Brexit process

[UndercoverElephant]

In tomorrow's FT. Calls for Johnson to go:

ARTICLE:

The ruling by the UK Supreme Court is a devastating indictment of the abuse of power by a prime minister — and of the holder of that office, Boris Johnson. The 11 judges unanimously concluded that Mr Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was an unlawful attempt to silence MPs, at the very moment the UK, through Brexit, faces the biggest shake-up in its constitutional status for decades. Mr Johnson’s claim that the suspension was a routine break before a new legislative session stands exposed. The judges found the prime minister in effect misled MPs, the British people, and the Queen. No future premier will be able to act this way again. The judges’ ruling marks a historic moment in the evolution of the UK constitution.

The court’s decision was a much-needed reminder that, even in the most testing political circumstances, Britain remains a representative democracy underpinned by the rule of law. MPs are elected to exercise their good judgment and take decisions on behalf of constituents. They hold to account a government formed from among their number. The executive is accountable to parliament, and parliament to the people. Removing parliament, even for a matter of weeks, breaks the chain of accountability. The UK system cannot allow a cabal around the prime minister to determine by itself the “will of the people� and attempt to implement it, while sidelining those whom the people elected to represent them. This is the road to tyranny.

The judges issued a judgment of impeccable logic and clarity. To those, including the government and the High Court in London, that argued prorogation is a political matter and no business of the courts they delivered a resounding rejoinder. Courts have for centuries exercised supervisory jurisdiction over whether government actions are lawful. In 1611, a court held that the King — who was then the government — “hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him�.

The power to suspend parliament, the judges found, is limited if it conflicts with parliament’s sovereign power to make laws, and the government’s accountability to parliament. Prorogation is unlawful if its effect prevents parliament from fulfilling its functions — without a very good reason. In one of the most stinging passages of their ruling, the judges found the effect of Mr Johnson’s actions on British democracy was “extreme�, and that the government had put forward no proper justification.

The Supreme Court focused on effect and not, as senior Scottish judges had done, on the government’s presumed motive. Yet in delivering a unanimous judgment whose essence mirrored that of Scotland’s highest court, the judges brought together English and Scottish law. They implicitly demolished the hints from Downing Street that the Scottish judges might somehow be partisan. Since the prime minister’s advice to the Queen was unlawful and void, they ultimately concluded, prorogation was also void. Their judgment shows that the checks and balances in Britain’s unwritten constitution are working.

The spectacle of the courts ruling on parliamentary matters has caused understandable discomfort. Yet the judges intervened not of their own initiative. Their involvement was prompted by the prime minister’s own cavalier actions, and by the disquiet they provoked among many members of the public — including one of Mr Johnson’s Conservative predecessors as premier. In truth, the Supreme Court had little choice but to rule as it did. To find otherwise would have opened a dangerous path to a future prime minister suspending parliament indefinitely, brandishing a prior ruling that such decisions were no matter for the courts.

The ruling will restore some of the lustre to British democracy ground away by the chaotic handling of Brexit. This newspaper had argued that if Mr Johnson’s constitutional chicanery succeeded as intended, the UK would be poorly placed to criticise democratic shortcomings elsewhere. The Supreme Court, a fledgling institution barely 10 years old, has struck a blow for liberal democracy.

When strongman leaders, even in advanced democracies, are attempting to bypass legislatures or due process, the ruling sends a powerful message. In the age of fake news and alternative realities, it is refreshing that judges saw through Downing Street’s skulduggery.

Ardent Brexiters will dismiss the ruling as an “establishment� plot to thwart their determination to see the UK leave the EU at all costs. There have been disgraceful attempts to portray the judges as “enemies of the people�. This was not, however, a judgment on or against Brexit, but on the limits of executive power. The effect is to restore parliament’s ability to ensure the 2016 referendum outcome is respected, but not through a calamitous no-deal exit.

Mr Johnson’s no-deal strategy lies in tatters. Prorogation, always a high-risk gambit, has galvanised MPs to use the short time they had to bind Mr Johnson’s hands with legislation, and cost him his majority. Now this ruling leaves a stain on his character and competence. Faced with such a damning judgment, any premier with a shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign.

