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

[IanS]

Why do you keep obsessing about the highlighted bit ?

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has suggested that a new PM would even attempt to prevent the opposition.

To repeat for the umpteenth time, a vote which says no to a no-deal Brexit simply isn't enough - to actually be effective in preventing a no-deal Brexit it has to, or has to be successfully followed up by a bill to do something else instead and that's where the problem seems to lie - Parliament is happy to say no to a no-deal but cannot decide what to do instead.

A stand alone "no no-deal" bill sails through but has no real power because it still leaves no-deal as a default.

A "no no-deal" + "force the new PM to ask for an extension" bill may pass (though I think it unlikely) but doesn't solve the problem because no-deal is still the default if the EU refuses and extension or nothing changes during the extension period.

The other three options,

• No no deal + force a second referendum
• No no deal + change the default to no Brexit
• No no deal + General Election

All likely don't pass and 2 of the 3 would also require the EU to grant an extension to let them happen - though I could see that the EU would be prepared to let that happen.

In order to secure a no-deal Brexit, all the new Conservative Prime Minister has to to is to stick to his guns and allow Parliament to fail to come to agreement about an alternative course of action.

Well I have explained to you at least 12 times now in this thread why you are wrong (ie according to that article from the barrister) in claiming that a vote against a No Deal would not be enough to prevent the PM forcing a No Deal exit by time default. I've explained that to you many times...

... if you don't believe that explanation, or if you disagree with it, then that's up to you.

But the explanation is (13th or 14th time) that if no other deal is accepted in a majority vote, and IF there is however a majority vote to say that the HoC does not accept a No Deal exit under any circumstance (which is the position we already had from the votes under Mrs May), then the PM will be forced by law to return to the EU and ask for an extension to A50 ... he will NOT be able to simply ignore the No Deal vote and let time expire so as to declare a No Deal exit against the express voted wish of the Hoc ... the point is, that is what was said by the barrister in that link ....

... that's what I am telling you. And for some reason you either fail to understand that, refuse to believe it, or just want to keep arguing for the sake of it.

Now, that opinion of that particular barrister may be wrong. I do not know, and what's more YOU do not know about that either! But, he is at least a specialist in this precise area of EU constitutional law ... and that means his opinion and his explanation is certainly more valid that yours.

If you make a simple Google search then you can actually find qualified people saying the opposite of what the barrister says in that link. Personally I find that less persuasive, because we already had that test of whether or not the PM can ignore a vote in the HoC where MPs have voted to reject any sort of No Deal exit, and Mrs May was in effect forced by law to return to the EU asking for an extension. I think that outcome will probably be the same again for Boris or Hunt (even though some circumstances have changed, eg new PM, and in fact also some changes to the HoC rules on that precise issue, now making it easier for a PM to ignore a No Deal vote) …

… I think the bottom line on that issue is still more likely to be, as that legal link points out, that the overriding consideration will be a test of whether or not the PM is acting in accordance with democracy and in accordance with the voted democratic will of parliament. And clearly the PM will not be doing that if he ignores the democratic will voted to say he must not take us out of the EU without an agreed deal.

 

[The Don]

Well I have explained to you at least 12 times now in this thread why you are wrong (ie according to that article from the barrister) in claiming that a vote against a No Deal would not be enough to prevent the PM forcing a No Deal exit by time default. I've explained that to you many times...

Unless this is a different article than the one I linked a few posts ago, the article only considers whether a new PM can prorogue parliament to achieve a no-deal. It doesn't even attempt to address whether the PM can just let time run its course.

... if you don't believe that explanation, or if you disagree with it, then that's up to you..

It's not a matter of believing or not believing, the article only considers whether the PM can legally prorogue parliament and comes to the conclusion that he almost certainly can not.

But the explanation is (13th or 14th time) that if no other deal is accepted in a majority vote, and IF there is however a majority vote to say that the HoC does not accept a No Deal exit under any circumstance (which is the position we already had from the votes under Mrs May), then the PM will be forced by law to return to the EU and ask for an extension to A50 ... he will NOT be able to simply ignore the No Deal vote and let time expire so as to declare a No Deal exit against the express voted wish of the Hoc ... the point is, that is what was said by the barrister in that link ....

The PM may be compelled to go to the EU and ask for an extension but...

• The EU isn't compelled to grant that request
• The PM isn't compelled to ask for that extension in any particular way
• The PM isn't compelled to accept unconditionally any terms insisted on by the EU. For example, if one of the requirements from the EU is that the UK holds a referendum then that would be against the express wishes of Parliament

... that's what I am telling you. And for some reason you either fail to understand that, refuse to believe it, or just want to keep arguing for the sake of it.

