Brexit process

[cubes]

He can't "just call a snap election". He needs a vote in parliament in order to hold an election now (2/3 majority too I think).

He could just wait out the 14 days so I read on twitter, until he recommends someone else the queen's hands are tied even if the commons supports someone else.

If there is a general election, I think this action (proroguing parliament) has cost him more votes than he's gained.

Talk of rules from "unelected bureaucrats" is laughable. The UK has a big say in the appointments into the EU, has elected MEPs (at least the non-brexit/ukip ones do actual work while taking their salaries!) and rules would have to be somewhat harmonised in any trade agreement anyway. Wait until the USA gets us to bend over and take it, there is nearly nothing for us to export to the USA and the stuff they do let in will get tied up in the red tape this "free" economy is very good at producing for it's own benefit.

[Little John]

He can't "just call a snap election". He needs a vote in parliament in order to hold an election now (2/3 majority too I think).

He could just wait out the 14 days so I read on twitter, until he recommends someone else the queen's hands are tied even if the commons supports someone else.

If there is a general election, I think this action (proroguing parliament) has cost him more votes than he's gained.

Talk of rules from "unelected bureaucrats" is laughable. The UK has a big say in the appointments into the EU, has elected MEPs (at least the non-brexit/ukip ones do actual work while taking their salaries!) and rules would have to be somewhat harmonised in any trade agreement anyway. Wait until the USA gets us to bend over and take it, there is nearly nothing for us to export to the USA and the stuff they do let in will get tied up in the red tape this "free" economy is very good at producing for it's own benefit.

Yes he can. You clearly need to read the Fixed Term act.

Under the terms of the Fixed Term act, a snap election happens in one of two ways:

(a) if the government proposes an election and a majority of MPs back it

(b) if a vote of no confidence is passed on the government, the prime minister is at liberty, irrespective of the 14 day rule for finding a replacement administration, to dissolve parliament and enact an election and he/she is also at liberty to set the date of that election. This is an aspect of previously existing UK election legislation that the Fixed Term act does not supersede.

Indeed, the above rules also mean that if Remain MPs try and bring in legislation to block no deal or revoke A50 next week, Johnson could even bring a VoNC on his own government and, as a consequence, then be at liberty to enact an election, in turn being also able to set the date of it beyond the October 31st deadline. The only way that Johnson could survive a self inflicted VoNC would be if sufficient Remainer MP's then laughably and entirely perversely voted against the VoNC


Short of a REAL constitutional crisis Remainers have lost.

Suck it up.

[UndercoverElephant]

If a VoNC is passed and, following that over the next 14 days, a caretaker prime minister looks likely to be proposed or, even if one is not looking likely to be proposed, Johnson will immediately call a snap election to be held on 1st November and there is absolutely nothing in constitutional terms, so far as I can see, that can be done to stop him doing that.

That's not how it works. The moment Johnson loses a VonC he loses the power to call an election. He has to wait for 14 days, during which time parliament has to try to find an alternative government capable of wining a vote of confidence. In reality it wouldn't take 14 days, because there is only one possible candidate, given that the labour leave MPs won't back anybody but Corbyn.

I think it would take less than 48 hours. There wouldn't be any brinkmanship aimed at getting Labour to back an alternative candidate, because it is obvious that Labour would prefer to fight an election after no deal than allow Corbyn's position to be undermined in that way just before an election. Doesn't make any sense for Labour, who'd be left with a lame duck leader with no time to replace him before facing the country.

My best guess, for what it is worth...we will see a successful VonC on Monday/Tuesday, and Corbyn installed in Downing Street within a week. Brussels will immediately agree an extension, then a general election called, probably for November 7th. I'll also predict that Johnson will lose more seats to the liberal democrats and SNP than he wins from Labour. Corbyn may end up remaining as Prime Minister even though Labour has fewer seats than it does now. He'll then renegotiate the withdrawal agreement and we'll have a deal vs revoke referendum, which revoke will narrowly win.

[UndercoverElephant]

(b) if a vote of no confidence is passed on the government, the prime minister is at liberty, irrespective of the 14 day rule for finding a replacement administration, to dissolve parliament and enact an election and he/she is also at liberty to set the date of that election. This is an aspect of previously existing UK election legislation that the Fixed Term act does not supersede.

