UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

[Werthead]

The story today is that the Queen might have to intervene and call on the Prime Minister to resign if he chose not to go in accordance with procedure. Those two events would cause a major constitutional crisis in the UK, even moreso than what we have had so far.

[Gaston de Foix]

I think the focus on a no-confidence vote is misconceived and dangerous.  What Parliament needs to do is re-enact the Yvette Cooper bill that instructs the government to seek an Art. 50 extension.  But this time the Bill should also take no deal off the table, permanently.  All the alternative paths fail, for reasons I'll give below. 

1. no confidence vote: this has been the operating assumption for most of the political class, no doubt because that's what Corbyn wants/ is likely to do.  It's a bad idea for two reasons. Tory MPs are less likely to support a no-confidence motion against a Tory Prime Minister (particularly when the possibility of a last minute deal cannot be ruled out) than they are to take no-deal off the table.  The Tories and the DUP still have a majority in Parliament.  And a successful no-confidence vote does not actually forestall a no-deal Brexit since Boris Johnson could simply call a general election after 31 October and head for a no-deal Brexit on the basis of the existing law. There is a constitutional convention against "major policy decisions" during the period preceding a general election but such conventions are not legally enforceable and it is at least arguable that no further decision is actually being taken. 

2. Art. 50 withdrawal/a second referendum/Norway terms/your favorite Brexit solution:  These options fail for a simple reason.  They've been tested and there isn't a majority in Parliament for any of them.  

3. A House of Commons resolution against No-Deal Brexit.  This is politically feasible but not effective. The BoJo government is only required to act in terms of the law (not subsequent acts by the

4.  A Government of national unity/legal action/The Queen intervenes etc:  fanciful scenarios are being invented on the assumption that BoJo loses a confidence vote and refuses to resign or that someone else can command a parliamentary majority for the limited purpose of blocking no deal Brexit and then calling an election.  This is not impossible but is very unlikely.  Any such government would have to coalesce around a Prime Minister (who could not be Corbyn to have the backing of any Tory MPs).  And they would have to do so in 14 days and prove their support to the Queen before she appointed her or him.  But there is no such figurehead and even the few individuals who could command such a confidence (Clarke, Letwin) have no shown no intention of wanting to do so.  

The root of the problem is that no-deal Brexit is the legal default, despite a clear majority of Parliament opposing it.  Attempting to overthrow the government won't change that.  The only reason Boris can threaten to act the way he is because his opponents are divided.  Any Tory MP voting no-confidence on a Tory government can kiss their careers in that party goodbye.

By contrast, a Cooper Bill 2.0 can pass in the House of Commons and Lords in a matter of days.  Once it is the law, the government has no choice but to act in accordance with its terms.  Unlike Theresa May, there is little doubt Boris will call an election and go to the country to seek a mandate to no-deal Brexit.  And then the country will decide.

The truth is that division into 'Leave' and 'Remain', or 'Labour' and 'Tory' camps ultimately strengthens Boris and Dominic Cummings.  The only path to reason, compromise and national interest is to unify around the simple, clear message of no-deal.  Leo Varadkar rightly pointed out yesterday that Brexit is not an event but a process that involves a fundamental transformation of Britain's relationship with the EU.  The first item on the post no deal Brexit agenda will be the backstop, the UK's liabilities and the future trade relationship. The no-deal Brexiteers will crow they have undone the original sin of agreeing to the withdrawal agreement before settling future relationship.  But any future trade relationship will take years to negotiate, in part because the British government has no idea what it wants.  A no-deal Brexit only solves the domestic political problem of so many in Britain demanding to leave but not knowing where they want to go....

[john]

Johnson could also call an election before such a bill had a chance to be voted on.  Then just delay the date and it’s no deal.

[SeanF]

If the Commons does not want Brexit to go ahead, then it either has to:-

1. Revoke A50

2.  Pass a VONC in the government.

So far, it's obvious that most MP's 1. would like to revoke A50, but they don't have the guts to actually step up to the mark, and 2. They don't wan't Corbyn as PM, and/or are fearful they'd lose their seats at an ensuing general elections. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the Commons does not want Brexit to go ahead, then it either has to:-

1. Revoke A50

2.  Pass a VONC in the government.

So far, it's obvious that most MP's 1. would like to revoke A50, but they don't have the guts to actually step up to the mark, and 2. They don't wan't Corbyn as PM, and/or are fearful they'd lose their seats at an ensuing general elections. 