Now, that opinion of that particular barrister may be wrong. I do not know, and what's more YOU do not know about that either! But, he is at least a specialist in this precise area of EU constitutional law ... and that means his opinion and his explanation is certainly more valid that yours.

Unless you're referring to a completely different article to the one you linked, and the one I re-linked a few pages later, the barrister was only looking at whether the PM could legally prorogue parliament.

If you make a simple Google search then you can actually find qualified people saying the opposite of what the barrister says in that link. Personally I find that less persuasive, because we already had that test of whether or not the PM can ignore a vote in the HoC where MPs have voted to reject any sort of No Deal exit, and Mrs May was in effect forced by law to return to the EU asking for an extension. I think that outcome will probably be the same again for Boris or Hunt (even though some circumstances have changed, eg new PM, and in fact also some changes to the HoC rules on that precise issue, now making it easier for a PM to ignore a No Deal vote) …

That link was already provided many pages ago by Jack by the Hedge.

The default is still a no-deal Brexit.

… I think the bottom line on that issue is still more likely to be, as that legal link points out, that the overriding consideration will be a test of whether or not the PM is acting in accordance with democracy and in accordance with the voted democratic will of parliament. And clearly the PM will not be doing that if he ignores the democratic will voted to say he must not take us out of the EU without an agreed deal.

Again, that article was only considering the question of proroguing parliament.


edited to add a link to the article I think you are referring to:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019...rogue-parliament-to-deliver-a-no-deal-brexit/

from that article :

One of the Conservative leadership contenders, Dominic Raab, has said he would prorogue Parliament in order to force a no-deal Brexit. The Speaker has stated that he would not allow this – but prorogation is in the gift of the Queen. Sam Fowles (Cornerstone Barristers) says that asking the monarch to do this is a step that could (and should) be liable to judicial review.

See ? It's about proroguing Parliament.

and the article's conclusion ?

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.

A review such as this would undoubtedly push the boundaries of constitutional law. It must tease out numerous technical and principle issues (I have not begun to discuss the proper remedy, for example). It would, however, be an appropriate response to an extraordinary constitutional moment. It is, indeed, in the heat of such moments that the UK’s evolutionary constitution is forged.

Again, it only considered the question of proroguing Parliament.

 

[Nessie]

I disagree with the notion that it's intended to damage relations between the UK and US.

The reporter who published the leaks is heavily involved with the pro-Brexit crowd (iirc she co-/ghostwrote the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' book with Arron Banks). It's far more likely it's someone who wants to get rid of a troublesome ambassador to the US, potentially allowing Boris Johnson to appoint someone who is far more likely to be in the good graces of trump.

Say, Nigel Farrage, perhaps? After all, he'll be out of a job in 3-and-a-bit months time...

Oh, God no. At this rate, Prince Charles needs to start worrying that he will be dropping a place down the line of succession as NF is lined up to be the next monarch.

It is incredible to watch a small group of people successfully manipulate enough of the population into doing something that only really benefits that small group of people.

 

[McHrozni]

I disagree with the notion that it's intended to damage relations between the UK and US.

The reporter who published the leaks is heavily involved with the pro-Brexit crowd (iirc she co-/ghostwrote the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' book with Arron Banks). It's far more likely it's someone who wants to get rid of a troublesome ambassador to the US, potentially allowing Boris Johnson to appoint someone who is far more likely to be in the good graces of trump.

Say, Nigel Farrage, perhaps? After all, he'll be out of a job in 3-and-a-bit months time...

The said British ambassador was stepping down later this year anyway:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48917307

Second to last paragraph:
Sir Kim, who is an honourable man and was stepping down anyway in a few months, may decide to resign.

Given the ineptitude of Brexiteers this does not rule out the scenario you describe, but it does make it somewhat less likely.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Oh, God no. At this rate, Prince Charles needs to start worrying that he will be dropping a place down the line of succession as NF is lined up to be the next monarch.

NF has for children, so prince Charels may need to get familicidal on the issue.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

OK, well you make that point again. And I've responded to that many times now. So we disagree on part of that.

But in a few weeks time we will have a new PM in place, and we can see what he actually does.

We will see whether he can stop all opposition votes in the HoC, and whether he can simply run down the clock and declare a No Deal exit. Unless MPs allow him to do that by not bothering to vote against a No Deal exit, then as I have explained many times, I think the PM will find he is effectively forced to return to the EU asking for an extension to A50 (that's assuming there is no vote to accept any particular exit plan, or indeed a vote to accept a No Deal exit). So lets just see.

Whatever any of us think or predict, we are about to see what will happen. So lets just wait and see.

But they as has been pointed out many times have to not just vote against no deal but vote for something in such a way that Boris is bound to obey them.