Mr Johnson has indicated he intends to carry on. He will attempt to brazen out this setback, as he has previous episodes that raised questions over his suitability for office. The reconvened parliament should have no truck with such behaviour, and pass a vote of no confidence in the premier. It should use its right to form a caretaker government that can secure an extension to the October 31 Brexit date and organise a general election. The judges have spoken. Now the people should have their say. This is how Britain’s constitutional democracy works.

This is pretty big, I think. And I stick with my prediction from a couple of days ago. GE --> tories lose --> second referendum delegitimised by mass boycott by leavers --> A50 revoked but massive constitution crisis and EU question no closer to being resolved long-term.

[clv101]

Britain remains a representative democracy underpinned by the rule of law. MPs are elected to exercise their good judgment and take decisions on behalf of constituents. They hold to account a government formed from among their number. The executive is accountable to parliament, and parliament to the people.

It's remarkable that this even needs stating, but it absolutely does. It's absurd how many people have such a poor grasp of how politics actually operates in the country.

[UndercoverElephant]

Britain remains a representative democracy underpinned by the rule of law. MPs are elected to exercise their good judgment and take decisions on behalf of constituents. They hold to account a government formed from among their number. The executive is accountable to parliament, and parliament to the people.

It's remarkable that this even needs stating, but it absolutely does. It's absurd how many people have such a poor grasp of how politics actually operates in the country.

Indeed.

It feels like we're living through history though, and we're nowhere near the peak yet. The coming election is going to be something special. I think it is possible that the tory party is going to destroy itself. The Brexit Party could win more seats.

BREAKING: the opposition are going to demand Johnson asks for an article 50 extension in return for voting for a recess so the tories can hold their conference. It looks like Johnson now has to choose between extending article 50 and cancelling the conference. How far up shit creek is he?

[Little John]

https://keighleycravensdp.wordpress.com ... wjozT8mSPU

The Government should Resign to force a General Election
September 24, 2019 Matthew Rose


Following the Supreme Court Judgment in the appeals of R on the application of Gina Miller and Joana Cherry, Parliament will now sit on 25th September. The government’s first official act should be to resign.

We now have a government in name only. As a minority government, it cannot control the order paper (the motions to be debated in Parliament) or take any action without the support of other parties. In effect, the government is “cut out� of governance and Parliament is exercising both executive and legislative functions.

Prior to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 (one of Cameron’s gems) the remedy to this situation was simple; the Prime Minister would simply ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and there would be a general election to allow the people to decide who should rule. But under the FTPA the PM can no longer call an election without two thirds of MPs voting for one. This legislation is purpose-built to take power away from the public, and put it in the hands of parliament. Now, it is Parliament, not the public, who are the kingmakers.

On 4th September 2019, MPs voted against an early election. In effect, they have denied the public the opportunity to give clear instructions to parliament through a general election. Instead, the opposition parties have seized power, and are now running the country despite never having been elected to do so.

So what can the government do? The only constitutional thing left: resign.

And we must be clear. I am not suggesting Boris Johnson should resign. I am saying that the government should resign.

It is a clear principle of UK law that the Queen must have the benefit of ministerial advice (bear in mind, in theory, the Queen makes all laws, they are simply suggested to her by ministers and approved by Parliament). If the government resigns, a new government must be formed before any new laws can be passed, or treaties (including an extension to A50) can be formed.

Furthermore, the government cannot be compelled to serve. The government has the absolute right to resign and there is nothing Parliament or the Court can do about it. After all, as the judgment in the Supreme Court records, the government has no distinct legal existence in our parliamentary system.

So what would happen if the government resigned?

Immediately upon resigning, Corbyn, as leader of the next largest party, could try to form a government. However, Labour has fewer seats than the Conservatives and therefore it would be unlikely that he could realistically be able to form a government (a government must be able to “command the confidence of th House�). Labour would therefore probably try to agree to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

They’re both Remain Parties; it’s a done deal right? Well no. There are deep ideogical divisions and Labour and the Lib Dems have recently laimchd scathing attacks on each other before and during their party conferences.

