Brexit process

[stumuz1]

BTW, the conservative leadership contest that has just appointed Bojo was the result of the Macmillan constitutional crises.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you think for a scintilla of a moment that the Queen will cheese off half of her subjects to sort Brexit, then you need to have a rest from keyboard pumping.

Of course I don't think she's going to do that. I don't think Johnson is stupid enough to put her in that position. If he loses a VonC, he will resign.

[stumuz1]

If you think for a scintilla of a moment that the Queen will cheese off half of her subjects to sort Brexit, then you need to have a rest from keyboard pumping.

Of course I don't think she's going to do that. I don't think Johnson is stupid enough to put her in that position. If he loses a VonC, he will resign.

On November 1st.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

No, the UK parliament will not stop a no-deal Brexit

We have a useful tip for readers who follow Brexit professionally. The easiest way to cut down on your daily Brexit readings without losing any information whatsoever is to exclude two overlapping categories of writers and commentators: anybody who has not read or understood Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and thus treats Brexit purely in the context of UK law and politics; and anybody who involves the Queen at some part in the process, like the extreme Leavers who call for the prorogation of parliament, and the extreme Remainers who want parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit. Some commentators fall into both categories simultaneously.

Today we would like to debunk the myth that the UK parliament can stop the no-deal Brexit. Under EU law - the law that matters in this specific discussion - there are only two technical possibilities for the UK parliament to frustrate an October 31st Brexit. The first and the only certain route is a majority in favour of unilateral revocation of Brexit. No such majority exists. 

This leaves a less certain pathway: to seek a further Art. 50 extension. Since Boris Johnson refuses to do this, it would have to involve a new prime minister before October. 

So what would happen if the House of Commons were to pass a vote of no-confidence in Johnson's government? Under the fixed-term parliaments act, this would trigger a 14-day period in which parliament can seek an alternative candidate for the job of prime minister. Failing that, there would have to be elections. 

An alternative prime minister would be tasked with doing two things only: to write a letter asking the European Council for an extension and to seek immediate elections. It would be what the Italians call a technical government. 

There was some discussion yesterday on whether Johnson would need to resign even if parliament were to succeed in finding such a candidate. We believe that to be the case. Others do not. But for now this is an idle discussion to which we will happily return if we get to that point. We will probably not, because the numbers are simply not there.

For this situation to arise, a number of things would have to happen. First, Jeremy Corbyn would have to ask for, and win, a vote of no-confidence in the government. He could ask for such a vote to take place shortly after the Commons return from the summer recess. The Johnson team’s plan A is to get ready in case they lose this vote. The plan is to schedule an election on or after October 31 - but not to extend the Brexit deadline. So the election would take place after a no-deal Brexit. 

This, in our view, is the Johnson team's greatest vulnerability. We don’t think that they have thought this through in full. The logistical consequences of a no-deal Brexit are hard to predict. There may be food or medical shortages that could easily turn into a major election issue. So, before discussing any complicated issues arising from UK constitutional law, ask yourself: why would Corbyn want to miss out on such an opportunity by supporting an alternative technical government? This is an election he might actually win. 

A technical government would require almost unanimous support from all the opposition parties. It would have to include every Labour MP. The Tories currently have a majority of three. Any Tory MP who votes against their own government will be immediately sacked from the parliamentary party, and replaced as a future MP candidate by their local association. There will be some brave hearts. We suspect maybe five to ten, but not ten to twenty. A successful vote of no confidence is entirely possible.

But what about agreement on an alternative prime minister? The UK does not know the concept of a constructive vote of no-confidence, which is what you have in Germany or Spain. In the UK it is possible for MPs to express no confidence in a government, and then go on to withhold their support for any alternative candidate.  

The LibDems, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, will support a technical government. But will Labour?

The decision will be taken in the context of a pending election. Labour MPs in Brexit-supporting seats will have to explain why they supported a Remainer as interim prime minister with the sole task to frustrate Brexit. This would be the one scenario where we could see a political alliance between the Tories and the Brexit party - with the latter targeting some of the leave-voting marginal Labour seats.

For now, the Labour frontbench team has firmly ruled out the idea of supporting a government of national unity. Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Labour frontbencher who is close to Corbyn, yesterday categorically ruled out supporting a government of national unity to deal with Brexit. We can see why. It does not make sense for them.

But even if the Labour frontbench team were to come under massive pressure to support a government with an extremely limited remit, we still don’t see how the numbers add up. On our count there are about 10 Labour MPs who do not wish to be seen to frustrate Brexit.

So, before we get to the constitutionally tricky question of what would happen in case Johnson simply refuses to go even if parliament were to huddle around an alternative, we better stop at this point and look at the numbers. They are not there. The numbers for unilateral revocation are not there either. This means that parliament cannot stop a no-deal Brexit on its own. 

