Brexit process

[UndercoverElephant]

Beria:

We agree with Andrew Lilico, who writes in the Daily Telegraph that whoever is chosen as party leader, and by extension as prime minister, will end up facing a general election. We disagree with his and other commentators’ inference that it would only take three or so Tory MPs to secure a majority in a no-confidence vote. For starters, a vote of no confidence would trigger immediate elections. Even if you find ten Tory MPs who might be willing to lose their seats on a matter of principle, you may find that there are opposition MPs who do not - including the five remaining in Change UK and the six who recently defected from that party. Also, if the sole purpose is to get Brexit over the line, a vote of no confidence is the most likely scenario in which a prime minister might be tempted to use prorogation. In that situation the question of proroguing vs not proroguing is one between facing the electorate not having delivered Brexit, and facing the electorate right after a no-deal Brexit. Each alternative has its own risks, but we think that not delivering Brexit is politically more risky.

Yes, as I have been saying for months now, this has to end with a general election. Quite soon. Where I disagree with this is that proroguing parliament is an option. Parliament is going to stop it, and even if parliament didn't stop it, The Queen would not agree to it, because it would threaten the constitutional position of the monarchy. There would be a very real possibility of a Corbyn government coming under pressure to get rid of the monarchy.

I think there's going to be a general election in August.

[Lord Beria3]

Agree re ge and unlikehood of suspending parliament.

Regarding changing the legal default of no deal what would parliament would change too UE? Automatic triggering to revoke article 50.

[UndercoverElephant]

Agree re ge and unlikehood of suspending parliament.

Regarding changing the legal default of no deal what would parliament would change too UE? Automatic triggering to revoke article 50.

I don't know.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... y-election

Labour have tabled a cross-party motion to seize control of the parliamentary agenda, which, if passed, would give MPs the ability to introduce legislation on 25 June to prevent a no deal Brexit.

It underlines the essential truth of the British constitution: that if you have a parliamentary majority, then you can do whatever you want.

No fewer than three MPs who have consistently voted against any measure to stop or delay Brexit have privately accepted that, if in October they have a choice between voting to revoke Article 50 and a no-deal Brexit, they will reluctantly choose to revoke – an indication that when push comes to shove, the Labour rebels who have cancelled out some Conservative dissenters will not pick no-deal over no Brexit.

If the motion does pass, does it mean that we are inevitably heading towards an election? Given that Boris Johnson, the frontrunner in the Conservative race, has vowed to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union by 31 October come what may, he might be forced into one. However, Johnson’s close allies believe that, when push comes to shove, Parliament will step back from actually voting to revoke Article 50, the one way that MPs can actually prevent a no-deal Brexit. “People say Parliament stopped a no-deal Brexit,� one pro-Johnson Cabinet minister says, “It’s not true. Theresa May stopped a no-deal Brexit.�

Are they right? Well, we won’t know for certain by the end of tomorrow, but if Parliament won’t at this stage vote even to take a measure of control over the process, Johnson’s gamble may be proved correct. If Parliament does vote for Labour’s motion, however, then the United Kingdom is a great deal closer to preventing a no-deal Brexit – and to another general election.

For me, all roads lead to a general election, and fairly swiftly. How we get there I don't know, but if no deal is taken off the table (by any means) then the options narrow to revoking, a deal-vs-remain referendum and an election, and I believe that if the tories are faced with that choice, they will choose the election. The only leader candidate to have actually answered that question is Leadsom, and she chose the election.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-becomes/

Boris gets back Tory vote to 37 per cent... the rest of the contenders are stuck in the 20's.

I wonder, if during a Boris honeymoon in the next few months a ge, with Tories back on a lead and a few populist policies to champion, might be enough to get then a slim majority in a October ge.

Similar to the recent election in Australia where everybody assumed the Left would win. They didn't and Crosby was all over that one.

Crosby is also advising Boris...

[PS_RalphW]

Latest polls from Comres has voting for 6 of the PM candidates.

With Stewart , Brexit gets 188 seats and Tories get 52

With Johnson, Tories get 370 seats and Brexit get 1

So it looks like Boris will be unstoppable on those numbers. Even if the Labour bill to refuse no-deal exit passes, all Boris has to do is call an immediate election, and he will have enough Tory seats to force through whatever he wants.