They also disagree on how Brexit is to be handled. The Lib Dems openly back revoking A50, Labour want a second referendum.

Most importantly, Lib Dems and Labour are now just about even in the polls. The LDs may decide that a general election would see them equal or even surpass Labour’s numbers of MPs. This could be too tempting a prize to pass up.

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act a vote of confidence is only strictly required if a new government is formed after a previous government deeposed through a vote of no confidence. However, any government formed without a confidence vote will face significant questions over its legitimacy. There is certainly an argument that if parliament cannot be prorogued “at will�, it cannot have a government imposed upon it, particularly when the circumstances are essentially identical to if a VoNC had been passed under the FTPA. There would be some poetic justice in the same Westminster gang responsible for the Miller case being “hoisted by their own petard� and trapped by the very same case!

Regardless, ANY new government, unless it is a coalition of every other party, will find itself no better off than the Conservatives are now. They will be hamstrung by being in a minority and, possibly most importantly, will suddenly find themselves responsible, and therefore blamed for, the handling of Brexit.

Corbyn or Swinson may talk a big talk about a second referendum or revoking A50. They will find that it is much easier to shout from the sidelines than face the harsh reality – of being in a position to implement those policies without ever having been elected on that basis – of a furious electorate.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://keighleycravensdp.wordpress.co....

This is incomprehensible nonsense.

The government cannot resign. That doesn't even mean anything. It doesn't exist as an entity capable of resigning.

[Little John]

You f***ing bullshitter

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... to-the-eu/

This post follows on from a previous piece where I attempted to set out the general rules, and a flowchart, to create a route map in the event of a vote of no confidence. This post seeks to address the narrower question of what could happen if the Prime Minister (‘PM’) refused to send the letter to extend the Article 50 process and instead decided to announce the resignation of the Government before the deadline. This post assumes that the resignation would be by the whole Government on the grounds that collective responsibility on its central policy would apply in all the circumstances.

The deadline for sending the letter under the Benn-Burt Bill (now European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (‘EUW2’)) is 19 October 2019 which is a Saturday.

It is a convention that prime ministers should, where possible, give sufficient notice of their resignation so that an alternative prime minister can be identified. In those circumstances, let us suppose that the PM announces to the House of Commons on its return on Monday 14 October that the Government will formally resign on the morning of Friday 18 October rather than send the letter under the Act.
The Queen must have a Government

One of the most central rules of the constitution is that the Queen must have the benefit of ministerial advice. Such an announcement by the PM would thus require that a new PM be chosen to form a new government. In my previous post I argued that the new PM would normally have to be nominated by the largest party or grouping in the House of Commons in order for the candidate to be clearly best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. It is a matter of numbers.

The rule that a new PM must come from the largest party or grouping is universally agreed if the largest party or grouping has an overall majority. My view, as argued before, is that the starting point should be the same in situations where there is no overall majority because such a rule would be clear, simple and rational. It is also arguably the best way to ensure that the Queen is never drawn into the political arena.

Others disagree, however, and argue that where there is not an overall majority for any party or grouping, then there must be negotiations between the major parties until a settlement is reached. Of course this increases the possibility that the Queen could be drawn into the situation in extremis – indeed some commentators would defend that option as a last resort. The author respectfully demurs from the latter view as incompatible with a modern democracy.

My own view remains that if, for some reason, the largest party or grouping cannot, or will not, nominate a new PM, then, if all else fails, the Commons must decide who is best placed by a vote or votes on motions in the Commons for that purpose. Such motions could possibly be drafted along the lines of “This House believes [X] is best placed to command the confidence of the House of Commons�. Other commentators may have alternative potential solutions to suggest.
Immediate steps after announcement of imminent resignation as PM

The first point to note is that the PM, and the Government, has the absolute right to resign at any time. The Government cannot be forced to stay in office. The convention that the PM waits for a successor is important, but ultimately cannot trump the right to resign.

