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

[Vixen]

Nigel Farage's Brexit Party MEP have all turned their backs whilst the EU anthem, Ode to Joy, was playing. Shockingly disrespectful.

According to SKYNews, Farage explains it as thus:


'He says it's "disrespectful" of the president of the European Parliament to refer to the EU as a "nation".'

Perhaps Farage would like to change the anthem to 'the Dambusters'.

Apparently Goebbels did the same thing.

Here, Nazi Party deputies turn their backs on the speaker in the Berlin Reichstag, 1926. Joseph Goebbels can be seen writing on the bench of the person sitting behind him.

Quite.

Then there are the LibDem MEP's wearing orange 'Stop Brexit' shirts'. Maybe they thought the 'bollocks' word was too much.

 

[The Don]

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

Abstention would be functionally identical as far as Brexiteers are concerned and so an abstaining MP would have the same fate as one placing a positive vote.

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.

The Prime Minister isn't part of the executive branch, they are in effect the head of the legislative branch.

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.

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

McHrozni

Yes, I know, it would only take a few Conservatives to vote against the government or abstain in a no-confidence motion but I think there will literally be a handful who would even consider it given that the result of doing so would be to be kicked out of the party, and if not likely deselected, either of which would likely result in the end of career.

Even if the Tory represent a remain constituency, their constituency party will be ardently pro-Brexit.

 

[McHrozni]

Abstention would be functionally identical as far as Brexiteers are concerned and so an abstaining MP would have the same fate as one placing a positive vote.

Maybe. Maybe not. You also have more than just Brexiteers to consider.

The Prime Minister isn't part of the executive branch, they are in effect the head of the legislative branch.

They're in effect both. That is what I'm talking about. Plus if the head of the properly separate legislative branch changes, we hold a vote by default too.

Yes, I know, it would only take a few Conservatives to vote against the government or abstain in a no-confidence motion but I think there will literally be a handful who would even consider it given that the result of doing so would be to be kicked out of the party, and if not likely deselected, either of which would likely result in the end of career.

Even if the Tory represent a remain constituency, their constituency party will be ardently pro-Brexit.

In a normal situation, yes. Definitely. But this situation is anything but normal. Stranger things have happened than a dozen people out of 300 putting the country before their own self-interest. It's not like they'll die or something.

McHrozni

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Apparently Goebbels did the same thing.

Though that's somewhat watered down when commenters in your link point out that so did a broad range of other people protesting stuff.

 

[The Don]

Maybe. Maybe not. You also have more than just Brexiteers to consider.

Not in the context of the Conservative Party you don't - the Conservative Party is overwhelmingly in favour of a no-deal Brexit and the vast majority of Conservative MPs face two main threats:

- being deselected
- being beaten by the Brexit Party (either directly or by splitting the Leave vote)

Doing anything other than enthusiastically supporting Brexit would increase the risk of those two things happening IMO.

They're in effect both. That is what I'm talking about. Plus if the head of the properly separate legislative branch changes, we hold a vote by default too.

Do they really ?

My knowledge of European legislatures is poor but I don't get the impression that for most European countries there is a national election in the event that the leader of the governing party or coalition changes ? If the governing coalition falls apart, sure, another election.

In a normal situation, yes. Definitely. But this situation is anything but normal. Stranger things have happened than a dozen people out of 300 putting the country before their own self-interest. It's not like they'll die or something.

McHrozni

Sure it's not impossible but so far they haven't done so when the matter they were voting on was far more mundane.

 

[McHrozni]

Not in the context of the Conservative Party you don't - the Conservative Party is overwhelmingly in favour of a no-deal Brexit

The Conservative Party is overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in power and are ghastly afraid of losing it if they don't deliever Brexit.
That's my reading of the poll anyway.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye

By the way, do you remember my notes about Tory self-selection the other day?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-boris-johnson-ukip-jeremy-hunt-a8978206.html

"More than three-quarters of members who joined after 2017 general election back crashing out of EU with no agreement"

Former UKIP members/supported flooded into the Tory ranks over the past 18 months. That's why there's so much support for hard Brexit among them. Without those vermin the support would be still significant, but far more moderate still.

Do they really ?

My knowledge of European legislatures is poor but I don't get the impression that for most European countries there is a national election in the event that the leader of the governing party or coalition changes ? If the governing coalition falls apart, sure, another election.

If you change any role that requires parliamentary approval, the parliament votes again to confirm it. It may be just a formality, but you can't change a minister, a prime minister or anyone else without a vote of the body they preside over.

