Brexit process

[Little John]

It is undemocratic because it flies in the face of a referendum which was voted for by parliament, because the result of that referendum was that Leave won, because the electorate were assured before and during that referendum that their democratic instruction to Leave would be carried out, because parliament then voted to trigger article 50 ensuring Brexit happened, because parliament then voted for the withdrawal act that meant the UK leaves with or without a deal and, finally, because in the only democratic process that has occurred since all of the above happened has been the EU elections where Brexit was very much at the forefront of the reason people voted and where total Leave votes exceeded total Remain votes by around the same percentage as for the referendum.

You anti-democrat.

It's time to cut the bullshit and own what you really are.

How many fricking times, Steve?

You can't possibly have any grounds for calling me an anti-democrat, because I am not telling you what I think should happen. I am telling you what I think will happen.

By your logic, if I think somebody will steal a Porsche if it is left on my street unlocked with the keys in the ignition, I'm a car thief.

This parliament will do everything in its power to prevent a no deal brexit. That is just the reality. It's not my fault, and has got nothing to do with what I want.

So one more time, for the record: I do not believe there is any legitimate way to stop brexit. If it is stopped, then at least 40% of the electorate will be absolutely outraged, and they will have every right to feel that way. I also believe that if the UK remains in the EU, we will turn into a malignant cancer rather than a useful organ.

You have't merely said it is "the reality.

You are now coming out with the usual Remainer shite that what is happening in parliament is democratic

[stumuz1]

Firstly, if the two weeks passes without a vote of confidence,.

Then we are in constitutional convention party conference season.

When they are finished a Vonc can be called. But then it's too late

How many times do I have to explain this?

If there's a succesful VonC but it is too late to hold a general election before October 31st then all parliament has to do is pass a vote of confidence in a technical Prime Minister such as Yvette Cooper, who can go and ask the EU for an extension before calling the election.

This isn't rocket science.

And then litigated at the supreme court, as per Millar.

Sauce for the goose

[UndercoverElephant]

It is undemocratic because it flies in the face of a referendum which was voted for by parliament, because the result of that referendum was that Leave won, because the electorate were assured before and during that referendum that their democratic instruction to Leave would be carried out, because parliament then voted to trigger article 50 ensuring Brexit happened, because parliament then voted for the withdrawal act that meant the UK leaves with or without a deal and, finally, because in the only democratic process that has occurred since all of the above happened has been the EU elections where Brexit was very much at the forefront of the reason people voted and where total Leave votes exceeded total Remain votes by around the same percentage as for the referendum.

You anti-democrat.

It's time to cut the bullshit and own what you really are.

How many fricking times, Steve?

You can't possibly have any grounds for calling me an anti-democrat, because I am not telling you what I think should happen. I am telling you what I think will happen.

By your logic, if I think somebody will steal a Porsche if it is left on my street unlocked with the keys in the ignition, I'm a car thief.

This parliament will do everything in its power to prevent a no deal brexit. That is just the reality. It's not my fault, and has got nothing to do with what I want.

So one more time, for the record: I do not believe there is any legitimate way to stop brexit. If it is stopped, then at least 40% of the electorate will be absolutely outraged, and they will have every right to feel that way. I also believe that if the UK remains in the EU, we will turn into a malignant cancer rather than a useful organ.

You have't merely said it is "the reality.

You are now coming out with the usual Remainer shite that what is happening in parliament is democratic

Actually, I am not. You are oversimplifying both the situation and what I am saying about it.

I am talking about procedure and what I believe will happen. I'm also saying that what I think is going to happen will be perfectly within the law. I made no comment about whether it is "democratic" or "anti-democratic" - you brought that up.

"Democratic" and "anti-democratic" are problematic terms, because it is possible to argue that any legal parliamentary procedure is "democratic". Any process from this point which does not deliver brexit will be viewed as ""illegitimate". Why? Because Cameron said the result of the referendum would be enacted, and that there would not be a second referendum, and because Theresa May and her bunch of EU-friendly negotiators totally f***ed up the withdrawal negotiations. Unfortunately, she only had one chance to get it right, and she got it wrong. And because of that, if brexit is now cancelled, regardless of the mechanism, it will look like it was cancelled because a remain-supporting prime minister conspired with a remain-leaning UK parliament and the EU to make it as hard as possible for the UK to leave.