I cannot see tory MPs voting themselves out of power by keeping Johnson off the ballot.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-becomes/

Boris gets back Tory vote to 37 per cent... the rest of the contenders are stuck in the 20's.

I wonder, if during a Boris honeymoon in the next few months a ge, with Tories back on a lead and a few populist policies to champion, might be enough to get then a slim majority in a October ge.

Similar to the recent election in Australia where everybody assumed the Left would win. They didn't and Crosby was all over that one.

Crosby is also advising Boris...

This it total delusion, Beria. If Parliament blocks no deal, which it will, then Boris's entire strategy collapses. He turns into May Mk II, committed to delivering something which cannot be delivered.

The truth is that no deal cannot be delivered without changing parliament, and Johnson's honeymoon is going to last about ten minutes.

[UndercoverElephant]

Even if the Labour bill to refuse no-deal exit passes, all Boris has to do is call an immediate election, and he will have enough Tory seats to force through whatever he wants.

Bring it on!!

However, I don't believe you can trust any projections about vote share and seats in a general election this summer with Boris in charge of the tories. None of the models are any good.

Would there be a BXP-Tory pact? Would the BXP disband? Not unless Johnson has a plan to deal with tory MPs like Amber Rudd. How would the tories hold Hastings? Rudd is a committed remainer with a majority of 385. Unless she stands down, the BXP will stand against her and Labour will comfortably take the seat.

So it is really hard to predict. However, I do think this gamble is probably the best option available to the tories, for both their survival as a party and as a last roll of the dice to get brexit through.

[clv101]

Yep, Johnson's best move is probably a general election ASAP, out Brexit the Brext party, agree a pact with them so they didn't stand in Tory marginals in exchange for for a role in government. His aim would be to contain BP to Labour areas.

[Lord Beria3]

Exactly.

Eurointeligence...

What to focus on in the Brexit procedure, and what not

There is another attempt today by the House of Commons to seek control of the legislative agenda. Another of those Cooper-Letwin amendments is in the works. We think this is largely irrelevant. The purpose this time would be to make it illegal for a prime minister to prorogue, or suspend, parliament.

In reality it is unlikely to come to that. The EU will extend the deadline only if there is an election or a referendum. The UK parliament is not in a position to force a Brexit delay.

If Boris Johnson wins the Tory leadership race, we think he will want to seek an immediate election to gain a mandate to take the UK out of the EU by October 31. The fragmentation of UK politics and the first-past-the-post system is likely to work in his favour. We noted a poll this morning, by ComRes, which attempted a constituency-level breakdown of the UK vote. It shows that Johnson is the only Tory leadership candidate with a hope to secure a majority of seats - in fact a whopping majority with almost 400 seats. None of the others come even close. This massive gap in seats does not reflect on Johnson's popularity, but on the simple fact he is the only candidate who can neutralise the Brexit Party. The Brexit Party would otherwise eat into Tory support in many marginal constituencies. With Rory Stuart as leader, the Conservatives would be down to 51 seats - behind the LibDems - and the Brexit party would end up with 252 seats. That won't happen of course, since Stewart has no chance of getting elected leader.

It is still best to think of Brexit as a political process, and not to focus too much on parliamentary tricks. That's the reason we think that a no-deal Brexit is not related to the eccentric instrument of prorogation, but to the likelihood of Johnson winning the leadership race.

[Mark]

UE - I will remind you that by legal default we are leaving on 31st October 2019.

That's what you, LJ, Stumuz etc. repeated ad nauseam before the 29th March deadline....., and the 12th April deadline.....
Why so confident that the 31st October deadline will be any different ??

[adam2]

UE - I will remind you that by legal default we are leaving on 31st October 2019.

That's what you, LJ, Stumuz etc. repeated ad nauseam before the 29th March deadline....., and the 12th April deadline.....
Why so confident that the 31st October deadline will be any different ??

Indeed, and at least two candidates for the tory leadership contest have already said that the October "deadline" is no such thing and could be extended.
I know not exactly how this this would be achieved but it seems clear that a majority of MPs wish to remain in the EU, and that if they can not achieve staying in, will use whatever means are available to delay, frustrate, and water down Brexit.

[Little John]

Labour's latest attempt to stop Brexit has failed.

As I have already said, as push is coming to shove and with one eye firmly on the euro election results, enough MPs are now sufficiently focused of mind to not wish to be seen to continue to overtly thwart the democratic will of the people because they know precisely what will happen to them at the next GE if they do.

