Brexit On The Brink...

[Scooter]

The Queen can't really be faulted here; the scheduling of parliamentary sessions is within the PM's purview by longstanding convention, and to deny prorogation would have been the greater constitutional no-no. But using it for partisan political advantage, as Johnson has done, risks bringing the Sovereign into disrepute. Stephen Harper took the same route by asking Canada's Governor General to prorogue Parliament only weeks after an election, when facing a non-confidence vote that he would have surely lost, with what looked to be a viable alternative ministry ready to take power. The GG showed her displeasure by keeping him waiting for an hour when he came for an audience, and then stretching that audience out for two hours, causing him to cancel the remainder of his schedule for the day. In the end the request was granted, but he got the message. I hope the Queen gave Johnson's nose a similar tweak.

[Big RR]

Scooter and Andy--Thanks for the primer, it is a system with a lot of procedures and rules that I don't understand. But if the monarch or regent's approval is just a rubber stamp, other than for tradition, why is it sought at all? To spread out the blame?

And FWIW, if the Queen had told Johnson "No" and refused to participate in this, what do you think the reaction would have been?

[Scooter]

I think that calling it a rubber stamp suggests that the royal power is not real; it most certainly is, but constitutional convention dictates that it be exercised on the advice of her ministers, most usually in the person of the Prime Minister. But that presumes that the Prime Minister is also operating within the confines of constitutional convention. If the Prime Minister were to brazenly flout that convention, such as by asking that Parliament be dissolved without also seeking new elections (i.e. making himself a dictator) it would be the Queen's duty, as the guarantor of the constitution, to reject his advice.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And FWIW, if the Queen had told Johnson "No" and refused to participate in this, what do you think the reaction would have been?

I had pretty much that discussion with my wife yesterday - and I think the country, like us, would be split 50:50. My wife thinks HM should have shown some spine - "No fucking way, Boris!" or words to that effect. No matter how much I hate what he has done, it would be - to me, anyway - a worse constitutional crisis if she had gone against what her PM, who, however appointed, is supposed to be the legal representative of the people. But I think I would have found it in my heart to forgive her.

[BoSoxGal]

[Gob]

Cameron asked the EU for chnages and they laughed at him. There was a referendum, politicians said they'd respect the answer, HMG spent £9m posting us all a pamphlet on how bad leaving the EU would be, the MSM where all pro EU & supported project fear, anyone wanting to leave the EU where automatically labelled right wing & yet the majority still voted to leave.

Three years later and the losers are still trying to overturn the democratic vote despite a GE where 80% of the votes went to parties whose manifests pledged to respect the referendum result, and the following 2019 MEP elections where won by a party a few months old who's sole aim was to leave the EU.

Democracy was served. Anti-democratic MPs have sabotaged Brexit for the last three years and sided with foreign powers against the democratically expressed will of the British people. Throwing a hissy fit because their duplicity is laid bare is neither here nor there.

I hope that we have an election soon so that we can find out what the electorate thinks of the situation....that might shatter a few illusions!

The bottom line is that of the 5 weeks, three are a recess anyway and the suspension is usual and in recent years has been one week. So it is not about some breakdown of democracy it is Johnson stretching one week to two.

And what is denied to MPs by this? Corbyn has had 3 years to do something and has chosen to basically do nothing apart from oppose every option that is open (he has not supported any option put on the table). So all we lose is one more week of nothing.

Johnson has played a fantastic move by throwing the remainers a new thing to get outraged about which they are all jumping at, just as he wanted.

[ex-khobar Andy]

HIndsight is wonderful, of course, but May should have tried to get Corbyn on board long before she did, and when she did try she was excoriated by the rest of the Tory faithful. Look, I am 90% opposed to Brexit: I can see why it has some attractions to some, and of course I am not close to it. But I am 99% opposed to this mindless no deal Brexit. Back in the 60s I was opposed to joining the Common Market as we called it then, and when de Gaulle said "Non!" I said "Merci, mate." But in 1975 I voted for continuing within the Market.