It is important to note that Mr Johnson could remain as the leader of the Conservative Party even after the Government resigns, unless he is brought down within his party by Conservative MPs. If he was deposed as leader, a temporary replacement would be likely pending a full Conservative party leadership election. This post assumes Mr Johnson would continue as leader of the Conservative Party.

The second point is that the scenario explored in this post could create exactly the unusual circumstances that were suggested above where the largest party or grouping cannot, or will not, nominate a new PM. Mr Johnson could announce that no Conservative MP is permitted to accept any offer to be PM and keep the whip. That would rule out 288 Conservative MPs from being PM unless they resigned the party whip. (It would also circumvent my suggested rule – to recap, my suggested rule is that a new PM must normally be called from the largest party or grouping because, as a matter of pure numbers, no one else is likely to command greater numerical support).
Who then would be best placed if all whipped Tory MPs refuse to be PM?

There is a long-standing traditional answer as to who should be called in these kinds of situations. The next in line to be PM in such circumstances is the Leader of the Opposition (‘LOTO’). LOTO is currently Mr Corbyn. He is supposed to stand ready, constitutionally, to step in, if necessary, as PM.

Mr Corbyn, as the leader of the largest party outside the Tory/DUP grouping would therefore appear to be the default option to be called by the Queen in these circumstances. If there was any other opposition grouping that formed which somehow outnumbered Mr Corbyn, the leader of that grouping could claim to be best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. It is fair to say that this possibility seems quite unlikely but if it happened, it might well involve negotiations between the smaller parties and some Labour MPs, and if necessary votes in the Commons as previously discussed. The rest of this post will assume, however, that Mr Corbyn would be called to the Palace and become PM.
Recommending a successor?

Suppose the PM and the Government therefore formally resigns on the morning of Friday 18 October. It is sometimes argued that the incumbent PM has a duty to ‘recommend’ a new PM. This is mistaken. Of course giving formal advice would frequently be entirely illogical because such formal advice by the PM to the Queen is predicated on having the confidence of the Commons. If a PM loses confidence and someone else is best placed to command confidence, how can the incumbent have the standing to advise who else has confidence?

The manufacturing of a duty to ‘recommend’ who to appoint, has somehow been distinguished from formal advice by some commentators. On close examination, it is suggested that the idea is equally hard to follow as a matter of logic. Why is the former PM’s opinion relevant or probative? It is the Commons that has the duty to identify a successor, through the party system or otherwise. A former PM may be asked his or her opinion out of courtesy, but equally, it would be no problem if they were not.

In the current case, therefore, Mr Johnson would be under no duty to recommend a successor. Nor would he be likely to want to make any recommendation in these circumstances. He would be under no obligation to do so.
Sending the Letter

One of the first acts of Mr Corbyn, as the new PM, would be to send the letter mandated in s 1(4) of EUW2 and set out in the Schedule to the Act. Presumably this would happen later on Friday 18th October to meet the deadline of Saturday 19 October. No doubt any new exit date could be swiftly agreed with the EU27, unless the extension was refused, and the relevant statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to change the exit date in domestic law could be laid immediately – possibly over the weekend.
New Prime Minister and new Leader of the Opposition

If he remained leader of the Conservative Party, Mr Johnson would then become the new Leader of the Opposition. Mr Corbyn would be the new Prime Minister. The next steps would appear to follow logically. As the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Johnson would have the right, by convention, to seek and obtain the parliamentary time to bring a statutory vote of no confidence (‘VoNC’) `in Her Majesty’s Government, led by Mr Corbyn, under the Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 (‘FtPA’). He might well bring a VoNC at the earliest opportunity.

Two outcomes are possible. If Mr Corbyn were to win the VoNC, he would stay on as the new PM and take over negotiations with the EU27 over Brexit. The numbers would appear to be against him, however. He has only 247 MPs in his party. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, especially in these febrile times.

If Mr Corbyn were to lose the VoNC, a 14 day period would be triggered under the Act. The most likely subsequent outcome would be that the 14 day period simply runs out and an election ensues with Mr Corbyn as the new PM and Mr Johnson as the new Leader of the Opposition.

