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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

You may not even need that. I would imagine a newly independent Scotland would have one of the easiest routes to citizenship and/or immigration in the EU. We need the people!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

The question was what it would be capable of sustaining. Not what it would WANT to sustain

Probably because it would go down like a lead balloon.

Regardless of that England and Scotland will be important strategic defence partners. It benefits neither for one or the other to be hamstrung in any settlement. I would imagine geographically Scotland would also be considered useful/important within NATO.

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.

Yes it is which is why I said we AREN'T those countries. Denmark is a better comparison. Denmark has a pretty functional navy and military. It even has some frigates!!!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

neither of which is going to happen.

Again the idea that England will simply dictate what will and won't happen in a negotiation. It seems the colonial mindset will persist despite Brexit showing the world how laughably pathetic it is.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Doing something illegal does not seem to be a barrier for Brexit. No doubt someone would get a slap on the wrist in 3 years time.

 

[IanS]

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

Well we are not talking about the sort of legal cases where a member of the public might have to wait years before a case is heard. Afaik, this would be decided by the relevant "court" immediately, so that any such action by the PM was ruled illegal before any deadline expired. However ...

... even if that were not the case, and where the ruling comes after the expired deadline, the ruling would cancel the PM's result. That is - the exit from the EU would have been illegal, and it could not stand. How the UK would work that out with the EU, and what the EU would do about something like that, is perhaps less clear. Also less clear is what would happen to the PM in a situation like that, where he had been found guilty in law of such massive abuse of power … it would presumably be a very serious offence indeed.

 

[McHrozni]

Well we are not talking about the sort of legal cases where a member of the public might have to wait years before a case is heard. Afaik, this would be decided by the relevant "court" immediately, so that any such action by the PM was ruled illegal before any deadline expired.

The problem is a No Deal doesn't require any action on behalf of anyone. It's the legal default, what happens if no action is taken. Parliament can order PM to "take action", but how would that work? The only measures UK can take are ratifying the WA or revoking article 50. Revoking article 50 is illegal without a new vote, Parliament already rejected it in indicative votes. It also rejected ratifying the WA three times.

Demand from Parliament to PM to "stop No Deal Brexit" is impossible. Parliament can instruct the PM to revoke article 50, it can ratify the deal or it can instruct the PM to go to Brussels and beg for more time. This last option means there will be a referendum on the question, or else a No Deal Brexit.

My point is Parliament will have to grow some testicles and instruct BJ to do one of the above three. It can't prohibit a No Deal Brexit and do reject everything that is needed to prevent one.

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

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



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.



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".



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

OK, well without going through the above in detail again (because it's essentially what we already discussed before) - if you read that link to the legal analysis that I gave earlier, you will see why the legal opinion is that a pro-Brexit PM such as Boris, probably could not succeed with any of the methods that you are proposing.

If you have not read that legal link, then please read it, because it explains why opposition MP's could, and almost certainly would, use the law to stop any of the attempts that you describe. And where, in fact, opposition MPs already took that legal recourse to stop Mrs May on at least two occasions when she tried to bounce the UK out of the EU by excluding a parliamentary vote (inc. trying to run down the clock); so those legal rulings and that recourse to law is already established and in place as the method being used by MPs if the prime Minister tries any of the illegal deceptions that you suggest.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Boris or Hunt to succeed with such tactics. That might happen. But it's unlikely to succeed if opposition MPs object in law to a PM trying any deceptions such as that.

 

[IanS]

The problem is a No Deal doesn't require any action on behalf of anyone. It's the legal default, what happens if no action is taken. Parliament can order PM to "take action", but how would that work? The only measures UK can take are ratifying the WA or revoking article 50. Revoking article 50 is illegal without a new vote, Parliament already rejected it in indicative votes. It also rejected ratifying the WA three times.

Demand from Parliament to PM to "stop No Deal Brexit" is impossible. Parliament can instruct the PM to revoke article 50, it can ratify the deal or it can instruct the PM to go to Brussels and beg for more time. This last option means there will be a referendum on the question, or else a No Deal Brexit.

My point is Parliament will have to grow some testicles and instruct BJ to do one of the above three. It can't prohibit a No Deal Brexit and do reject everything that is needed to prevent one.