It's useful to remember that the Labour cabinet under Harold Wilson were split on the issue in 1975 and campaigned on both sides. It did not seem odd that it was not a straight party vote and perhaps in those days, only 30 years after the end of the war, the idea of a national (as opposed to party-based) approach to addressing a national issue was not difficult to understand.

It would have been appropriate if, a few days after the referendum, the parties (government and opposition) had sat down together to work out a common approach to administering and achieving Brexit. Churchill and Attlee (opposition leader before the war) got on famously during the war, not least because Churchill had the foresight to give Attlee a real and important job. The rest was (literally) history.

Johnson has lied and lied and lied. What he did is not 'fantastic' (well I suppose literally it is the stuff of fantasy which is unrelated to truth) - he said over and over again that proroguing Parliament and a no deal Brexit were one in a million chance. His cabinet, who seem to be as much in denial as their counterparts over the Atlantic, have also stated unequivocally that there would not be a suspension of Parliament. He lied (and of course we know that he was twice fired as a journalist for making shit up - aka lying) so it should not have been a surprise. Welcome to the new normal.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Still making stuff up -

[liberty]

What is the big deal over leaving the EU it is just a club that is in the business of telling people how to wipe their ass? It does not contribute to the defense of the EU member states or protect the borders of the EU. It not a federation or even a confederation; if the Brits don’t like being out of the club they can always rejoin. But if they rejoin do they get to wear funny hats?

[Lord Jim]

Lib, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that based on that post that just maybe this isn't a topic you've spent a lot of time researching or given a whole lot of thought to....(And I say that as Brexit supporter...)

But whether one supports or opposes Brexit, I have to say that I find all the pearl clutching (including by John Major, a fellow for whom I have a lot of respect) about the amount of time Parliament has for additional debate on the subject being reduced by one week to be somewhat heavy on histrionics and hyperbole, ( people like Corbyn are making it sound like the death knell for British democracy ) and light on substance...

As I pointed out earlier, Brexit is hardly a topic that has been wanting for Parliamentary debate. For three years it has been debated pretty much nonstop, and numerous votes have been taken on every possible course of action (and course of inaction) and not once has Parliament managed to even come close to mustering a majority for any proposal.

What is the argument? That despite this sorry record, if only Parliament were afforded one additional week they would somehow magically reach some consensus?

That seems pretty disingenuous to me...

One can certainly argue that making this move, (given how little is affected by it) was political grandstanding on Johnson's part, but in looking at the over-top-rhetoric being employed by his political opponents, in the political grandstanding department it looks to me like Boris has lots of company...

[Gob]

Back in the 60s I was opposed to joining the Common Market as we called it then, and when de Gaulle said "Non!" I said "Merci, mate." But in 1975 I voted for continuing within the Market.

If it had remained a "common market" I would be wholly supportive of it. But now with "ever closer union", I am vehemently opposed.

[rubato]

... The wrong question cannot generate the right answer. ... /quote]

3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Pynchon


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And the roiling tumult continues:

Brexit: Boris Johnson defeated as MPs take control

Tory rebels and opposition MPs have defeated the government in the first stage of their attempt to pass a law designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK's exit date.

In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election.

Jeremy Corbyn said the bill should be passed before an election was held.

In total, 21 Tory MPs, including a number of ex-cabinet ministers, joined opposition parties to defeat the government.

After the vote, Downing Street said those Tory MPs who rebelled would have the whip removed, effectively expelling them from the parliamentary party.[Boris apparently has made good on this threat.]

No 10 had hoped the threat of expulsion - and an election - would bring would-be rebels into line.

The longest-serving of the Tory rebels, ex-chancellor Ken Clarke, told BBC Newsnight he was still "a mainstream Conservative" but he didn't recognise his party any more.

The "knockabout character" of the prime minister had "the most right-wing cabinet a Conservative government has ever produced", he said.

The prime minister said the MPs' bill would "hand control" of Brexit negotiations to the EU and bring "more dither, more delay, more confusion". [Well since more dither, delay, and confusion is apparently the will of the Parliament, and the one thing that can seem to gain majority support, that's all right then. Dither, delay and confusion is clearly the preferred policy choice.]