Got a source for that? Because it's the first I've heard of it. I have read the FTPA, and it neither says nor implies any of this.

There's simply no way Johnson can get away with calling a general election after October 31st, having lost a VonC, if it is clear there is a parliamentary majority for an alternative government. It's politically impossible. Parliament will simply over-rule him, and rightly so.

[Little John]

(b) if a vote of no confidence is passed on the government, the prime minister is at liberty, irrespective of the 14 day rule for finding a replacement administration, to dissolve parliament and enact an election and he/she is also at liberty to set the date of that election. This is an aspect of previously existing UK election legislation that the Fixed Term act does not supersede.

Got a source for that? Because it's the first I've heard of it. I have read the FTPA, and it neither says nor implies any of this.

There's simply no way Johnson can get away with calling a general election after October 31st, having lost a VonC, if it is clear there is a parliamentary majority for an alternative government. It's politically impossible. Parliament will simply over-rule him, and rightly so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 88426.html

On the steps of 10 Downing Street, Theresa May did not call a General Election.

It doesn't work that way anymore.

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act introduced by the coalition Government in 2011 makes it harder for a Prime Minister to call a snap general election, but by no means impossible.

Before then, a Prime Minister could call an election whenever he or she chose within a five year limit, giving just six weeks notice.

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act gave a specific date for general elections to take place every five years, but there are ways to get round it.
Watch more

Now, Theresa May has in effect challenged the Labour Party to grant her the election she wants.

She has selected the less controversial of the two methods available to her - calling a Parliamentary vote on the matter which must be passed by a two thirds majority.

By this method, Theresa May could only get the General Election she wanted with considerable backing from Labour.

The vast majority of Labour MPs, if not all Labour MPs, know their prospects are bleak. But an opposition party effectively turning down the chance of an election would be unprecedented, and humiliating in the extreme.

But these are unprecedented times.

In her statement, Theresa May told Labour it would have to choose whether it wanted opposition for opposition's sake. And whether it wanted to 'treat politics as a game.

For his part, Jeremy Corbyn has long said he would support the vote for a general election were one to be called.

Her other option, by the way, would have been to call for a no confidence motion in her own government.

The act did not change the ruling that If the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government, then Parliament is dissolved and an election must be held.

A governing party with a majority would have the numbers to pass a no confidence motion in its own government, which would trigger a general election. This is a particularly inelegant solution and it is no surprise Theresa May chose not to use it.

[Little John]

Additionally, there is no statutory legal requirement for the government to accept the proposal for a caretaker government. It can, strictly speaking, be ignored so far as I can see and an election called.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... ection-2-5

[UndercoverElephant]

(b) if a vote of no confidence is passed on the government, the prime minister is at liberty, irrespective of the 14 day rule for finding a replacement administration, to dissolve parliament and enact an election and he/she is also at liberty to set the date of that election. This is an aspect of previously existing UK election legislation that the Fixed Term act does not supersede.

Got a source for that? Because it's the first I've heard of it. I have read the FTPA, and it neither says nor implies any of this.

There's simply no way Johnson can get away with calling a general election after October 31st, having lost a VonC, if it is clear there is a parliamentary majority for an alternative government. It's politically impossible. Parliament will simply over-rule him, and rightly so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 88426.html

On the steps of 10 Downing Street, Theresa May did not call a General Election.

It doesn't work that way anymore.

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act introduced by the coalition Government in 2011 makes it harder for a Prime Minister to call a snap general election, but by no means impossible.

Before then, a Prime Minister could call an election whenever he or she chose within a five year limit, giving just six weeks notice.

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act gave a specific date for general elections to take place every five years, but there are ways to get round it.
Watch more

Now, Theresa May has in effect challenged the Labour Party to grant her the election she wants.

She has selected the less controversial of the two methods available to her - calling a Parliamentary vote on the matter which must be passed by a two thirds majority.

By this method, Theresa May could only get the General Election she wanted with considerable backing from Labour.

The vast majority of Labour MPs, if not all Labour MPs, know their prospects are bleak. But an opposition party effectively turning down the chance of an election would be unprecedented, and humiliating in the extreme.

But these are unprecedented times.

In her statement, Theresa May told Labour it would have to choose whether it wanted opposition for opposition's sake. And whether it wanted to 'treat politics as a game.