McHrozni

Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link. It's what I explained before. And Mrs May already tried that, and where the legal link says she was in effect "forced" to go back to the EU and request an extension.

The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).

 

[The Don]

OK, well without going through the above in detail again (because it's essentially what we already discussed before) - if you read that link to the legal analysis that I gave earlier, you will see why the legal opinion is that a pro-Brexit PM such as Boris, probably could not succeed with any of the methods that you are proposing.

If you have not read that legal link, then please read it, because it explains why opposition MP's could, and almost certainly would, use the law to stop any of the attempts that you describe. And where, in fact, opposition MPs already took that legal recourse to stop Mrs May on at least two occasions when she tried to bounce the UK out of the EU by excluding a parliamentary vote (inc. trying to run down the clock); so those legal rulings and that recourse to law is already established and in place as the method being used by MPs if the prime Minister tries any of the illegal deceptions that you suggest.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Boris or Hunt to succeed with such tactics. That might happen. But it's unlikely to succeed if opposition MPs object in law to a PM trying any deceptions such as that.

So far Parliament haven't been able to agree on a way forward for Brexit. They've had various votes, both binding and indicative to reject certain courses of action, including Theresa May's deal and a no-deal but they have never been able to agree on a positive course of action whether that is acceptance of a deal, revocation of Article 50 or leaving the EU with no deal in place.

So far the EU have been understanding of/complicit in (depending on your point of view) in this indecision by allowing the UK to kick the can down the road but there will likely come a point when the EU is unwilling to delay Brexit any longer and/or will impose conditions that are unacceptable to a Conservative PM and so there will be no further extensions to the Brexit deadline.

At that point in time, Parliament will have to decide what they want to do. Just saying that they don't want Option X or Option Y is no longer good enough. So far, they haven't been able to agree - I don't see that changing.

• There will not be majority support for a second referendum
• There will not be majority support for revocation
• There will not be majority support for no-deal
• It seems impossible to get Theresa May's deal approved
• The EU isn't prepared to negotiate any other kind of deal with the existing red lines in place
• There is no appetite in either of the two major parties to change the red lines

Which means that the default outcome - leave with no deal - comes about.

Even if Parliament votes to reject that outcome, in order to stop it they need to come up with an alternative plan of action - which seems beyond them.

 

[McHrozni]

Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link.

The only legal link that you gave and I found answered the question "Can the PM prorogue Parliament to force a no deal Brexit". None of the scenarios I present involve proroguing Parliament. BJ must prevent Parliament from passing a Brexit resolution that will be viable with the EU. Proroguing is just one of the possibilities here, I discussed the others, all of whom include Parliamentary votes. It's not enough to hold a vote, Parliament must vote affirmative to an action.

The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).

And if the HoC rules out a No Deal Brexit (again), then what? It refused to ratify the WA three times and it voted against both revoking article 50 and holding another referendum in indicative votes. It even rejected a different deal to WA. Those are the totality of options on the table. Parliament might as well ask the Sun not to set for a week, so they have more time to debate the whole thing and instruct PM to achieve that.

The fact is Parliament must vote for something if it is to prevent a No Deal Brexit. For a Brexitard PM all he must do is ensure all votes are negative, or else positive but pass something unacceptable to the EU. With a different leader of the opposition that would be impossible to do, a competent Labour party would have dealt with the issue twice over by now and probably run the show for a decade. Alas, Corbyn and his clique are no better than BJ.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So far Parliament haven't been able to agree on a way forward for Brexit. They've had various votes, both binding and indicative to reject certain courses of action, including Theresa May's deal and a no-deal but they have never been able to agree on a positive course of action whether that is acceptance of a deal, revocation of Article 50 or leaving the EU with no deal in place.

So far the EU have been understanding of/complicit in (depending on your point of view) in this indecision by allowing the UK to kick the can down the road but there will likely come a point when the EU is unwilling to delay Brexit any longer and/or will impose conditions that are unacceptable to a Conservative PM and so there will be no further extensions to the Brexit deadline.

At that point in time, Parliament will have to decide what they want to do. Just saying that they don't want Option X or Option Y is no longer good enough. So far, they haven't been able to agree - I don't see that changing.