If the UK does not leave the EU, the consequences will be severe and long-lasting. The political system as we knew it has already been broken by brexit, and there is more to come. The two party system is broken, and first past the post is broken.

[Mark]

Remember, the only reason we are still in the EU is that May bottled it and went back to grovel to the EU for an extension.

Can't see Bojo doing that

I remember you posting a countdown clock to the March 'deadline', quoting primary legislation etc.
Brexit minus 10 days, Brexit minus 9 days etc.
You then went very quiet for a few months.

Are you so confident in Bojo and his majority of '1' ?
Are you planning to start posting another countdown clock ?

[stumuz1]

So it looks like the following scenarios could happen.

1. September Vonc in which Bojo loses. Election called but we will have left by the time result is in.

2. A new never been tried before technical motion could be passed by the opposition and if successful would be challenged to see if it is lawful (supreme court being the final arbiter of lawfulness). The Miller case took over a year to get to judgement.

From the institute for government'

"There are concerns that the FTPA allows a weak government to remain in office. Previously, more ambiguously worded motions of no confidence or censure could lead to a government resigning in favour of a new government, without an election being needed. It was previously considered a possible loss of confidence if a government could not pass a budget or a Queen’s Speech. There are concerns that other motions of confidence do not now have the same weight"

It is more likely than not that we will leave on the 31st for two reasons.

First, there will be a betrayal agenda in UK politics that will take a generation to shake off.

Second, The EU especially France will not want to catch a falling knife that an extension will bring.

However, we were legally leaving in March, but May bottled and grovelled.

[stumuz1]

I remember you posting a countdown clock to the March 'deadline', quoting primary legislation etc.
Brexit minus 10 days, Brexit minus 9 days etc.
You then went very quiet for a few months.

And I was right!

Did not think the premier would bottle and grovel

[Little John]

So it looks like the following scenarios could happen.

1. September Vonc in which Bojo loses. Election called but we will have left by the time result is in.

2. A new never been tried before technical motion could be passed by the opposition and if successful would be challenged to see if it is lawful (supreme court being the final arbiter of lawfulness). The Miller case took over a year to get to judgement.

From the institute for government'

"There are concerns that the FTPA allows a weak government to remain in office. Previously, more ambiguously worded motions of no confidence or censure could lead to a government resigning in favour of a new government, without an election being needed. It was previously considered a possible loss of confidence if a government could not pass a budget or a Queen’s Speech. There are concerns that other motions of confidence do not now have the same weight"

It is more likely than not that we will leave on the 31st for two reasons.

First, there will be a betrayal agenda in UK politics that will take a generation to shake off.

Second, The EU especially France will not want to catch a falling knife that an extension will bring.

However, we were legally leaving in March, but May bottled and grovelled.

I'm going to use that on social media if you don't mind Stumuz

[stumuz1]

Link to the institute for Government.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... y-election

[UndercoverElephant]

2. A new never been tried before technical motion could be passed by the opposition and if successful would be challenged to see if it is lawful (supreme court being the final arbiter of lawfulness). The Miller case took over a year to get to judgement.

Nah. Bercow + majority in parliament + text of the FTPA (regardless of whether or not it has been tried before) means that technical motion would work. Hoping brexit can happen by default while the courts are thinking about it is sheer desperation.

If Johnson loses a VonC with insufficient time to hold an election before brexit, there will be a new technical government within 48 hours, and an extension from EU within a week.

Parliament really is sovereign. That is one thing that is not in doubt.

The really interesting question is what will happen at that election. The window of possible results is surprisingly large, I think.

[stumuz1]

Parliament really is sovereign. That is one thing that is not in doubt.

Without a doubt.

However Judicial review is open to a citizen to challenge the lawfulness of a decision made pursuant to an Act of Parliament.

https://publiclawproject.org.uk/wp-cont ... 3_1305.pdf

It's not just John Major and Gina Miller who can use JR to challenge a Procedural decision.