It seems like a fairly obvious minimal standard to me.

Sure it's not impossible but so far they haven't done so when the matter they were voting on was far more mundane.

The situation was a tad less desperate too. There is a real possibility EU will not grant a third extension without a promise of a referendum to settle the matter. Faced with No Deal or Second Referendum, Parliament might accept the Second Referendum.

Irony is indeed strong with all things Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

The Conservative Party is overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in power and are ghastly afraid of losing it if they don't deliever Brexit.
That's my reading of the poll anyway.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye

By the way, do you remember my notes about Tory self-selection the other day?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-boris-johnson-ukip-jeremy-hunt-a8978206.html

"More than three-quarters of members who joined after 2017 general election back crashing out of EU with no agreement"

Former UKIP members/supported flooded into the Tory ranks over the past 18 months. That's why there's so much support for hard Brexit among them. Without those vermin the support would be still significant, but far more moderate still.

True, but we are where we are with a governing party firmly in favour of a no-deal Brexit and the biggest threat to most MPs livelihood coming from the members of that party and/or a party with an even greater desire for a no deal Brexit.

If you change any role that requires parliamentary approval, the parliament votes again to confirm it. It may be just a formality, but you can't change a minister, a prime minister or anyone else without a vote of the body they preside over.

It seems like a fairly obvious minimal standard to me.

Ministers and cabinet ministers change all the time in legislations all around the world without the need of a confirmatory vote AFAIK.

The situation was a tad less desperate too. There is a real possibility EU will not grant a third extension without a promise of a referendum to settle the matter. Faced with No Deal or Second Referendum, Parliament might accept the Second Referendum.

Irony is indeed strong with all things Brexit.

McHrozni

Maybe. What I think (fear ?) is more likely is that a series of bills will narrowly fail to pass which will result in the default no-deal Brexit

 

[The Don]

I know it will be written off as the Remoanings of Project Fear but the chancellor of the exchequer is putting the cost of a no-deal Brexit at up to £90bn.

Chancellor Philip Hammond has signalled he would be prepared to vote against a no-deal Brexit in Parliament, claiming it could cost the UK up to £90bn.

Leaving the EU without a legal agreement would be the "wrong" policy and cause a huge "hit" to the public finances, he told MPs.

He said it was "highly unlikely" he would still be in his job after Theresa May stands down next month.

That appears to be the impact on the government finances, the impact on the wider economy would be orders of magnitude higher....

"But let me go further - the government's analysis suggests that in a disruptive no-deal exit there will be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90bn. That will also have to be factored in to future spending and tax decisions."

The Treasury has previously said a no-deal exit could lead to a £80bn spike in borrowing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48841908

 

[IanS]

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.

Well just re. the first highlight - parliament have agreed (in several votes iirc) that the majority want to rule out a No Deal exit. One of those votes was very close (only a difference of about 4, iirc ... I think others were much wider?).

However, in all those votes that we saw in the HoC earlier this year, there was a lot of tactical voting going on, so that many of the votes looked much closer than they might be if it came down to something like No Deal as the only option. That is - if Boris or Hunt tried to rule out all other options except a No Deal exit, then you might very well find a pretty big vote against that in the HoC.

On the other points about the EU running out of patience and refusing any further extensions - I agree that might happen in the end. However, by that stage the new PM would have shown to everyone that he was/is no more capable than Mrs May in getting any kind of agreement in the HoC, and afaik under those circumstances it's more likely that MPs would call for either a new referendum, or a General Election (e.g. vote of No Confidence in the PM), or else simply revoking A50 altogether (i.e. "more likely" than MPs simply allowing a No Deal exit by default of deliberately running out of time etc.).

 

[IanS]

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.



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

If you read that article, the reason the lawyer is focusing on the threat made by Dominic Raab to prorogue parliament, is because attempting to leave by default on 31st Oct through refusing to allow time for MPs in the HoC to vote against the PM, would in effect result in the need for that formal step of asking the Queen to “prorogue” parliament (which she would almost certainly refuse upon legal and constitional advice).

If Boris or Hunt tried to do it without the prorogue of parliament, i.e. by denying any time for opposition votes to prevent their No Deal exit, then that would be blocked by the Speaker of the House (because, apparently, he has already said he would block any move/tactic like that).