[UndercoverElephant]

Labour's latest attempt to stop Brexit has failed.

As I have already said, as push is coming to shove and with one eye firmly on the euro election results, enough MPs are now sufficiently focused of mind to not wish to be seen to continue to overtly thwart the democratic will of the people because they know precisely what will happen to them at the next GE if they do.

I have a different reading. MPs know they will get another chance to prevent no deal, and the tories didn't want to unnecessarily tie the hands of the new leader before he's even taken office. It was too general for the tories. It wasn't just stopping no deal, but putting a whole day's business under the control of parliament, which could be used for all sorts of things.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence disagree... hard Brexit looking likely!

On the large and rising risk of a no-deal Brexit

Whenever you hear a journalist, commentator or  politician say the UK parliament will block a no-deal Brexit, stop reading or listening immediately. By triggering Article 50, the UK parliament already legislated for a no-deal Brexit as the default option. All the rest is noise.

Yesterday's vote against the Corbyn-Letwin initiative to seize power of the legislative agenda for a singe won't change it. The only - positive - effect it could stop a few more people from deluding themselves. But it does not change reality. The idea behind Corbyn-Letwin was to agree on a strategy to prevent a no-deal Brexit, for example by making it illegal for the government to prorogue, or suspend, the House of Commons.

Article 50 makes it clear that there is only a single strategy available to the British parliament to avoid a no-deal Brexit - to revoke Brexit altogether. But, even if yesterday's motion had been agreed by a small majority, there would still have been no majority for revocation. The EU would probably give the UK time for a second referendum. We think that would be a mistake, but this is a moot point since there is no Commons majority for a second referendum either.

We have been saying for the last few months that the markets are underestimating the probability of a no-deal Brexit. We noted that Sir Ivan Rodgers was saying exactly the same. The Times quotes him as saying that the commentariat had misread the chances of a no-deal Brexit. The reason he gives is that EU governments are not willing to play the extension game any longer. Another reason, more important we think, is that extension is proving extremely toxic for UK politics.

Boris Johnson is right, of course, when he says the Tories will become politically extinct if they don't deliver Brexit in October. We think there is still a chance for the House of Commons to pass a deal, but this critically requires that the final choice is deal versus no deal. It was Theresa May's political and intellectual failure to have ruled out a no-deal Brexit and to frame the choice as deal vs. no Brexit. This is why she could never deliver her own treaty. The majority in the Commons is pro-Remain. No Brexit is not a threat to them. And Tory hardliners did not think her threat was credible. It is true both sides cannot be right simultaneously. But the delusion of one of them was enough to sink the deal.

We don't think yesterday's vote made a lot of actual difference simply because the legal reality under Art. 50 remains unchanged. Dominic Grieve, probably the most prominent and intelligent anti-Brexit campaigner in the Tory party, was right yesterday to acknowledge this reality last night. We think he is wrong when he says that the only way to stop a no-deal Brexit is a vote of no confidence.

First of all, we are not sure that a vote of no confidence would necessarily produce a majority. Many MPs, especially Independents and Tory rebels including Grieve himself, would end their political careers as they would be certain to lose their seats in the subsequent general election.

Secondly, even a successful vote on a no-confidence motion may fail to do the trick. A prime minister hellbent on delivering Brexit before the election is under no legal obligation to ask the EU for an extension. There is an argument that it would be the better option for a Tory prime minister, under pressure from the Brexit Party, to allow a no-deal Brexit to happen in the middle of an election campaign. Unless the House of Commons secures a vote of no confidence in late July, we see no realistic chance of elections being held before the October deadline. If MPs were to trigger this after mid-September, parliament would be dissolved before the October deadline, but reconstituted afterwards. The assumption that a no-confidence motion would stop a no-deal Brexit thus critically relies on the co-operation of a prime minister. If the prime minister does not co-operate, a vote of no-confidence might actually trigger a no-deal Brexit.

We would not rule out that political circumstances might lead a prime minister to ask the EU for a short delay. The EU would grant it. But our overall point is that the House of Commons is not the main actor in this process.

[PS_RalphW]

I think the first round of voting will be very informative - results in about 30 minutes.

My personal and totally unjustified hope is that a lot more remainer MPs will vote for the anti- no deal candidates than have publicly declared. It is a secret vote and Tory MPs are renowned as the most duplicitous cabal on the planet.