In a better world, Corbyn would make a hand shake agreement to resign if this went through, allowing for a more palatable member of his party to become the new PM. 

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I think the focus on a no-confidence vote is misconceived and dangerous.  What Parliament needs to do is re-enact the Yvette Cooper bill that instructs the government to seek an Art. 50 extension.  But this time the Bill should also take no deal off the table, permanently.  All the alternative paths fail, for reasons I'll give below. 

 

My understanding of the situation is that parliament can't do that, unless within the Bill there is an automatic triggering of withdrawing Art. 50 if the deadline arrives and no WA has been passed. If Art. 50 stays in place Brexit happens automatically on the deadline if no action is taken. If you have a Brexit date that cannot be moved (again) 1 of 3 things must happen on or before that date:

1. A withdrawal agreement is put in place.

2. no-Deal Brexit.

3. Art. 50 is withdrawn (UK remains, for the time being).

Most people think option 3 is out of the question. So that leaves 1 or 2.

There are people who advocate for option 4: ongoing extensions. They say why not keep kicking the can down the road as long as it doesn't damage the road? But I think there's no real appetite for that either on the UK or the EU side.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

If the Commons does not want Brexit to go ahead, then it either has to:-

1. Revoke A50

2.  Pass a VONC in the government.

So far, it's obvious that most MP's 1. would like to revoke A50, but they don't have the guts to actually step up to the mark, and 2. They don't wan't Corbyn as PM, and/or are fearful they'd lose their seats at an ensuing general elections. 

A VONC does not stop no-deal Brexit, but it may put someone in charge who can stop it.

The fundamental thing is that the leaders of both the major parties are Brexiteers, they just have different opinions on what makes for a good Brexit. So how do you stop no-deal if the leaders of both major parties might prefer it to remaining? Boris openly and proudly prefers it, Corbyn might just secretly prefer it. From where I sit, Corbyn's actions (or lack thereof) seem to indicate he's not willing to do what it takes to prevent no-Deal. He says a bunch of stuff, but saying is not doing.

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, john said:

Johnson could also call an election before such a bill had a chance to be voted on.  Then just delay the date and it’s no deal.

Unless he loses a vote of no confidence he would need 2/3 of Parliament to back any snap general election.

[john]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Unless he loses a vote of no confidence he would need 2/3 of Parliament to back any snap general election.

Well, true. That’d be something though, MPs voting against an election, essentially backing the government, so they could possibly vote in a motion defying the government. Which would probably have to be heard in one of the emergency Bercow sessions. It’s like a red crayon scribbling all over procedure. Crazyness.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

By contrast, a Cooper Bill 2.0 can pass in the House of Commons and Lords in a matter of days.  Once it is the law, the government has no choice but to act in accordance with its terms.  Unlike Theresa May, there is little doubt Boris will call an election and go to the country to seek a mandate to no-deal Brexit.  And then the country will decide.

Morning.

A few things there.

I'd genuinely wouldn't put it past Pfeffel and his cabinet to simply ignore a legislation that he doesn't like, and will follow thru on his no-deal policy. Would he be in contempt of parliament? Yes. Would he create another constitutional crisis? Most certainly. You get the idea.

Anyway, I came across a video of Dominic Grieve given his assessment of where things are (going). It's 30 mins of your life, but 30 mins well invested. It is obviously from mid July. But he also addresses a few of the issues currently discussed in here.

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting summary of worst(?) case scenario of no-deal.

Not sure I share the optimism that parliament will step in an do something about it.

 

[Maithanet]

More and more hard Brexit is reminding me of the lead-up to the Japanese decision to go to war with the USA in 1941. 

 - Small minority that is firmly convinced this is 100% the right decision

 - Virtually everyone else thinks it's a bad idea, but for various reasons are unwilling to unite and wholeheartedly oppose a disastrous plan. 

 - Fantastical hopes that the royal family will save the day.

 - Politicians hoping to "run out the clock" in spite of the worst case scenario already being the default option.

[Zorral]

Hope the voters of the UK are prepared to be plucked and sucked dry by the massive forces of the US Market ....