Alternatively, Mr Corbyn could win a subsequent a vote of confidence under the FtPA. This is a separate procedure to the VoNC procedure. Such votes of confidence can be brought in the 14 day period by Her Majesty’s Government. They require 50%+1 of the vote in the Commons. If Mr Corbyn won such a vote of confidence within the 14 days, he would then stay on as PM.

There is another possible outcome, although it would seem quite unlikely. If, within 14 days, Mr Johnson were to be able to demonstrate that he could form a government and that he was in fact clearly best placed to command the confidence of the Commons instead of Mr Corbyn, he might argue that Mr Corbyn would have a duty to offer his resignation to the Queen, or be dismissed. The Queen would then have a duty to reappoint Mr Johnson as PM. This potential pathway would face the same difficulties as discussed above where there is no grouping with an overall majority. There are no circumstances, it is suggested, where the Queen could ever be involved.
Mr Johnson’s next steps if he is reappointed by the Queen as PM

If reappointed, Mr Johnson would then have two choices. He could bring a vote of confidence under the FtPA. Mr Johnson now has only 288 MPs plus 10 DUP MPs so there is no way to know if he would succeed in passing a vote of confidence. If he did succeed, he would continue as PM and the situation would in effect return to the status quo ante save that there would be a new date for Brexit, agreed by Mr Corbyn.

Alternatively, Mr Johnson could choose not to bring a vote of confidence under the Act (it is not obligatory). Or he could lose the vote of confidence, if he brought one. After 14 days an election would then be triggered and would follow under the normal procedures of the FtPA but with Mr Johnson as PM.
Conclusion

Mr Johnson has said he will not send The Letter mandated in EUW2 and he wants there to be an election. He may yet achieve both goals – and might even fight an ensuing election as Prime Minister.

The author would like to thank Gavin Phillipson, Alison Young and Peter Ramsay for their helpful comments on a previous draft.

Robert Craig, AHRC Doctoral Researcher, University of Bristol

[RevdTess]

Today's dramatic court decision aside, I thought Corbyn's conference speech was actually quite good. He's a terrible orator, but I think the policies are largely good, and might actually gain some traction with left-wing Leavers. I'd love to see what the polls are doing now. Under any other circumstances, Johnson should be crashing in popularity, but those who support his approach to Brexit probably don't give a damn what political 'rigmarole' he goes through in order to achieve it.

Personally I think Corbyn's done and said enough to convince me to vote Labour at the next election rather than LibDem. I hate the idea of simply cancelling A50 without another referendum and I can foresee a situation where there's a Lib/Lab coalition and the LibDems have to go back on their revoke promise and agree to Labour's policy of another referendum instead. The SNP of course would agree to another Brexit referendum so long as they can also get indyref2... but I digress. Let's see what craziness tomorrow brings.

[UndercoverElephant]

So, it is now fully clear what is happening.

The political class is aiming to or has already achieved:

Make it illegal to leave on 31 October without a deal.

Make it illegal to close parliament to limit the political class' capacity to thwart the democratic vote of the people.

My bold. You just demonstrated why the tories were in lockdown last night, saying nothing about this. You are complaining that the supreme court is effectively thwarting the will of the people on brexit. But this judgement was about Johnson's reasons for closing parliament - it unanimously ruled against him because he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit. You are now fully admitting that it had everything to do with brexit, which perfectly demonstrates why the judges made the judgement they did.

[UndercoverElephant]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 27% (-2)
LAB: 27% (-)
LDEM: 20% (-1)
BREX: 17% (+4)

via @ComRes, 24 Sep
Chgs. w/ 19 Sep

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

Corbyn’s sweet victory, and why it matters

The whole UK media is gearing up for the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. But, important as the ruling on prorogation may be in the discussion about the future of the British constitution, it is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on Brexit itself - just like prorogation itself. Prorogation did not stop the Benn extension legislation from passing in record time. And, even if the Supreme Court were to rule in favour of the government, parliament will still have time to ratify a withdrawal agreement, or launch a vote of no-confidence in the prime minister, before Brexit. We cannot think of a single Brexit outcome that is critically influenced by procedural and legal arguments.