The EU probably isn't going to let you get an extension with out some kind of process to get closer to actually making a real decision on which of the three final outcomes it will be, no brexit, the deal or no deal. And I am not sure the deal can be voted on again.

 

[The Don]

Things seem to be moving pretty quickly today:

Labour has adopted a policy that they will offer a referendum against no deal or a Conservative deal. Of course it wouldn't be Labour if there wasn't a contradiction, their preferred approach is a Labour Brexit and though they will offer a referendum, they will campaign on behalf of the Labour deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48919695

I'm not sure whether it's better or worse. Labour is still fundamentally conflicted on the matter of Brexit with the leadership at odds with the majority of the membership and supporters in still wanting Brexit (albeit a fantasy one in which Brexit is the first step towards establishing a workers' utopia in the UK )

Meanwhile, Conservative remainer Dominic Grieve is trying to stop a no-deal Brexit, or more accurately to prevent Parliament from being prorogued, by proposing amendments to the Northern Ireland bill:

Ps will try to block a no-deal Brexit by attempting to amend the Northern Ireland Bill on Tuesday.

The amendment requires the government to update MPs on the situation in Northern Ireland in the autumn, meaning, in theory, Parliament could not be suspended during this period.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48919695

It makes no attempt to change the default away from no-deal, nor would it lead to a different outcome, it merely attempts to stop Parliament being prorogued.

 

[The Don]

Things seem to be moving pretty quickly today:

Labour has adopted a policy that they will offer a referendum against no deal or a Conservative deal. Of course it wouldn't be Labour if there wasn't a contradiction, their preferred approach is a Labour Brexit and though they will offer a referendum, they will campaign on behalf of the Labour deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48919695

I'm not sure whether it's better or worse. Labour is still fundamentally conflicted on the matter of Brexit with the leadership at odds with the majority of the membership and supporters in still wanting Brexit (albeit a fantasy one in which Brexit is the first step towards establishing a workers' utopia in the UK )

Meanwhile, Conservative remainer Dominic Grieve is trying to stop a no-deal Brexit, or more accurately to prevent Parliament from being prorogued, by proposing amendments to the Northern Ireland bill:

Ps will try to block a no-deal Brexit by attempting to amend the Northern Ireland Bill on Tuesday.

The amendment requires the government to update MPs on the situation in Northern Ireland in the autumn, meaning, in theory, Parliament could not be suspended during this period.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48919695

It makes no attempt to change the default away from no-deal, nor would it lead to a different outcome, it merely attempts to stop Parliament being prorogued.

 

[McHrozni]

Things seem to be moving pretty quickly today:

Labour has adopted a policy that they will offer a referendum against no deal or a Conservative deal. Of course it wouldn't be Labour if there wasn't a contradiction, their preferred approach is a Labour Brexit and though they will offer a referendum, they will campaign on behalf of the Labour deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48919695

I'm not sure whether it's better or worse. Labour is still fundamentally conflicted on the matter of Brexit with the leadership at odds with the majority of the membership and supporters in still wanting Brexit (albeit a fantasy one in which Brexit is the first step towards establishing a workers' utopia in the UK )

It's better. If Labour took the helm today, they would rule out a no deal Brexit and only offer a deal with a referendum between their deal and no Brexit.

That's how things should work in a democracy. You run a referendum based on certain promises and if what you deliver is substantially different from your promises that brough the said referendum to victory you offer a final say.

What you describe is the reason why their position is still nonesensical. You can't get better than WA, no matter how much Corbyn claims the opposite. But it's better than Tory 'policy' by any measure.

McHrozni

 

[Wudang]

Labour has adopted a policy that they will offer a referendum against no deal or a Conservative deal. Of course it wouldn't be Labour if there wasn't a contradiction, their preferred approach is a Labour Brexit and though they will offer a referendum, they will campaign on behalf of the Labour deal.

So if I vote for Labour in the next GE I will again be counted as voting for a Brexit party. No thank you. Actually no, they can **** right off.

 

[The Don]

So if I vote for Labour in the next GE I will again be counted as voting for a Brexit party. No thank you. Actually no, they can **** right off.

That's my view as well.

Not only are they still a Brexit party (despite the vast majority of their members and supporters being pro-Remain), but their vision of Brexit is simply a fantasy. The EU will simply not allow the UK to be in a customs union if the UK is free to negotiate its own trade deals and to subsidise its business to levels beyond what is legal in the EU.

The Labour Corbyn "red lines" are functionally identical to Theresa May's and so the resulting deal will be fundamentally indistinguishable IMO.