He told MPs he had no choice but to press ahead with efforts to call an October election, adding: "The people of this country will have to choose."

The result means the MPs will be able to take control of Commons business on Wednesday.

That will give them the chance to introduce a cross-party bill which would force the prime minister to ask for Brexit to be delayed until 31 January, unless MPs approve a new deal, or vote in favour of a no-deal exit, by 19 October.

The BBC understands the government intends to hold an election on 15 October, two days before a crucial EU summit in Brussels.

To call an election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, Mr Johnson would need support from Labour as he requires the backing of two-thirds of the UK's 650 MPs.

But Mr Corbyn said the legislation backed by opposition MPs and Tory rebels should pass before any election was held, to "take no deal off the table".

He added: "There is no majority to leave without a deal within the country".

Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said he did not trust Boris Johnson not to call an election for mid-October and then change the date afterwards.

He said the prime minister could "change the date so that during the general election campaign we crash out of the European Union with a no deal".

"We want it bolting down that a no-deal Brexit can't occur, and once that's done, we want a general election as soon as possible," he told the BBC.

The BBC's chief political correspondent, Vicki Young, said the government was framing the situation as the Labour leader trying to block Brexit, and that would be its argument going into a general election. [Of course the real reason Corbyn is uninterested in a new election is because all the polling shows Labour would lose it. If he really cared about a Labour victory the first thing he would do is to step down as leader since so long as he remains in charge it is an impossibility for his party to win a national election.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49573555

[Lord Jim]

In fact the way the British political landscape is fracturing, some major political realignments may result from a new election, and the the biggest loser could easily be Labour:

After a showdown between prime minister Boris Johnson and MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit, the UK appears on course for an election in a matter of weeks.

Much parliamentary action will now play out to determine exactly when the vote will take place. The government remains eager to ensure the UK’s exit from the EU by October 31. Oppositions parties are eager to ensure this does not happen in a no deal scenario. But developments at Westminster mean an election at some point soon is almost certain. The key question, therefore, what might the outcome of such an election be in such unpredictable times?

We have considered the results across 138 polls conducted between November 4 2018 and August 22 2019.

All polls contain a combination of information and noise, the latter resulting from errors in sampling, in interviewing and in other factors which are an inherent part of survey methodology. By “pooling the polls” the figure maximises the information and minimises the noise because the samples are very large and rogue polls which happen by chance do not dominate the picture.

Both Conservative and Labour support declined markedly in the run-up to the European parliament elections on May 23. Since then, Conservative fortunes have partially revived, but party support is only in the low 30% range – nearly 10% less than its vote in the 2017 general election.

Labour is in even worse shape, languishing in the low to mid-20s. Polls on voting intentions go back as far as the 1930s, but it is safe to say that such a car crash in support for both major parties has never been seen before. So we are in uncharted territory.

The major parties’ poll numbers indicate that, in a two-party contest, the apparent “Boris bounce” in Conservative vote intentions would very likely deliver a majority in the House of Commons.

One important reason why Labour has fallen so far behind is the large decline in Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity since the 2017 general election. His approval ratings then were around 45%. But by August this year they had fallen below 20% and are now very stable from one poll to the next. A large majority of voters appear to have reached the conclusion that he is not up to the job of being prime minister. Negative public feelings about Corbyn are bound to be a drag on his party’s efforts to close the gap with the Conservatives.

Lib Dem threat

The real problem for the Conservatives is not Labour but the continuing popularity of the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party. [The Brexit Party is essentially a reconstituted UKIP led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage.]The Liberal Democrats are now consistently polling in the high teens – twice what previously had been typical. In the 2015 general election, the Liberal Democrats’ vote collapsed and the Conservatives took 27 seats from them. While the Liberal Democrats recovered a little in the subsequent 2017 general election, they still only had 12 MPs.

The situation has now completely changed. If the current surge in Liberal Democrat voting intentions holds, there is a good chance that the party will win back all of the seats it lost to the Conservatives in 2015. In addition, the Lib Dems are likely to win extra seats from disgruntled Conservative Remainers who will defect in response to the Conservative’s hard-line stance on Brexit.

