is now also very hard to guess, imho. Mainly because Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party has thrown a huge spanner into the works. If Farage and his party contest seats nationwide, then it's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that his party could actually end up with the most seats (though probably not enough to form a government). But if that happens then I would expect Labour and Lib Dem to pool their seats together to agree an emergency coalition government. I think the Conservatives would probably be decimated in a GE that was held either now, or else held in the wake of the new Conservative PM leading the country into an even bigger and more incompetent looking mess than we have already had over the last 12 months.

See the latest Poll figures from YouGov 24th-25th June -

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...g-intention-brex-22-con-22-lab-20-lib-dem-19-

Brexit Party 22%
Conservatives 22%
Labour 20%
Lib Dem 19%

 

[IanS]

post deleted ... wrong thread lol!

 

[McHrozni]

None of that is changing or disputing anything I said in the above post, though.

Point is - it's extremely unlikely that the PM could circumvent the democratic will of parliament to force the UK to leave with No Deal.

Whether or not we end up with a vote in the HoC that forces either a new referendum, or that forces a General Election, is another matter entirely.

But the point is – much as a pro-Brexit Tory PM might wish to prevent the HoC voting on various options, the PM almost certainly could not in the end prevent such democratic votes in the HoC.

He doesn't have to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. All he must do is ensure the option he doesn't want to pass doesn't pass. I'll explain what I mean below.

What the result might be in a new referendum, heaven only knows (though afaik the opinion polls have suggested a win for Remain by perhaps 6% or more … but polls like that have been shown to be seriously wrong in recent years).

This is a referendum where the question is everything. Everything. Suppose the options at hand are:

Should the UK:
1. Ratify the WA or
2. Leave EU with no deal?

If BJ gets this referendum question through he's in home stretch. Ratifying the WA has half the support of a no deal Brexit, all he needs to do is promise even more unicorns and calls out anyone who campaigns for the ratification a hypocrite and he just might get the 51-49 victory that is a clear mandate for a hard Brexit and deregulation and privatization of everything.

Alternatively the question could be Should UK revoke article 50 and remain in EU?
1. Yes.
2. No.

Since yes is the current legal default and it's a significant constitutional question that's at stake, he could also demand a 60% quorum for yes, or else the legal default remains. Hypocritical sure, but he held another referendum and fulfilled the will of Parliament and requirement of the EU.

Given the divisions in Parliament, agreeing to the referendum is trivially easy compared to deciding what to ask in the referendum. It's quite possible to run down the clock with proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out.

On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion another referendum will be held, somehow. But it's getting ever weirder.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nigel Farage has hit out at Channel 4 over an episode of a comedy show in which satirical character Neil Fromage is shot dead while giving a speech on immigration.

The leader of the Brexit Party described the scene in the fourth episode of Victorian-era sitcom Year of the Rabbit as “sick and frankly irresponsible”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fromage-shot-dead-channel-4-a8981281.html?amp

 

[ohms]

Nigel Farage has hit out at Channel 4 over an episode of a comedy show in which satirical character Neil Fromage is shot dead while giving a speech on immigration.

The leader of the Brexit Party described the scene in the fourth episode of Victorian-era sitcom Year of the Rabbit as “sick and frankly irresponsible”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fromage-shot-dead-channel-4-a8981281.html?amp

Says the man who said he would pick up a rifle and join the front line if he doesn't get Brexit. What a hypocrite!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you know how much a modern frigate or destroyer costs?
What would they do with a single frigate?

Would they be expecting to engage in high intensity naval warfare?

Ireland has a very good and well balanced maritime defence force with very capable patrol vessels. Their entire fleet cost less than one Type 45 Destroyer.

https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/

The plan that was published in 2014 included 2 frigates I believe as well as anti mine vessels and offshore patrols vehicles and other support ships.

I don't believe they wanted to have any destroyers nor do they wish to maintain nuclear submarines.