 

[lomiller]

It is because this deal is just a step toward new normalized relations and so it does not have all the details of how trade will work, the backstop is such that if negotiations break down and can not be agreed that NI remains within the EU customs union and there is then a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK. If they could negotiate a final deal before this break down it would never come into effect, but it is to make sure there is not a hard irish border as a possibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/what-is-the-brexit-backstop

Of course it seems unlikely that realistic agreements could be made by anyone from the UK at this time to prevent the backstop going into effect but for all everyone agrees they don't want a hard irish border, retaking control of the UK borders was exactly what so many people say the vote was about.

This confirms that the Brexit deal itself isn’t temporary; rather Northern Ireland would remain part of the customs union until the issue of the Irish border is resolved. Deferring a part of a deal doesn’t make the rest of it temporary.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Not only are they still a Brexit party (despite the vast majority of their members and supporters being pro-Remain), but their vision of Brexit is simply a fantasy. The EU will simply not allow the UK to be in a customs union if the UK is free to negotiate its own trade deals and to subsidise its business to levels beyond what is legal in the EU.

The Labour Corbyn "red lines" are functionally identical to Theresa May's and so the resulting deal will be fundamentally indistinguishable IMO.

Precisely. And throw in the fact that the EU has stated, unambiguously, that it won't restart negotiations anyway.

 

[Giordano]

That's my view as well.

Not only are they still a Brexit party (despite the vast majority of their members and supporters being pro-Remain), but their vision of Brexit is simply a fantasy. The EU will simply not allow the UK to be in a customs union if the UK is free to negotiate its own trade deals and to subsidise its business to levels beyond what is legal in the EU.

The Labour Corbyn "red lines" are functionally identical to Theresa May's and so the resulting deal will be fundamentally indistinguishable IMO.

I am an outsider (in Trump hell) but I do follow this thread and I am guessing the the highlighted words don't matter: the policies politicians take on Brexit have nothing to do with function, fundamentals, or reality, just how they might play in public opinion.

 

[The Don]

I am an outsider (in Trump hell) but I do follow this thread and I am guessing the the highlighted words don't matter: the policies politicians take on Brexit have nothing to do with function, fundamentals, or reality, just how they might play in public opinion.

Well there are differences between the Corbyn position and the May position on Brexit specifically:

• Corbyn is more willing to be bound by EU rules - specifically those relating to employee protections
• Corbyn wants to be in a Customs Union whereas May and the Conservatives have specifically ruled it out
• Corbyn is more willing to be bound by the European courts

Despite those apparent considerable differences, because Labour insists on the ability to negotiate trade deals and to heavily subsidise industries then Customs Union membership is a pipe dream.

 

[jimbob]

I disagree with the notion that it's intended to damage relations between the UK and US.

The reporter who published the leaks is heavily involved with the pro-Brexit crowd (iirc she co-/ghostwrote the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' book with Arron Banks). It's far more likely it's someone who wants to get rid of a troublesome ambassador to the US, potentially allowing Boris Johnson to appoint someone who is far more likely to be in the good graces of trump.

Say, Nigel Farrage, perhaps? After all, he'll be out of a job in 3-and-a-bit months time...

I suspect Farage and Johnson are natural rivals as they both aim for the same cultists.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Garage is an opportunist. He will take any scraps Boris throws him.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Garage is an opportunist. He will take any scraps Boris throws him.

But the notion he might be appointed Britain's ambassador to the US is surely fantasy. The UK invariably (so far as I know) appoints senior career diplomats as ambassadors. Such posts are not used as sinecure rewards for politicians.

 

[The Don]

But the notion he might be appointed Britain's ambassador to the US is surely fantasy. The UK invariably (so far as I know) appoints senior career diplomats as ambassadors. Such posts are not used as sinecure rewards for politicians.

True, but we may be morphing towards the US and maybe it will now be a sinecure post to reward friends and/or manage rivals

It could be a cost effective way of spiking the Brexit Party's guns, give Nigel Farage what he wants, influence without responsibility, a nice wad and the ability to make a bunch of side money from grateful donors like Aaron Banks

 

[Jack by the hedge]

True, but we may be morphing towards the US and maybe it will now be a sinecure post to reward friends and/or manage rivals

It could be a cost effective way of spiking the Brexit Party's guns, give Nigel Farage what he wants, influence without responsibility, a nice wad and the ability to make a bunch of side money from grateful donors like Aaron Banks

I can't see it. It would be a step too far. The civil service, and particularly the Foreign Office would be outraged, especially after the way their guy was sabotaged to get him out of the way. Boris would have made deadly enemies of the people he needs to actually do stuff.

If he's going to buy people off in such an obviously corrupt way he might as well appoint Farage as The Ruler of the Queen's Navyyyy and see how that goes down.