We are not saying a no-deal Brexit is certain. We are saying that it depends on Johnson - not on parliament. He and his team are clear that they need to deliver Brexit. But we don’t think they have yet thought through the difficulty of running an election campaign in the middle of a no-deal Brexit chaos.

This means that the future is not foretold. Events can and will intrude

.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you think for a scintilla of a moment that the Queen will cheese off half of her subjects to sort Brexit, then you need to have a rest from keyboard pumping.

Of course I don't think she's going to do that. I don't think Johnson is stupid enough to put her in that position. If he loses a VonC, he will resign.

On November 1st.

Your own position is contradictory. You are claiming that the Queen won't get dragged into it, and simultaneously insisting that Johnson will behave in a way which is guaranteed to drag the Queen into it. The moment he fails to resign after a VonC, the Queen is involved.

[Lord Beria3]

The Queen won't get involved.

Full stop.

Eurointelligence are correct - a hard Brexit is looking likely.

[stumuz1]

Your own position is contradictory. You are claiming that the Queen won't get dragged into it, and simultaneously insisting that Johnson will behave in a way which is guaranteed to drag the Queen into it. The moment he fails to resign after a VonC, the Queen is involved.

So you are claiming that if Boris does A. Then the Queen will do B.

Therefore you are saying the Queens actions are in the gift of Boris?

A ridiculas proposition.

The Queen will not get involved in politics. Full stop. Because if they do it is the end of the monarchy.

Remember, politics is show business for ugly people. Politicians are slimy, unprincipled, gratuitous, puffed up self important gobshi*ts.

The only thing that keeps them in line is the fact that they have to answer to the public every few years and we have quite good transparency in public life.

What we are witnessing is the desperate thrashing about of elites that are not in control of events.

It is a joy to behold.

[UndercoverElephant]

The Queen won't get involved.

Full stop.

A lot of people don't agree with you.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-uk- ... arliament/

The queen’s big Brexit moment?

If Boris Johnson loses a vote of confidence and refuses to go, it could be up to the monarch to intervene.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Deal.html

The UK is staring down the barrel of a constitutional crisis as Remainers demand the Queen steps in to stop Boris Johnson forcing through No Deal Brexit.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11625 ... y-leave-eu

Brexit sabotage: Remainers hatch incredible plot to use Queen to DEFY referendum result

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... s-johnson/

The academic said the "main line of thought" was to "keep the Queen above politics."

He said the "trouble with the present situation" was that whatever the Queen does it "looks political," he told Eddie "not firing Boris and firing Boris both equally count as interventions."

But, he said he thought should things get to that situation then people would try to "persuade Boris to go, so he doesn't embarrass the Queen."

You can't just declare that she won't get involved. If Johnson refuses to resign after a VonC, she will have to get involved. Even by doing nothing she is involved.

[UndercoverElephant]

Your own position is contradictory. You are claiming that the Queen won't get dragged into it, and simultaneously insisting that Johnson will behave in a way which is guaranteed to drag the Queen into it. The moment he fails to resign after a VonC, the Queen is involved.

So you are claiming that if Boris does A. Then the Queen will do B.

Therefore you are saying the Queens actions are in the gift of Boris?

Nope, that is putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

A ridiculas proposition.

That's what you said about no deal being stopped in March.

I am saying that if there is a vote of no confidence and Johnson refuses to resign, then the Queen is involved in politics by default. Your argument depends on a fallacy that doing nothing always equates to not being involved. And that really is a ridiculous proposition, because there are all sorts of situations where you are ethically or legally compelled to act, and failing to do so in considered an action in itself. The choice to do nothing is itself a choice.

The Queen will not get involved in politics. Full stop. Because if they do it is the end of the monarchy.

Are you being deliberately stupid?

If Johnson refuses to resign after losing a VonC, and the Queen does not sack him, then she is involved in politics and it could well be the end of the monarchy. She would be blamed for allowing a no-deal brexit to occur, against the will of parliament. That is not "not getting involved in politics".

The whole point of this argument is that Johnson refusing to resign sets up a situation where it is impossible for the Queen to avoid getting involved.

What we are witnessing is the desperate thrashing about of elites that are not in control of events.

It is a joy to behold.

I agree with these two statements.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-uk- ... arliament/

However, if Johnson lost a vote of confidence, refused to go, and another group in parliament was able to command a majority in the House of Commons — for, say, delaying Brexit and holding a general election — then the queen would have to invite the leader of said faction to form a government. If Johnson still refused to go, then the U.K. would be, in the words of one parliamentary expert, in "full-blown constitutional crisis" territory.

That is the problem, writ large. If Johnson tries to remain as PM in order to delay an election until after a no deal brexit, while he has lost a confidence vote, and another MP can or has won one, then that really is a constitutional crisis. Such a situation is not supposed to happen, and would be a gross abuse of our political system at a crucial moment in history. If at that point the Queen chose to do nothing, then Corbyn would have every right to call for the abolition of the monarchy, and he may just end up in the position to be able to do it.