[UndercoverElephant]

Parliament really is sovereign. That is one thing that is not in doubt.

Without a doubt.

However Judicial review is open to a citizen to challenge the lawfulness of a decision made pursuant to an Act of Parliament.

https://publiclawproject.org.uk/wp-cont ... 3_1305.pdf

It's not just John Major and Gina Miller who can use JR to challenge a Procedural decision.

That is fair enough, but you were suggesting that brexit could happen automatically because the length of time the courts take to process cases. This I do not believe for one second. Given the importance of the decision and the fact that the decision would be pointless if not delivered quickly, I think it would be delivered quickly.

As to whether or not such a legal challenge would be likely to succeed, I am not going to comment. It would be even bigger than the Miller case if it did.

[stumuz1]

As to whether or not such a legal challenge would be likely to succeed, I am not going to comment. It would be even bigger than the Miller case if it did.

The Miller case was constitutionally earthquakey!

If it had gone the way of one dissenting Judge we would have been out long ago. The Judges effectively changed the law whilst hiding behind the cloak of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

[UndercoverElephant]

Johnson's strategy: Brexit doesn't matter, Boris does.

I think I've figured out what is going on. Johnson doesn't really care whether brexit happens or not, his priority is retaining the tory leadership, even if he loses an election before brexit. Remember he started on the fence anyway, and only backed leave because he felt it was in his own best career interest. He'd be happy to remain.

Johnson is currently making “confrontational� demands of the EU, and declaring that the entire Withdrawal Agreement is dead (not just the backstop, which is double dead). In doing so he's ensuring the tory membership think he's wonderful (and they think he can deliver, even though he probably can't). He's deliberately taunting parliament – inviting them to VonC him.

So what are the possible outcomes?

If parliament doesn't VonC him in time then we're heading towards no deal. This might just scare Ireland/EU into making a concession on the backstop, in which case he might just try to get a modified deal through parliament. If that passes, he gets the credit for bashing the EU and delivering brexit, and can call an election.

If the EU doesn't budge on the backstop (or anything else) and there's no VonC, we get no deal. This is what the bulk of tory members and voters want. He'd call an election immediately afterwards.

In both the above scenarios, he shoots Farage's fox, which gives him the best chance of winning the election.

The more likely scenario is that parliament VonCs him the moment parliament returns, in which case there will be an election at the end of October, before brexit. He will pitch this as “the people vs parliament�, with him paradoxically representing the people.

If he wins then he gets a mandate for no deal, which will either scare the EU into making a big concession, or won't. So he either gets his deal through, or he gets no deal. Either way he's got five years as PM.

And if he loses? Then we presumably end up with a minority government led by Corbyn, which will either deliver a brexit the tories don't want, or more likely will be forced by the libdems/SNP to hold a referendum without no deal on the ballot paper, which remain would win. He then gets to blame his own anti-no-deal rebels, the opposition, Theresa May and the EU for the non-delivery of brexit. Pretty much everybody but himself, who did his glorious best. The tories probably wouldn't replace him as leader, and he will then get a chance to sort out some of his party's problems from the safe space of opposition, and hope he gets a chance to fight another election, and hopefully win a comfortable majority by promising to deliver brexit without a second referendum.

[stumuz1]

I think I've figured out what is going on. Johnson doesn't really care whether brexit happens or not, his priority is retaining the tory leadership, even if he loses an election before brexit. Remember he started on the fence anyway, and only backed leave because he felt it was in his own best career interest. He'd be happy to remain..

Disagree, but individual politicians careers are so boring it's not worth the Brain space.

Johnson is currently making “confrontational� demands of the EU, and declaring that the entire Withdrawal Agreement is dead (not just the backstop, which is double dead). In doing so he's ensuring the tory membership think he's wonderful (and they think he can deliver, even though he probably can't). He's deliberately taunting parliament – inviting them to VonC him.

Disagree again. He has staked his political capitol on leaving on the 31st. If he does not. He will be a failure.