It is true that the Liberal Democrats will take votes from Labour as well as the Conservatives, but the policy distance between the Lib Dems and Labour on relations with the EU is now much smaller than it is with the Conservatives. The danger for the Conservatives is that Remainers are likely to vote tactically as a result, supporting the Liberal Democrats in seats in the West Country, for example, and Labour in seats in the North-East and Merseyside.

What of the Brexit Party?

There is a narrative which suggests that Brexit Party support will collapse in a forthcoming election much like UKIP’s did in 2017. But this ignores a key difference between Brexit Party and Conservative supporters. In our national survey conducted shortly after the European elections, 78% of Brexit Party identifiers wanted to leave the EU with no deal. This compared with only 46% of Conservative identifiers who wanted this outcome.

In a rally in London Nigel Farage committed his party to no deal. He was quick to point out that Johnson had voted for Theresa May’s agreement when it came up for a third time in parliament – and was therefore not to be trusted. The prime minister is taking a very hard line against Conservative rebels by threatening to remove the whip from them, but at the same time he is arguing that he wants a deal with the EU – something which is an anathema to the Brexit party supporters.

The prime minister has had to seek an early election since the alternative was to stagger on without a majority and with parliamentary action to stop a no-deal Brexit becoming a reality. The campaign hasn’t formally begun yet, but the posturing is underway. The outcome, though, remains very difficult to predict.

http://theconversation.com/uk-general-e ... -us-122759

[Big RR]

The longest-serving of the Tory rebels, ex-chancellor Ken Clarke, told BBC Newsnight he was still "a mainstream Conservative" but he didn't recognise his party any more.

The "knockabout character" of the prime minister had "the most right-wing cabinet a Conservative government has ever produced", he said.

Would that some of our republican legislators would show the same courage.

[Lord Jim]

And the chaos and paralysis rolls on...

U.K. lawmakers reject snap election, dealing another blow to PM Boris Johnson

LONDON — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has had two epically bad days.

Parliament on Wednesday voted to block fresh elections, after voting to stop Britain from leaving the European Union without an agreement — two blows to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plans to exit the 28-nation bloc by Oct. 31, “do or die.”

Johnson's call for new elections fell short of the two-thirds majority required under U.K. law; 298 voted for an election vs 56 against but this was short of the number needed. Lawmakers also passed a bill forcing him to ask the E.U. to delay Brexit until January if there is no divorce agreement by the October deadline.

Lawmakers hope to have the motion passed into law by the end of the week. But pro-Brexit members of the House of Lords — which is set to debate the motion — are threatening to try to stop it by filibustering.

Johnson also asked lawmakers to back his call for a snap election on Oct. 15, saying "there is only one way forward for the country" — a vote to determine who should govern.

“The country must now decide whether the leader of the opposition or I go to those negotiations in Brussels on the 17th of October to sort this out,” Johnson said, referring to crunch Brexit talks in the Belgian capital.

Many lawmakers say they want a snap election to get rid of Johnson, but only after they force him by law to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline if there is no deal by Oct 31.

"Let this bill pass and gain royal assent. Then we will back an election so we do not crash out with a no deal exit from the European Union," Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour Party, said.

Johnson became prime minister only six weeks ago, and the vote Wednesday was his second major defeat on only his third day of Parliament.

The vote was a prime example of how British politics have been paralyzed by the question of how and when the U.K. should leave the E.U. — an issue that has obsessed the country since the June 2016 referendum approving Brexit amid a surge of anti-establishment anger.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-k- ... l-n1049691

[Scooter]

I imagine holiday dinners in the Johnson family are going to get rather testy:

Boris Johnson's brother quits government in protest at PM's leadership

Boris Johnson’s brother has dramatically quit the government – and parliament – in an apparent protest at his leadership.

Jo Johnson, a higher education minister, said it was impossible to reconcile “family loyalty and the national interest”, adding: “It’s an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & minister #overandout “

It is only six weeks since the younger Johnson faced fierce criticism for returning to serve his brother – despite resigning for the first time late last year, to campaign for a Final Say referendum on Brexit.