Of course the other thing to remember is that SNP white papers do not in fact tie the hands of future Scottish Governments who may decide they have other strategic aims.

 

[IanS]

He doesn't have to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. All he must do is ensure the option he doesn't want to pass doesn't pass. I'll explain what I mean below.



This is a referendum where the question is everything. Everything. Suppose the options at hand are:

Should the UK:
1. Ratify the WA or
2. Leave EU with no deal?

If BJ gets this referendum question through he's in home stretch. Ratifying the WA has half the support of a no deal Brexit, all he needs to do is promise even more unicorns and calls out anyone who campaigns for the ratification a hypocrite and he just might get the 51-49 victory that is a clear mandate for a hard Brexit and deregulation and privatization of everything.

Alternatively the question could be Should UK revoke article 50 and remain in EU?
1. Yes.
2. No.

Since yes is the current legal default and it's a significant constitutional question that's at stake, he could also demand a 60% quorum for yes, or else the legal default remains. Hypocritical sure, but he held another referendum and fulfilled the will of Parliament and requirement of the EU.

Given the divisions in Parliament, agreeing to the referendum is trivially easy compared to deciding what to ask in the referendum. It's quite possible to run down the clock with proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out.

On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion another referendum will be held, somehow. But it's getting ever weirder.

McHrozni

On the basis of the legal analysis and other links that I gave previously - I don't think it's possible for the next Tory PM to run down the clock with a succession of "proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out".

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.

Nor do I think the next PM could just choose any deliberately exclusive and deliberately fraudulent or misleading options on a referendum ballot paper. That would again be a clear attempt by the PM to rig the result of a referendum. Again, restrictive and divisive options like that (as the only options on a referendum ballot paper) would be ruled illegal. The options have to be fair, honest and genuinely representative of the preferences debated & expressed by elected MPs in the HoC.

More simply – I think we are very far past the stage where a rouge pro-Brexit PM could deliberately mislead both the HoC and the electorate over Brexit. The options must be honest and fair, and must be seen to be honest and fair (otherwise they will be subject to legal challange & ruled illegal).

Of course it would be another matter entirely if opposition MPs decided not to bother opposing whatever the Tory PM wanted to do, and decided not to bother with any legal objections or any requests to vote in the HoC against whatever the pro-Brexit PM proposes. But it seems very unlikley indeed that opposition MPs will allow PM-Boris or PM-Hunt a fee hand to act like that to do whatever they want.

 

[Information Analyst]

Well in the event that England decided that it wasn't going to negotiate in good faith on independence they would have to remove them which would present several issues 1) Getting them and 2) Having somewhere to put them.

Why the assumption they wouldn't? Oh, and you mean "England, Wales, and NI," surely?

Which is one amongst a multitude of reasons why the idea that the UK will simply claim the entire RN for themselves post independence is nonsense on stilts.

I'm sure the MoD will be open to reasonable suggestions as to what 8% of military equipment Scotland would want to have, but 8% of "everything" wouldn't necessarily be in Scotland's interest.

 

[GlennB]

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.

Quite possibly, but when? The legal wheels grind exceeding slow, and it would undoubtedly be 'ruled illegal' well after Halloween. Even if before Halloween then decisive Parliamentary action would need to be taken pdq...

eta

which might well also lead to legal proceedings taking us beyond Halloween

 

[Vixen]

Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.



They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.

Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.

So anyone who can find an obscure Scottish grandparent can claim Scottish nationality (and thus stay in the EU).

 

[Information Analyst]

Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.

Unlikely. There are currently assets in Scotland which it suits wider UK purposes to be there, and that isn't just HMNB Clyde, either. In addition, there is some stuff that was proposed in the Scotland's Future paper that an independent Scotland wanted that are not currently located in Scotland.

They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.

Probably because it would go down like a lead balloon.

Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.

That's a bit of a silly comparison, given that one is landlocked with a population one 70th of Scotland's population, and the other isn't a country at all. Denmark would be a more apt comparison.