What is harder to ascertain is the indirect political effect. If the Court were to rule that the prime minister lied to the Queen, there would be calls for his resignation. There might be further Tory MPs ready to desert a sinking ship. A vote of no-confidence could ensue. There are many other scenarios. One scenario is that the Court rules against the government, the MPs return, and Johnson prorogues again.

Yesterday’s Labour Party conference is most likely a more important political event than a Supreme Court ruling on a quaint technical procedure. The party voted to support Jeremy Corbyn’s view to enter the election campaign with no firm position on Brexit, but promising to hold a second referendum six months after coming into power. The party conference defeated three Remain proposals by a vague show of hands, but the direction of the vote already become apparent earlier in the afternoon when the party leadership turned the debate into a vote of confidence in Corbyn himself. Labour delegates were signalling yesterday they are behind Corbyn.

We agree with the observation made by Andrew Duff yesterday that it probably does not matter a great deal whether Labour will campaign for Remain. More important is whether Corbyn will allow a free vote on a withdrawal deal. If a withdrawal agreement were to squeeze through parliament with the help of pro-Brexit Labour MPs, that would be it for the Brexit saga. There would be no majority in the parliament to subject the deal to a second referendum. If that happened, both the LibDems and the Labour Remainers would of all a sudden find themselves with no policy. A second referendum makes no sense after the UK has left the EU. A campaign to re-enter will take many years. 

Another possible scenario is continued parliamentary stalemate. One indirect effect of Labour's decision yesterday is that it might inadvertently delay an election even after an extension is granted. The extension would be at most for three months. The same argument that stopped the general election in October will still hold then. Remainer MPs have no interest in an election they are unlikely to win. Even if Corbyn wins, the result would be seen as an endorsement of his own eurosceptic position. But we are not sure that the Remainers will be able to mount a united opposition to elections this time. The LibDems and the SNP want elections, and so does Corbyn. A November or December election remains our central scenario. But we also think that there is a possibility that Brexit might be settled beforehand.

[fuzzy]

John Ward giving an extraordinary detail of the supreme court [too late to help us obviously]

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25 ... ion-legal/

[UndercoverElephant]

Beria:

The extension would be at most for three months

I don't agree. I suspect it will be at least six months and maybe longer. The EU wants to make sure that the UK is forced to actually sort itself out this time.

[Little John]

So, it is now fully clear what is happening.

The political class is aiming to or has already achieved:

Make it illegal to leave on 31 October without a deal.

Make it illegal to close parliament to limit the political class' capacity to thwart the democratic vote of the people.

My bold. You just demonstrated why the tories were in lockdown last night, saying nothing about this. You are complaining that the supreme court is effectively thwarting the will of the people on brexit. But this judgement was about Johnson's reasons for closing parliament - it unanimously ruled against him because he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit. You are now fully admitting that it had everything to do with brexit, which perfectly demonstrates why the judges made the judgement they did.

F--k off

Prorougement has been a political tool of the executive since for ever. But, antidemocratic wankers like you are all getting the vapours now about it...right?

You are morally intellectually and politically bankrupt. you and those like you make me sick to my f***ing stomach.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

Why the ruling is less important than it looks

The Remainers are winning all the procedural battles. But the Leavers are winning the Brexit war. We are tempted to classify yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court as an irrelevant distraction, but that would probably be too deterministic. It might unleash a political dynamic of its own, and prompt some of the actors involved to make unrecoverable mistakes. 

As for the ruling itself, there is no shortage of legal and pseudo-legal explanation in this morning’s media. We have a more prosaic explanation of what happened: a Leave-supporting government abused a constitutional procedure to further its political aims. And a Remain-supporting judiciary declared this illegal. This legal battle is a mirror image of the broader debate that is raging in the country at large.

So, what are Johnson’s options now, as he gets back from his trip to the US? 

A new deal is still his best hope, but the EU is unlikely to move away from its current position unless and until Johnson can demonstrate that a deal would be carried by a majority in the Commons. Yesterday’s ruling has no effect on that, but it could induce some fence-sitters to vote against a deal in the false hope of achieving a different outcome. In that sense, one could argue that the ruling has marginally, but not fundamentally, increased the probability of a no-deal Brexit. 