It leaves the prime minister with the painful task of trying to explain why even his own sibling has lost faith in his handling of the Brexit crisis, as the criticism of Tory MPs grows.

In a bombshell tweet, Jo Johnson wrote: “In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest,” – before going on to describe it as “an unresolvable tension”.

One Westminster observer immediately summed up his decision to walk out as sending the message: “I’m resigning to spend less time with my family.”

Others pointed back to an interview Jo Johnson gave, a few years ago, in which he insisted he and his brother would never suffer a family schism like David and Ed Miliband.

“We don’t do things that way, that’s a very left-wing thing,” the younger Johnson said.

“Only a socialist could do that to his brother, only a socialist could regard familial ties as being so trivial as to shaft his own brother.”

It appeared the final straw for Jo Johnson was his brother’s decision to “purge” 21 moderate Conservatives from the party, for their rebellion to block a no-deal Brexit.

Among the exiled MPs were colleagues, such as Justine Greening, with whom he had – before the summer – been working to try to avert a crash-out from the EU.

Angela Rayner MP, Labour's shadow education secretary, said: “Boris Johnson poses such a threat that even his own brother doesn’t trust him.”

The resignation caps a horror 24 hours for the new prime minister, who has yet to win a Commons vote – while suffering multiple defeats at the hands of rebel Tories.

The Commons refused to grant Mr Johnson a snap general election, less than two hours after passing a bill designed to block a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

An election could yet be granted for his chosen date of 15 October if the bill becomes law by Tuesday, but Jeremy Corbyn is facing a growing a Labour revolt to delay it further.

When he first resigned, in November 2018, Jo Johnson branded Theresa May’s negotiations as a “failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis”.

Warning Britain stood “on the brink of the greatest crisis since the Second World War”, Mr Johnson added: “The democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say.”

A No 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister would like to thank Jo Johnson for his service.

“He has been a brilliant, talented minister and a fantastic MP. The PM, as both a politician and brother, understands this will not have been an easy matter for Jo.”

[Gob]

In fact the way the British political landscape is fracturing, some major political realignments may result from a new election, and the the biggest loser could easily be Labour:

Have to agree. The Labour party has a leaver in charge of it, (Corbyn,) and has lost a lot of it's core working class vote. The Tories are equally split, but are better at rallying around. The Limp Dems cannot attract sufficient Blairite Labour voters to become more powerful a force. The Brexit Party, if they play canny, can pick up a number of ex-Labour seats in strong "Leave" constituencies.

A prime example of why Labour are on their arse an be seen here...

Labour's Emily Thornberry said she would negotiate a deal with Brussels if her party won an election but would still campaign for it to be rejected in a second referendum.

The shadow foreign secretary said last night that despite her desire to stay in the EU, Labour would negotiate a new Brexit deal if it came to power.

But Ms Thornberry added her party would hold a second poll on Britain's membership, with Remain as an option, and she would campaign to ignore her new deal in favour of revoking Article 50.

Her suggestion was met with derision and ridicule by other BBC Question Time panellists and audience members, who did not understand the point of negotiating under those circumstances.

[Lord Jim]

The Limp Dems cannot attract sufficient Blairite Labour voters to become more powerful a force.

Yeah, on paper the situation looks like it should be tailor-made for a big Lib Dem comeback, but the party just seems to lack the leadership to be able to effectively exploit the self-destruction going on in the two major parties...

In the mean time, it looks like things could get even uglier and descend into an even deeper governmental crisis:

Cross-party MPs ‘preparing legal action’ to force Boris Johnson to delay Brexit

The Prime Minister has written to Tory members confirming he will not ask for a Brexit extension despite a new law set to demand it of him.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suggestion he could break the law to force a no-deal Brexit could be challenged in the courts by a cross-party group of MPs, it has been reported.

The House of Lords passed a bill on Friday effectively blocking a no-deal Brexit, paving the way for it to become law.