 

[Information Analyst]

The plan that was published in 2014 included 2 frigates I believe as well as anti mine vessels and offshore patrols vehicles and other support ships.

They also stated they wanted a "command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities" from the current RN fleet. They weren't more specific, but this was interpreted to mean a Landing Platform Dock or Bay class RFA, neither of which is going to happen.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's a bit of a silly comparison, given that one is landlocked with a population one 70th of Scotland's population, and the other isn't a country at all. Denmark would be a more apt comparison.

I think that's his point. Scotland is a country like Denmark, more than capable of looking after its own affairs, not a principality like Andorra or Jersey.

 

[Aber]

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard.

Parliament only has a limited set of tools:
- pass legislation
- vote no confidence in the Prime Minister

IIUC everything else could be subverted, and would be justified as carrying out the democratic will of the people.

 

[Samson]

deleted wrong thread.

 

[McHrozni]

On the basis of the legal analysis and other links that I gave previously - I don't think it's possible for the next Tory PM to run down the clock with a succession of "proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out".

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.

Democratic will of Parliament is being heard in this case. He's just making sure the democratic will of all PMs is being considered.

Nor do I think the next PM could just choose any deliberately exclusive and deliberately fraudulent or misleading options on a referendum ballot paper. That would again be a clear attempt by the PM to rig the result of a referendum. Again, restrictive and divisive options like that (as the only options on a referendum ballot paper) would be ruled illegal. The options have to be fair, honest and genuinely representative of the preferences debated & expressed by elected MPs in the HoC.

They aren't deliberately exclusive or deliberately fradulent. It's simply that the referendum usually only has two possible answers. Which two do you put on?
No Brexit and No Deal?
No Brexit and WA?
WA and No Deal?
WA and Unicorn Deal?
No Brexit and Unicorn Deal?
Unicorn Deal and No Deal?

Clearly this won't work. At a minimum you need three options. Parliament already rejected all of them, except the Unicorn deal, so it can be argued that should be on the ballot, although it's the one option that will solve nothing.

More simply – I think we are very far past the stage where a rouge pro-Brexit PM could deliberately mislead both the HoC and the electorate over Brexit. The options must be honest and fair, and must be seen to be honest and fair (otherwise they will be subject to legal challange & ruled illegal).

First of all, a good portion of the electorate and Parliament both is already misled. It's not a rogue pro-Brexit PM, it's a rogue pro-Brexit PM and Parliament that consistently rejected both another referendum and revoking article 50, the electorate is little better.

Second if there is a legal challenge and the referendum is ruled illegal, BJ still "wins" of sorts. There must be new legislation for another referendum. These things take time and EU won't give BJ unlimited time to come up with an answer.

Options must be honest and fair, true. But a good portion of the electorate considers "no deal Brexit ASAP" as "honest and fair".

Of course it would be another matter entirely if opposition MPs decided not to bother opposing whatever the Tory PM wanted to do, and decided not to bother with any legal objections or any requests to vote in the HoC against whatever the pro-Brexit PM proposes. But it seems very unlikley indeed that opposition MPs will allow PM-Boris or PM-Hunt a fee hand to act like that to do whatever they want.

I calculated that in. Referendums are difficult in UK as it is and an issue like Brexit would cause major headaches in Switzerland, which could be called Referendumland for our purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Swiss_referendums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why the assumption they wouldn't? Oh, and you mean "England, Wales, and NI," surely?

Well you would have to ask the person that made the assumption. And no I mean England. Our future PM has already said Westminster is England's parliament.

I'm sure the MoD will be open to reasonable suggestions as to what 8% of military equipment Scotland would want to have, but 8% of "everything" wouldn't necessarily be in Scotland's interest.

I don't think I ever said it would be otherwise. But there would be a negotiated agreement. No doubt Scotland will not get everything it wants but nor will England.

A hypothetical was put forward in which England simply said 'we are keeping the lot, screw you' and I was pointing out why this won't happen.