• There will not be majority support for a second referendum
• There will not be majority support for revocation
• There will not be majority support for no-deal
• It seems impossible to get Theresa May's deal approved
• The EU isn't prepared to negotiate any other kind of deal with the existing red lines in place
• There is no appetite in either of the two major parties to change the red lines

Which means that the default outcome - leave with no deal - comes about.

Even if Parliament votes to reject that outcome, in order to stop it they need to come up with an alternative plan of action - which seems beyond them.

My prediction is there will be another extension. Either Parliament will send BJ to beg for another extension, ordering him to offer another referendum in exchange for mercy. EU will accept, then Parliament will face the difficult legislating for said referendum. There are three options: No Deal Brexit, WA and Bremain, it is possible to hold a fair referendum with three options in several ways which I described before.

Alternatively Parliament will not confirm BJ as PM or BJ will be removed in a vote of no confidence before Haloween, triggering an early election. EU will agree to an extension in order to hold it. The result of that election will decide the fate of Brexit and indeed the UK.

I've been wrong before on these issues, lots of times. Let's see how this prediction holds.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

My prediction is there will be another extension. Either Parliament will send BJ to beg for another extension, ordering him to offer another referendum in exchange for mercy. EU will accept, then Parliament will face the difficult legislating for said referendum. There are three options: No Deal Brexit, WA and Bremain, it is possible to hold a fair referendum with three options in several ways which I described before.

I cannot see this getting support in parliament given that the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs (including the leader) are against a second referendum.

I can see them asking him to go back to ask for an extension (which he may or may not do - it would after all give the Brexit Party a stick to beat him with if he does agree to an extension) but not with anything tangible to offer in exchange. After all, Brexiteers (especially those of a no-deal persuasion) want the EU to deny the extension so that it's the EU's fault when it all goes to rodent poop.

Alternatively Parliament will not confirm BJ as PM or else BJ will be removed in a vote of no confidence before Haloween, triggering an early election. EU will agree to an extension in order to hold it. The result of that election will decide the fate of Brexit and indeed the UK.

I've been wrong before on these issues, lots of times. Let's see how this prediction holds.

McHrozni

There's no confirmation process for the PM, as the leader of the party in government Boris or Jeremy would automatically get to be PM. The only way to remove them would be either for them to be deposed as Conservative Party leader (unlikely given that they have just been appointed) or for a no confidence vote to be successfully passed.

As disfunctional as the Conservatives are, a confidence vote will IMO be unsuccessful because the DUP won't support it (because there isn't an outcome which would increase their influence), there will be very few Tory rebels (because they don't want to be savaged by the Brexit Party) and they will likely be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs supporting the goverment.

 

[McHrozni]

I cannot see this getting support in parliament given that the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs (including the leader) are against a second referendum.

I can see them asking him to go back to ask for an extension (which he may or may not do - it would after all give the Brexit Party a stick to beat him with if he does agree to an extension) but not with anything tangible to offer in exchange. After all, Brexiteers (especially those of a no-deal persuasion) want the EU to deny the extension so that it's the EU's fault when it all goes to rodent poop.

If the alternatives were No Deal Brexit and Second Referendum, the latter may yet win out in the vote. Thus far alternatives were Bright Sunlands with Unicorns to a Second Referendum. This is different.

There's no confirmation process for the PM, as the leader of the party in government Boris or Jeremy would automatically get to be PM. The only way to remove them would be either for them to be deposed as Conservative Party leader (unlikely given that they have just been appointed) or for a no confidence vote to be successfully passed.

Hm, okay. An unrelated question: has UK considered joining the 20th century yet?

As as disfunctional as Parliament is, a confidence vote will IMO be unsuccessful because the DUP won't support it (because there isn't an outcome which would increase their influence), there will be very few Tory rebels (because they don't want to be savaged by the Brexit Party) and they will likely be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs supporting the goverment.

Normally yes, but if the alternative is a No Deal Brexit, I predict they will change their minds. Not all but enough to force another election. This is because in a No Deal Brexit, they can still expect to lose their jobs shortly down the line, they'd be sacrificing the country in order to have a few more months of cushiny jobs for themselves. Would you want to go down in history like that? Chances are enough wouldn't and a new election will take place.

Of course I could be wrong, but who do you hope to be right on the matter?