But, according to The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister wrote to Tory members on Friday evening, telling them: “They just passed a law that would force me to beg Brussels for an extension to the Brexit deadline. This is something I will never do.”

The BBC reported on Saturday that cross-party MPs, including expelled Conservatives, had sought legal advice and were preparing to go to court “to compel Mr Johnson to seek a delay”.

On Friday, Mr Johnson told reporters he would not entertain seeking another deadline extension from Brussels, as the incoming law, expected to receive Royal Assent on Monday, compels him to if no agreement is in place by October 19.

Asked if he would obey the new law’s demand for him to write to EU leaders requesting more time, Mr Johnson said: “I will not. I don’t want a delay.”

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith encouraged Mr Johnson to break the law, saying he would be seen as a Brexit “martyr” if judges opted to put him jail for breaching Parliament’s terms.

If Mr Johnson fails to carry out the will of Parliament, he risks being taken to court and, if a judge ordered him to obey Parliament, he could be held in contempt and even jailed if he refused, reported The Telegraph.

Mr Duncan Smith told the newspaper: “This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris Johnson is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU.

Other ministers are said to take a different approach, however, and think it is time for Mr Johnson to reconcile with the 21 Conservative MPs he sacked this week after they rebelled against him.

The Times reported that senior Government figures want Mr Johnson to “come up with a plan B” and distance himself from Tory Eurosceptics after he was boxed in by the Opposition.

The new law blocking no-deal will rule out an early election before the European Council summit on October 17 as Labour and other opposition parties want the threat of leaving the EU on Halloween to have expired before agreeing to a fresh poll.

Labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru met on Friday and agreed to block the PM’s election request when it is put to the House of Commons again on Monday.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 75867.html

Lots of questions:

What happens if a PM just flat out openly refuses to follow a law passed by Parliament? If he's cited for contempt and thrown in jail, does he cease to be PM? Who would carry out the requirements of a law like this if the PM refuses to do so?

[Gob]

She is a constitutional monarch with no opinion of her own on Brexit, and if advised by her Prime Minister to refuse assent, she must do so. She also has advice to the same effect from the people. It was rather legalistic for the Supreme Court in Miller to refuse to regard the European Union Referendum Act 2015 as, given its result, authorising the Article 50 notice; but as advice from her people to their fiduciary Queen, the referendum was unambiguous. It didn’t change the law in any legislative sense; but it did give a definite content to the sovereign Parliament’s duty to its people – and in particular to the acting part of the sovereignty, the executive power.

A Prime Minister advising the Queen to refuse assent to a bill is acting in a way appropriate to his office in the sovereign Parliament – acting legitimately no less than the legislators of the two Houses are doing. Such a thing is rare, but proper. Only the fallacious idea that the legislature is itself the Parliament, gives pause here.

Will the Supreme Court stick with the demotion of the executive power evidenced by Miller and enjoin the Prime Minister from giving advice against assenting to the bill? No court, we may take it, would enjoin the Queen as to her assent to a bill. But enjoining the Prime Minister would have the same effect. This is because if you take away the Prime Ministerial power of advice, you take away the power of the Queen to act as a constitutional monarch: she has no interest or view of her own, and therefore can only act on advice. What would the enjoining of the Prime Minister against this achieve? It would turn the real Constitution on its head.

Far from the Prime Minister’s executive advice overriding Parliament (as the e-21 put it), it is an essential part of its constitution. Parliament, the sovereign, in this final working-out of the Brexit issue is both legislature and executive, consisting of sovereign parties who will play the issue out according to its complexity, including its timing, which might be short, and all its judgements and misjudgements (particularly of time), and the rules of play. It might be as I’ve imagined it with the two houses passing a bill and the Prime Minister advising against the Queen’s assent (which advice she accepts), or it might be the Commons passing a legitimate motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister’s Government and through an election installing a new Prime Minister who advises the end of Brexit (which she accepts). Either way, the whole Parliament will have spoken and determined the issue. To cut that process short, as by cancelling the Prime Minister’s executive advice, would be to fracture Parliament, not vindicate it.