As we keep on pointing out, the reach of UK parliamentarians and UK courts does not include Article 50 itself. The UK parliament cannot force an extension, it can only force a prime minister to ask for one. We think the most plausible response to an extension request by the European Council is to make that conditional on the parliament agreeing elections or a second referendum, in other words to bounce the ball back to the UK parliament. 

The Daily Telegraph reports this morning that the government will make a third attempt this week to trigger elections. Jeremy Corbyn decided yesterday against a vote of confidence. And he rejected calls for an early election. The political calculation behind these repeated attempts is to demonstrate that Remain-supporting MPs want to reverse Brexit without recourse to the electorate. Yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court does, in theory, not preclude another tactical prorogation, but we cannot see what would be achieved. Johnson’s strongest card is not procedure, but his personal electoral appeal, the division of the opposition, and the politics of the European Council which are often misunderstood in the UK.

As he will still be the prime minister at the end of the month, he could still force a no-deal Brexit in the European Council.

What would happen in the case that the European Council grants a three-month extension without any conditions attached? In this case we are not sure that elections would automatically follow. It is the general expectation among commentators that elections will have to happen if only to break the deadlock. But there are a lot of MPs in the Commons who will stand to lose their seats. The worse the polling gets for Corbyn, the greater the chances that the Labour Party continues to foot-drag on elections. Corbyn’s insistence that no-deal must be taken off the table as a condition for an election is essentially unfulfillable so long as the Article 50 process is not concluded. He could keep on making that argument in November as well, and keep forcing another extension in January.

The Remainer’s best chance is not another piece of legislation, but that Johnson and his team at Number 10 entangle themselves in more mistakes. We argued back in June that Johnson should ask for immediate elections when he was voted Conservative Party leader. The parliament would have accepted that request back then. The chosen route to a Brexit deal through prorogation was ultimately not successful - not because of yesterday’s ruling but because of the Benn extension bill. Parliament now has an opportunity to strengthen that bill further, but that is unlikely to be a game changer: we are always bunching up against the same reality: the no-deal remains the default position in Art. 50; that parliament is not ready to revoke Brexit or install a government of national unity; and that the EU negotiates with governments, not parliaments. 

Wolfgang Munchau writes: there are some parallels between the approaching impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump and the Remainers’ pushback against Brexit. Both could backfire. The impeachment proceedings could end up benefitting Trump - just as it benefitted Bill Clinton. The Republican majority in the Senate makes an ultimate conviction almost impossible, yet the case would dominate the news agenda during most of the election period, and would deprive Democratic candidates from an opportunity to get their message across. The Remainers in the UK clearly have the judiciary on their side, but they will ultimately need to win their case at the ballot box - a goal they are moving further and further away from. Outside the UK, especially in Europe, Boris Johnson is portrayed as a hopeless leader, but his party is ahead in the polls, and he managed to split the opposition into committed Remainers and fence-sitters. The centre and the left will ultimately need to defeat Johnson and Trump politically. Over-reliance on procedure makes that goal less likely.

[Lord Beria3]

A times reader comment today...

Everyone is very self-absorbed about this. I live in Germany and work all over continental Europe, with continental Europeans. I speak German and French. The majority of people I work with, at all levels of society, across the continent, just want Britain to go away. They don't care any more.

Five years ago most continental Europeans thought highly of Britain, her people, her system, and her courage. Three years ago they were (mostly) astonished by the referendum result. A year ago they were baffled by how long it was all taking. Three months ago they were amused and amazed by the chaos and incompetence. Now, for the most part, they think Brits voters are ignorant and peculiar, Brit politicians are mad, corrupt and intellectally bankrupt, and the British system of government deeply, possibly irredeemably, flawed.

Frankly, even if the Remainers win through, Brits had better not assume that Europe will have them back. There would be a big debate over here about whether it's worth it, frankly - maybe Europe feels it is better off without the UK clattering around as a perpetual trouble-maker.