Johnson will not do this. He would rather fight an election he might lose than risk going down in history as the tory Prime Minister who destroyed the monarchy.

[stumuz1]

That's what you said about no deal being stopped in March.

We did have a PM who said we were leaving over a hundred times. Legally we were going to leave..... until she bottled and grovelled.

I am saying that if there is a vote of no confidence and Johnson refuses to resign, then the Queen is involved in politics by default..

Nope.

Supreme court gets involved. Sauce/Goose

Your argument depends on a fallacy that doing nothing always equates to not being involved. .

The Queen has the
Privy council
Supreme court of Justice(hers)

To get involved.

The whole point of this argument is that Johnson refusing to resign sets up a situation where it is impossible for the Queen to avoid getting involved..

Wrong. This constitutional disagreement will take so many turns and each turn will be decided in the supreme court( if it's a prerogative or statutorily issue)

[Mark]

CBA alerts new secretary of state to UK REACH fears:
https://chemicalwatch.com/80787/cba-ale ... each-fears

Association awaits response on Sief proposal
The Chemical Business Association (CBA) has written to the newly appointed secretary of state for the environment to highlight concerns about UK REACH and the potential impacts of a no-deal Brexit. Prime minister Boris Johnson, who appointed Theresa Villiers MP as secretary following his victory in the Conservative party leadership election in July, has pledged to leave the EU by 31 October with or without an exit agreement. In its 1 August letter to Ms Villiers, the CBA reiterated its view that the current REACH statutory instrument is "unworkable, unrealistic in terms of timescale, costly, and is almost certain to result in higher levels of animal testing". In order to function, it said, UK REACH requires a database of registered chemicals similar to that held by Echa, but UK companies do not own or have access to much of this data. "Selling access to this data to the UK as a third country remains a commercial decision for its current owner(s) and will not be governed by the EU’s data-sharing rules." It added that there is anecdotal evidence that some EU-based chemical manufacturers will not make their data available because the UK market is "too small to be of economic interest".

UK firms 'simply cannot afford the further costs of creating a stand-alone UK REACH regime', CBA

The cost of establishing UK REACH after a no-deal Brexit is "considerable", the association said. Registration fees and data-sharing contributions funding the process cost millions of pounds and UK firms "simply cannot afford the further costs of creating a stand-alone UK REACH regime". The two-year target for the UK REACH entity to acquire all the relevant testing data on UK products is "unrealistic", especially given the EU’s REACH regime took ten years to implement, it added. The CBA has proposed that European substance information exchange fora (Siefs), which currently hold the majority of chemical test data supporting EU REACH registrations, be allowed to submit a full registration dossier to the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). In its August letter, the association complained that to date, Defra ministers "have appeared to be unwilling or unable to consider any solution outside the terms of the current REACH statutory instrument. We are still awaiting a response from Defra in relation to this proposal."

New subsidiaries
The CBA also questioned the government’s stance on the potential impact for trade if the country leaves the trade bloc without a deal. "UK businesses were promised ‘frictionless access’ to EU markets. To date, there is little or no evidence that this is a realistic prospect." The political "impasse" of the last three years, the CBA added, has resulted in a "significant number" of supply chain companies creating subsidiaries in EU member states – with premises and employees – representing a "permanent loss" to the UK exchequer and to UK employment. And other companies have transferred key products to EU-based companies to guarantee continued regulatory compliance and market access, it said. "Similarly, we are aware of European-owned chemical companies repatriating products." At the end of July the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) ¬– one of the UK's most influential lobby groups – warned of the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the chemicals industry. It also called for UK and EU authorities to arrange a mechanism to enable data sharing on substances. The UK Parliament’s House of Commons is on summer recess until 3 September.

[stumuz1]

Tobacco industry lobbyists= thoroughly decent people, putting the publics health first.

Oil industry lobbyists= Making the world a peaceful and safe place since 1945.

Sugar industry lobbyists= Making the population slim and lithe.

Chemical industry lobbyists= Ensuring so far as is reasonably profitable that no hazardous substance enters the global supply chain.

CBA.....Sniggers.

[stumuz1]

Some of your revered lobbyists at work Mark,

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neil-young

[Mark]

Some of your revered lobbyists at work Mark,

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neil-young

1. You don't know my views - please don't assume to know them
2. I do not 'revere' lobbyists, or Monsanto for that matter
3. In my humble opinion, ECHA/REACh is (generally) a good thing, as it has resulted in much more safety/environmental evaluation of chemicals, far better Safety Data Sheets, and the phase out of some real 'nasties', with more to follow....
4. I also think that it's extremely costly/wasteful to set up a near total mirror UK REACH organisation, unless someone (you ?) can explain the benefit ?