IOW ; the reason why the lawyer in that link is focusing on that question of proroguing parliament, is because that tactic of refusing MPs any opportunity to vote blocking such an automatic No Deal exit, comes down precisely to that need to formally prorogue the parliament.

From the same link -

It is almost certainly beyond the power of the Prime Minster to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate the will of that same Parliament. It is also arguably outside the scope of the Queen’s prerogative power to exercise it so as to frustrate the will of Parliament

The core of the issue is the exclusion of Parliament from a matter of historic constitutional importance. The harm at which a review would take aim is not simply the frustration of Parliament’s will, but the fact that Parliament will be prevented from establishing a position at all.

The act of advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament would also, likely, be reviewable on the “bad faith” ground. The Prime Minister has a duty to exercise her powers in good faith (see*R(C) v Secretary of State for Health [2000] 1 FCR 471*at 23). Advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament so to prevent it from frustrating the Prime Minister’s agenda cannot possibly be considered a good faith exercise of the power. There may be other grounds for review, but these seem to be the leading contenders.


I am not saying that PM-Boris or PM-Hunt could not possibly find a way to force a No Deal exit. What I am saying is that, according to legal advice such as the above, opposition MPs have a clear way to stop that ... and it's a way in which they are very well versed, because they already had to use it least twice against Mrs May.

Also as a Footnote - I was just reminded today (on the BBC pages, iirc) that the reason why this idea of forcing a No Deal exit is getting so much news at the moment, is because Boris, Hunt and before that Dominic Raab, are of course making speeches to the 150,000 paid-up members of local Conservative parties who are the ones who will vote for the new PM ... and whereas recent polls have apparently shown (according to BBC news) that support amongst the general public/voters for a No Deal exit is only around the 20% level, within those 150,000 conservatives who Boris and Hunt are appealing to, support for a No Deal exit is as high as 80%. ….

…. so that's something to keep in mind when we listen to Boris and Hunt being so bullish about how they will force a No Deal exit if necessary.

 

[The Don]

Well just re. the first highlight - parliament have agreed (in several votes iirc) that the majority want to rule out a No Deal exit. One of those votes was very close (only a difference of about 4, iirc ... I think others were much wider?).

However, in all those votes that we saw in the HoC earlier this year, there was a lot of tactical voting going on, so that many of the votes looked much closer than they might be if it came down to something like No Deal as the only option. That is - if Boris or Hunt tried to rule out all other options except a No Deal exit, then you might very well find a pretty big vote against that in the HoC.

On the other points about the EU running out of patience and refusing any further extensions - I agree that might happen in the end. However, by that stage the new PM would have shown to everyone that he was/is no more capable than Mrs May in getting any kind of agreement in the HoC, and afaik under those circumstances it's more likely that MPs would call for either a new referendum, or a General Election (e.g. vote of No Confidence in the PM), or else simply revoking A50 altogether (i.e. "more likely" than MPs simply allowing a No Deal exit by default of deliberately running out of time etc.).

But see, that's the thing. It doesn't matter how badly a no-deal Brexit motion is defeated, unless an alternative course of action is agreed, that's what we get by default.

IMO the alternatives to a no-deal Brexit (in order of descending likelihood) are:

• A deal
• A second referendum between two types of Brexit
• A second referendum involving no-Brexit as an option
• Revocation of Article 50

Assuming that EU sticks to their guns and refuses to renegotiate the deal or remove the backstop and that the two major parties keep their respective "red lines" then any deal will bear a startling resemblance to Theresa May's deal. Given that IMO this is the most likely non-no-deal outcome and it's failed to get passed 3 times, I think the other three options have a vanishingly small likelihood.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But see, that's the thing. It doesn't matter how badly a no-deal Brexit motion is defeated, unless an alternative course of action is agreed, that's what we get by default.

IMO the alternatives to a no-deal Brexit (in order of descending likelihood) are:

• A deal
• A second referendum between two types of Brexit
• A second referendum involving no-Brexit as an option
• Revocation of Article 50

Assuming that EU sticks to their guns and refuses to renegotiate the deal or remove the backstop and that the two major parties keep their respective "red lines" then any deal will bear a startling resemblance to Theresa May's deal. Given that IMO this is the most likely non-no-deal outcome and it's failed to get passed 3 times, I think the other three options have a vanishingly small likelihood.

Strictly speaking a second referendum doesn't actually change any of the options, they are basiclly May's deal, no deal or no brexit. All the referendum does it give you some political cover for the decision.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well just re. the first highlight - parliament have agreed (in several votes iirc) that the majority want to rule out a No Deal exit. One of those votes was very close (only a difference of about 4, iirc ... I think others were much wider?).