 

[redriver]

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Hope the voters of the UK are prepared to be plucked and sucked dry by the massive forces of the US Market ....

 

They are prepared for a nice free trade deal because the USA is a nice country with a nice president.

[Gaston de Foix]

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Morning.

A few things there.

I'd genuinely wouldn't put it past Pfeffel and his cabinet to simply ignore a legislation that he doesn't like, and will follow thru on his no-deal policy. Would he be in contempt of parliament? Yes. Would he create another constitutional crisis? Most certainly. You get the idea.

Anyway, I came across a video of Dominic Grieve given his assessment of where things are (going). It's 30 mins of your life, but 30 mins well invested. It is obviously from mid July. But he also addresses a few of the issues currently discussed in here.

Thanks. Dominic Grieve is a voice in the wilderness. 

Mark Elliott has a good explanation up today of the legal basis for Parliament to stop no deal: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can-parliament-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit/

It's just a profoundly sad moment to be British.  Trump and Pompeo's bullshit notwithstanding, Congress is unlikely to ratify any trade deal with the UK in this current anti-trade climate.  Just look at the uncertain fate of USMCA. 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Everything about Brexit is a horrible mess - the media, the lies, the referendum, the snap election, the nonexistent plan, the negotiations, the deadlocked parliament, the opposition and Boris Johnson's haircut.

I wonder, however, if the legislative work around Article 50 isn't the very worst of it all. It gave the government a carte blanche to interpret Brexit, which it did horribly. It had no failsafe mechanism to make sure the UK didn't leave without a deal. It did not require any additional referendum on the final deal. It was triggered far too early, without anyone having an idea what the withdrawal agreement, let alone the future relationship with the EU, should look like. 

Was it really that inconceivable that the government would, within 2 years, fail to negotiate a deal that would get parliamentary approval? Was it really a smart move to let the default result be a no-deal Brexit?

I'm an engineer, and we often analyse potential risks using failure mode and effects analysis. This is basically a fancy way of asking the question "what could possibly go wrong?". I feel that, before plunging ahead with what is possibly the most important change of the UK's status in the world since the last world war, it would have been prudent to ask that question. 

[Gaston de Foix]

25 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I'm an engineer, and we often analyse potential risks using failure mode and effects analysis. This is basically a fancy way of asking the question "what could possibly go wrong?". I feel that, before plunging ahead with what is possibly the most important change of the UK's status in the world since the last world war, it would have been prudent to ask that question. 

If we had more engineers in the House of Commons, I'm sure the outcome would be different! There are currently 7 "architects, engineers, and surveyors" in the HoC (not sure why three separate professions have been classed together). 

[Heartofice]

45 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Everything about Brexit is a horrible mess - the media, the lies, the referendum, the snap election, the nonexistent plan, the negotiations, the deadlocked parliament, the opposition and Boris Johnson's haircut.

I wonder, however, if the legislative work around Article 50 isn't the very worst of it all. It gave the government a carte blanche to interpret Brexit, which it did horribly. It had no failsafe mechanism to make sure the UK didn't leave without a deal. It did not require any additional referendum on the final deal. It was triggered far too early, without anyone having an idea what the withdrawal agreement, let alone the future relationship with the EU, should look like. 

Was it really that inconceivable that the government would, within 2 years, fail to negotiate a deal that would get parliamentary approval? Was it really a smart move to let the default result be a no-deal Brexit?

 

I mean, why would anyone even want to leave the EU. It's inconceivable. 

[Gaston de Foix]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean, why would anyone even want to leave the EU. It's inconceivable. 

The professed logic was that the UK could have all the privileges of the EU (the single market) without the responsibilities (contributing to the EU budget, regulation, free movement). It was thought German car manufacturers would persuade Merkel to bully the EU into accepting these terms.  

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Thanks. Dominic Grieve is a voice in the wilderness. 

Mark Elliott has a good explanation up today of the legal basis for Parliament to stop no deal: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can-parliament-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit/

It's just a profoundly sad moment to be British.  Trump and Pompeo's bullshit notwithstanding, Congress is unlikely to ratify any trade deal with the UK in this current anti-trade climate.  Just look at the uncertain fate of USMCA. 

Intersting, but, with a bit more detail in the legislative option, all avenues outlined in that article are the same as what the hivemind here deduced to be the only possible options for avoiding no-deal.