For his part, Jeremy Corbyn has long said he would support the vote for a general election were one to be called.

Her other option, by the way, would have been to call for a no confidence motion in her own government.

The act did not change the ruling that If the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government, then Parliament is dissolved and an election must be held.

A governing party with a majority would have the numbers to pass a no confidence motion in its own government, which would trigger a general election. This is a particularly inelegant solution and it is no surprise Theresa May chose not to use it.

That does not back up your claim. It does not say anything about the governing party being able to schedule a general election even if an alternative government can pass a vote of confidence.

[UndercoverElephant]

Additionally, there is no statutory legal requirement for the government to accept the proposal for a caretaker government. It can, strictly speaking, be ignored so far as I can see and an election called.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... ection-2-5

Oh yes it does:

“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.�

(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—

(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and

(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).

That says that the prime minister must call an early general election (at the date of his choosing) if the 14 days have expired without a vote of confidence passing. It follows that if the 14 days have not expired, this condition has not been met.

[Little John]

Ok, So, a VoNC is called, 14 days elapses and Johnson call an election. The 14 days merely give him an even tighter deadline for Remainers to work within.

And?

The next question is what they can legally do to unseat him during those 14 days. I have seen nothing in the legislation that says he has to step down just because they might want him to. If that is the case, all he needs to do is sit the 14 days out and call the election

Unless you have a link to legislation that shows otherwise?

[Little John]

In other words:

Next week, either Remainer MPs or, even, Johnson himself call a VoNC in the government.

14 days elapse, during which time Johnson (assuming he wants to) can arrange for another VoNC to overturn the first. If he fails to do so, then he must call a general election at a date of his own choosing. The legislation is somewhat vague about when that election date has to be, but I think it must occur within two months of his setting of the date. By the time the VoNC has happened and another 14 days on top of that, plus any prorogation, the 1st of November is easily within that time frame.

I have heard loads of chatter in the MSM about MPs being able to convene a "caretaker government" during those 14 days and unseating Johnson. However, I from what I have seen of the legislation, I can find no legislative lever that Remainer MP's have at their disposal that they can use to force him to step down and accept such a caretaker government in place of his. If I that's correct, then all he has to do is sit the 14 days out and call and election for November 1st.

Unless, as I said, you have a link to legislation which shows otherwise?

[UndercoverElephant]

Ok, So, a VoNC is called, 14 days elapses and Johnson call an election. The 14 days merely give him an even tighter deadline for Remainers to work within.

And?

The next question is what they can legally do to unseat him during those 14 days. I have seen nothing in the legislation that says he has to step down just because they might want him to. If that is the case, all he needs to do is sit the 14 days out and call the election

Unless you have a link to legislation that shows otherwise?

As already explained, it wouldn't take 14 days. If a VonC succeeds then all of the brinkmanship is over. Anti-no-deal MPs would have a simply binary choice in front of them: either back a temporary Corbyn-led government in a VoC, or accept that parliament is not going to stop no deal. What there's no point in them doing is delaying in the hope that Labour is going to agree to support some other leader.

If the 14 days elapses then Johnson will call a November general election. But they will not. Corbyn will already be in Downing Street in half that time.

If you're suggesting that parliament could pass a vote of confidence in a Corbyn-led government but Johnson would simply refuse to leave Downing Street then we will find ourselves embroiled in a constitutional crisis of the highest order.

[stumuz1]

There you go again, insulting those you don't agree with and attributing opinions to them. I can see why you and LJ are kindred spirits...
I am neither 'rabid', nor did I vote remain.
Another unpleasant post, but I understand that you can't help yourself.

There you go again using obfuscation and reverse Psychology to avoid standing by a very thin point.

Anyway, moving on to Ruth Davidson.
Yes, she quoted her family life, but all politicians say that, so you think it's just a coincidence that she's resigned 1 day after BoJo prorogues Parliament ?

Mark, do some checking before you post. The self harming, mental health issues are all in the public domain, she has been honest about them. That is why she is liked.

If you listen to what she actually said, her main concern was the impact the a hard-Brexit would have on the business community.
I share that concern.

She had planned to resign some weeks ago because she could not face an election. Again very honest.