However, in all those votes that we saw in the HoC earlier this year, there was a lot of tactical voting going on, so that many of the votes looked much closer than they might be if it came down to something like No Deal as the only option. That is - if Boris or Hunt tried to rule out all other options except a No Deal exit, then you might very well find a pretty big vote against that in the HoC.

So what? How does their voting against no deal prevent it? They need to choose an outcome not just keep rejecting things. Is this vote against no deal going to be a vote for May's deal or revoking article 50?

 

[Vixen]

Though that's somewhat watered down when commenters in your link point out that so did a broad range of other people protesting stuff.

...yep...like UKIP five years ago.

 

[GlennB]

So what? How does their voting against no deal prevent it? They need to choose an outcome not just keep rejecting things.

Yep. The HoC can vote for a positive, but voting to reject a negative won't stop a Halloween Brexit.

 

[catsmate]

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!

For a while. In the years or so I suspect mines and concertina wire will be needed.

 

[McHrozni]

If you read that article, the reason the lawyer is focusing on the threat made by Dominic Raab to prorogue parliament, is because attempting to leave by default on 31st Oct through refusing to allow time for MPs in the HoC to vote against the PM, would in effect result in the need for that formal step of asking the Queen to “prorogue” parliament (which she would almost certainly refuse upon legal and constitional advice).

And if you read my responses they involve HoC making all sorts of votes on just about anything.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

True, but we are where we are with a governing party firmly in favour of a no-deal Brexit and the biggest threat to most MPs livelihood coming from the members of that party and/or a party with an even greater desire for a no deal Brexit.

Look a little beyond the headline and you find this:

Why are Tories so adamant to see Brexit throug.

It's from the same poll that concluded the party is strongly pro-Brexit. Party members are firmly convinced a second referendum or Bremain will see their party out of power for a while, permanently even, by 10 to 1 margin. They break 58-42 that leaving with no deal will see their power continue and 62-38 that leaving with a deal (to their liking) will see their power continue though.

Given these results I'm not at all certain they're so fanatically pro-Brexit as the polla makes them seem. It may be they're just pro-power and see a no-deal Brexit as the way to achieve that power.

Ministers and cabinet ministers change all the time in legislations all around the world without the need of a confirmatory vote AFAIK.

That's one notch down and furthermore, in a government of coalition parties the new minister will have to be acceptable at least to those coalition parties. There may also be a confirmatory vote for cabinet members, which would be a formality.

But becoming a prime minister in the manner BJ is attempting to? No.

Maybe. What I think (fear ?) is more likely is that a series of bills will narrowly fail to pass which will result in the default no-deal Brexit

We'll see. If that happens UK deserves what shall follow.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Well just re. the first highlight - parliament have agreed (in several votes iirc) that the majority want to rule out a No Deal exit. One of those votes was very close (only a difference of about 4, iirc ... I think others were much wider?).

However, in all those votes that we saw in the HoC earlier this year, there was a lot of tactical voting going on, so that many of the votes looked much closer than they might be if it came down to something like No Deal as the only option. That is - if Boris or Hunt tried to rule out all other options except a No Deal exit, then you might very well find a pretty big vote against that in the HoC.

Voting against a No Deal Brexit doesn't give you anything. You have to vote for an ammendment that does something else.

On the other points about the EU running out of patience and refusing any further extensions - I agree that might happen in the end. However, by that stage the new PM would have shown to everyone that he was/is no more capable than Mrs May in getting any kind of agreement in the HoC, and afaik under those circumstances it's more likely that MPs would call for either a new referendum, or a General Election (e.g. vote of No Confidence in the PM), or else simply revoking A50 altogether (i.e. "more likely" than MPs simply allowing a No Deal exit by default of deliberately running out of time etc.).

It increases the likelyhood, that much is true. I also think when push comes to shove, HoC will pass something, anything, that will prevent a no deal Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Various nuggets of Brexit news:

Tesco are saying that their planning for Brexit is being hampered (if you'll excuse the pun ) by the fact that their warehouses will be full of Christmas stock:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48844351

Teaching of foreign languages, especially German, in underprivileged areas is suffering as parents say that they will be less important be required post-Brexit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48830260

In Scotland, firms are putting off investment because of Brexit-related increases in material and labour costs and due to uncertainty over the Brexit process itself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotl...uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story