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link. It's what I explained before. And Mrs May already tried that, and where the legal link says she was in effect "forced" to go back to the EU and request an extension.

The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).

But ruling out a no deal exit does nothing to actually stop it.

 

[The Don]

If the alternatives were No Deal Brexit and Second Referendum, the latter may yet win out in the vote. Thus far alternatives were Bright Sunlands with Unicorns to a Second Referendum. This is different.

The Conservatives would not vote in favour of a pro-referendum motion because they (rightly IMO) fear that it would imperil Brexit and any Conservative who voted to prevent a no deal Brexit would face a motion of no confidence from their local constituency (which would likely have them out on their ear), would likely be deselected at the next election or be beaten by the Brexit Party.

There may be a handful of retiring MPs who may be willing to take one for the nation but they will be offset buy the 20-50 Labour MPs who don't want a second referendum.

Hm, okay. An unrelated question: has UK considered joining the 20th century yet?

I'm not so sure what it outdated about this arrangement. The Prime Minister is just the (current) leader of the governing party or coalition.

Normally yes, but if the alternative is a No Deal Brexit, I predict they will change their minds. Not all but enough to force another election. This is because in a No Deal Brexit, they can still expect to lose their jobs shortly down the line, they'd be sacrificing the country in order to have a few more months of cushiny jobs for themselves. Would you want to go down in history like that? Chances are enough wouldn't and a new election will take place.

Of course I could be wrong, but who do you hope to be right on the matter?

McHrozni

I think you're underestimating politicians ability to delude themselves that adopting any position that has a whiff of not being pro-Brexit if they represent a constituency that voted Leave will automatically result in them losing their seat to the Brexit Party at the next election.

The confidence vote will also be a three line whip so voting against the party will get the MP kicked out of the party so they're balancing losing their job against their perception that they will keep it.

 

[The Don]

But ruling out a no deal exit does nothing to actually stop it.

Not unless an alternative course of action can be agreed.

 

[KDLarsen]

Today marked the first sitting of the newly elected European Parliament, and the Brexit Party contingency spent little time before showing what a charming lot they are, by turning their backs to the performance of the Anthem of Europe (aka Ode to Joy).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

If it happens, it surely can't happen in time for Scots to stay in the EU.

At least my kids should inherit the option to apply for a Scots passport. Nice to have choices.

 

[McHrozni]

The Conservatives would not vote in favour of a pro-referendum motion because they (rightly IMO) fear that it would imperil Brexit and any Conservative who voted to prevent a no deal Brexit would face a motion of no confidence from their local constituency (which would likely have them out on their ear), would likely be deselected at the next election or be beaten by the Brexit Party.

There may be a handful of retiring MPs who may be willing to take one for the nation but they will be offset buy the 20-50 Labour MPs who don't want a second referendum.

They can also abstain en masse, which is why I think this is still within the realm of possibility.

I'm not so sure what it outdated about this arrangement. The Prime Minister is just the (current) leader of the governing party or coalition.

It doesn't separate legislative and executive branch enough. In more modern system across the channel a change in PM would automatically trigger a confidence vote.

It's to prevent this exact situation from arising.

I think you're underestimating politicians ability to delude themselves that adopting any position that has a whiff of not being pro-Brexit if they represent a constituency that voted Leave will automatically result in them losing their seat to the Brexit Party at the next election.

The confidence vote will also be a three line whip so voting against the party will get the MP kicked out of the party so they're balancing losing their job against their perception that they will keep it.

Maybe. But with a majority of decidedly less than 10 seats in a 650-seat chabmer (proverbial seats, there's only seating for about half the MPs) those don't matter that much. It only takes a small handful of Tory rebels for this to work - Tories plus DUP have 322 seats. Labour, LibDem, CUK, Cymru, SNP and Greens have 304 between them. If they all hold true, Independents break even it takes less than 10% of Tories abstaining, 5% if they break ranks and vote against. That's not impossible.

A few Tory MPs represent Bremain constituencies. BJ is one of them.

McHrozni

 

[Vixen]

Today marked the first sitting of the newly elected European Parliament, and the Brexit Party contingency spent little time before showing what a charming lot they are, by turning their backs to the performance of the Anthem of Europe (aka Ode to Joy).

Openly copying the early Nazi party. Why are we not surprised.