Most posters on here seem relaxed about losing Scotland from the UK.
If nothing else, we would lose the oil revenue, whiskey revenue, off-shore wind resources, a good chunk of the fishing grounds, etc. etc. etc.

Most posters on here are democrats. If Scotland wants to go then they should go with our best wishes. Personally i think Scotland will stay out of pure self interest.

A 'scorched 'earth' hard-Brexit forced through by English Nationalists is not the way forward....

That is what happens when you legitimise Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Ireland nationalism, but treat English nationalism with disdain. And that is from a half Welsh Half Scottish Welsh speaker, who has lived in Wales all his life.

[UndercoverElephant]

In other words:

Next week, either Remainer MPs or, even, Johnson himself call a VoNC in the government.

14 days elapse, during which time Johnson (assuming he wants to) can arrange for another VoNC to overturn the first.

Johnson can't do anything during those 14 days. He certainly can't call a VonC to overturn a VonC - that doesn't make any sense. He has to wait to see whether parliament passes a VoC in another leader.

I have heard loads of chatter in the MSM about MPs being able to convene a "caretaker government" during those 14 days and unseating Johnson. However, I from what I have seen of the legislation, I can find no legislative lever that Remainer MP's have at their disposal that they can use to force him to step down and accept such a caretaker government in place of his. If I that's correct, then all he has to do is sit the 14 days out and call and election for November 1st.

Unless, as I said, you have a link to legislation which shows otherwise?

You've posted the link yourself. The FTPA enables this to happen.

(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).

(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—

“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.�

(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—

“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.�

The commons has 14 days after a succesful VonC to pass a motion saying that "this house has confidence in Her Majesty's Government", where the government in question is led by Corbyn. And it wouldn't take 14 days, because there's no motive for anybody to delay.

[stumuz1]

Nobody knows what will happen next week.

Conventions, those gentleman's agreement to do what has been done before, are now up for grabs.

All sorts of hitherto shenanigans are going to come out of the woodwork.

[Little John]

Ok, So, a VoNC is called, 14 days elapses and Johnson call an election. The 14 days merely give him an even tighter deadline for Remainers to work within.

And?

The next question is what they can legally do to unseat him during those 14 days. I have seen nothing in the legislation that says he has to step down just because they might want him to. If that is the case, all he needs to do is sit the 14 days out and call the election

Unless you have a link to legislation that shows otherwise?

As already explained, it wouldn't take 14 days. If a VonC succeeds then all of the brinkmanship is over. Anti-no-deal MPs would have a simply binary choice in front of them: either back a temporary Corbyn-led government in a VoC, or accept that parliament is not going to stop no deal. What there's no point in them doing is delaying in the hope that Labour is going to agree to support some other leader.

If the 14 days elapses then Johnson will call a November general election. But they will not. Corbyn will already be in Downing Street in half that time.

If you're suggesting that parliament could pass a vote of confidence in a Corbyn-led government but Johnson would simply refuse to leave Downing Street then we will find ourselves embroiled in a constitutional crisis of the highest order.

So, we are back to where this was always going to end

When all of the bullshit is washed away MP's have and have always had only one choice to make - Revoke A50. Thus far, they have failed to do so for one simple reason.

Fear of us

And they are right to fear us.

But, you seem to think they would revoke A50, given they have had three years to do so when the political temperature was much lower than now? When they did not know about how their respective parties were going to get slaughtered in the EU elections? Immediately prior to a GE where the central theme will be one of the people versus parliament?

Now is the time they discover a backbone is it?...

Oh, and once again, I see you hysterically pulling out the "constitutional crisis" card. Furthermore, I did not say Johnson could refuse to exit downing street in perpetuity. I said he has the right to remain in position for the entire 14 days following a VoNC and then to call an election.

Because he does.

Okay, I will explain again, since you don't seem to understand what the term "constitutional crisis" means. A constitutional crisis occurs when one part of the constitution (we don't have one by the way) is in direct and serious contradiction with another part. Or, where one or more pillars of the office of state is overtly acting against the rules of that constitution.

Nothing, so far as I understand the legislation that I have outlined, that Johnson may do is either contradictory in legislative terms nor is it outside of the legislation.

Unless, to repeat, you have a link to legislation that shows what I have suggested lies outside of legislation?

Can you provide that link?