If parliament doesn't VonC him in time then we're heading towards no deal. This might just scare Ireland/EU into making a concession on the backstop, in which case he might just try to get a modified deal through parliament. If that passes, he gets the credit for bashing the EU and delivering brexit, and can call an election.

We are out of time for a new deal. His only avenue is to take the bull by the horns and go for no deal and negotiate afterwards.

If the EU doesn't budge on the backstop (or anything else) and there's no VonC, we get no deal. This is what the bulk of tory members and voters want. He'd call an election immediately afterwards.

Agree

The more likely scenario is that parliament VonCs him the moment parliament returns, in which case there will be an election at the end of October, before brexit.

Disagree, trust in politics is shot. If he delivers brexit by the 31st, then the defectors will come back.If he calls an election before Brexit..he loses.

And if he loses? Then we presumably end up with a minority government led by Corbyn, which will either deliver a brexit the tories don't want, or more likely will be forced by the libdems/SNP to hold a referendum without no deal on the ballot paper, which remain would win.

Nope,
The country is split, the political parties are split, parliament is split.
What you are suggesting is there will be a confetti of parties who come together and appoint Corbyn as their glorious leader.Highly unlikely.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

No deal first, elections later

We have been writing for some time that elections in the UK will not automatically stop a no-deal Brexit. That also seems to be the view of Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s enforcer. To precipitate an election before Brexit day, Jeremy Corbyn needed to have called for a vote of no confidence before the parliamentary recess started last month. 

The reason is that the prime minister is ultimately in charge of the election date. If a vote of no confidence were held on September 5, the earliest possible date, it would still be technically possible for elections to be held on October 24, the last election day that could produce a government to revoke Brexit or ask for an extension. But the timetable is in the hand of the government, not the parliament. 

This would imply that a successful vote of no-confidence could inadvertently trigger a no-deal Brexit as parliament would be dissolved at the end of October. Johnson could even hold the elections on Brexit day itself. No winner would be officially declared until the next morning - when Brexit could no longer be reversed.

We are now at a point in the Brexit discussions where legal and procedural details matter. We keep hearing commentators waffle about parliament stopping a no-deal Brexit. This is a legally and politically illiterate construction. Parliament can pass a vote to revoke Brexit. It won’t do that. Parliament could alternatively exploit the possibility outlined in the fixed-term parliaments act and elect a new prime minister - following a prescribed procedure. It could, for example, elect a government of national unity with the sole task to ask for a Brexit extension and to call new elections afterwards. But why would Jeremy Corbyn vote for a national unity government under a moderate Conservative when he could have elections instead? And what about the 20 or so Labour MPs who do not wish to frustrate Brexit?

So, there are exactly two ways for parliament to frustrate Brexit - national unity government and outright revocation. Neither is likely.

Sebastian Payne reports in the FT that Cummings had a good laugh when he heard about the suggestion that the government should ask for a Brexit extension after a vote of no-confidence. It is under no legal obligation to do so, and won’t do it. 

The big misunderstanding in the British debate is that the no-deal Brexit is already legislated. It is embedded in Article 50, and in the corresponding UK legislation. It is not a decision to be taken or to be stopped. It is what will happen if no other decision is taken. As we keep pointing out, it was Theresa May who extended Brexit earlier this year, not parliament.

We hope that the news reports over the weekend may lead to a shift of expectations in the EU. There is still a body of opinion in continental Europe that has bought into the narrative that parliament would stop a no-deal Brexit. If the no-deal Brexit happens, a lot of people in the EU will not have seen it coming.

In the UK, the election campaign has already started. As Payne notes there is already a lot of strategic gaming going on inside Number 10: if Corbyn were to align himself with the second referendum crowd, he would simultaneously destroy his own project and fail to stop Brexit, one official is quoted as saying. Payne also writes that the current thinking in Downing Street is for elections to be held in November. 

We agree with Peter Foster of the Daily Telegraph who noted that the normalisation of no-deal is perhaps the most amazing development in the Brexit debate. People aren’t as scared as they used to be - which itself makes it more likely.