Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
I didn't see Gordon Brown resigning until the coalition was formed after 2010 GE.
If the coalition of remainia anti democrats turn up with 350 MP signatures ready to make Margret Beckett PM, then Boris will feel pressure to stand down.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
That is not the Downing Street line. The Downing Street line is currently that even if a replacement is found, he's going to try to run the clock down.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
Mr. Cooke, it's Labour policy to leave the EU. That was in their 2017 manifesto. Voting against a deal then warning of the dangers of no deal is blatant hypocrisy.
Mr. Sandpit, it's a baffling tactic. Be intriguing to check PB comments from the time.
I don't think Labour's position has been hypocritical at all. Labour supported a deal maintaining close alignment with the EU including a customs union. It did not support the deal as negotiated - which although vague in terms of the final relationship pointed towards a fairly bare bones FTA at best, and certainly that is where we would have ended up absent a change of government. Since the Conservatives had no majority for their version of Brexit, they could have adopted Labour's version and probably passed it in the House of Commons with Labour and moderate Conservative/payroll votes. They chose not to because, as they have through the whole process, they put party before country. Labour is the opposition. Its job is not to dig the government out of a hole of its own making.
That's party before country.
Its job should be to do what is best for the country in Labour's eyes. If in Labour's eyes the deal is bad but better than no deal then Labour could and should have ratified the deal, taken no deal off the table, then campaigned to change the deal at the next election.
Given the primary disagreement between "May's Brexit" and "Labour's Brexit" is that "May's Brexit" included a temporary customs union and "Labour's Brexit" is a permanent one, they could have accepted the temporary one then sought to make the temporary one permanent at the next election.
The normal convention is for the government to use its majority to get what it wants while the opposition tries to stop it. If the government of the day is forced to depart from that (eg because a good slice of its party are lunatics and it threw away its majority in a failed attempt to crush the opposition) and it has to come begging for help from the opposition I think you would expect them to offer some kind of compromise. Simply saying "you will help me get this through, even though you profoundly disagree with it, I will not bend it at all to your preferences and if you don't do it I will blow the country up" is not reasonable behaviour. In fact I think it belies an arrogant born to rule mentality that is ingrained in the Conservative Party, and it is wholly right that Labour has told them where to stick it. Anyway, you lot are always telling us that no deal will be fine so I don't know what you are so worried about.
I still believe that the likeliest outcome will be that in the first week of September Johnson will recall Parliament and attempt to call an election with polling day mid October, so enough time either to leave the EU on October 31st (if he remains PM) or an alternative administration to extend/revoke.
If there is a vote of no confidence passed, presumably Johnson would try, probably unsusccesfully, to get a majority in the 14 day cooling off period. To get that her would have to relax his plans. If in the meantime a national unity group is formed and has a majority in the Commons the Queen could then invite them to form government, ignoring the PM who in this situation would not get a majority. If he refuses to go, what next Tanks on Whitehall?.
The PM needs to resign, and recommend a successor who has the confidence of the House. It is this that it has been floated he would refuse to do. The Queen technically can't "invite" anyone off Her own bat. Nor does she dismiss PMs. By the currently existing convention that is...
It seems to me that the Cummings et al reading of the FTPA is that the term “Her Majesty’s Government” in the confidence votes must necessarily refer to the same administration. Grieve et al are asserting that the act says no such thing & it is within Parliament’s power to assert its confidence in a different administration. i.e. The Queen can invite whomever she likes to be PM at any time, so long as they can then demonstrate the confidence of the house.
Constitutional scholars are going to have a field day.
Indeed. Conventions are just that. Monarchs have chosen the PM before, but not for a very long time. We are entering dangerous territory here.
I wonder if Boris/Cummimgs will go down the route of declaring that parliament, the civil service and the queen are all conspiring to thwart 'the Will of the people' and that Boris should be granted 'emergency powers'.
The consequences of filibustering a No Deal result out to 31st October will be very grave to the Conservative cause and lots of things I care deeply about. It’s not all about the purest cleanest Brexit. That’s just ideology.
As things stand they will sow the most toxic of winds and reap the whirliest of whirlwinds this country has ever known.
The short-sightedness here is remarkable.
But there's no alternative. An agreement requires unanimity between the government, the EU and Parliament. That doesn't exist. Therefore No Deal is the default.
If it happens now it is not due to fillibustering it is due to over 400 MPs rejecting the deal in January and no alternative being found in the nine months since.
Btw. Time to say the daily thanks for the FTPA. Cheers Dave.
Out of interest, how would the previous system have been better? Weren't general elections even further in the gift of the PM prior to the Act?
Lose a VONC resign or call GE. Not 14 days fannying around. Days we don't have. Nor the ludicrous situation of 2/3rds majority for an election. What if we have a PM losing confidence, no one else with confidence, and no quorum for an election? What happens then? Don't see the gift of the PM as at all a problem. History suggests snap elections for purely party advantage are rarely successful.
If nobody gets confidence in 14 days, then the default is to go for election, no further mandate required.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
Yes, exactly. I don't understand why people find this so difficult. It's really very simple, and actually no different to the situation when a GE is held, producing a hung parliament, as in 2010. Brown remained PM until it was clear that an alternative government would command the confidence of the House.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Edit: And, in practice, no-one would bother to call a vote of no confidence in the new PM if it's clear that he or she would win it. So, for example, there was was no VONC after Cameron became PM.
My interpretation of the runes is that Grieve et al don’t believe that the resignation of the PM is necessary. In effect they assert two things:
1) The PM is technically appointed by the Monach and serves at their dispensation, with the unwritten but iron rule that the Monarch will only appoint someone who can demonstrate the confidence of Parliament.
2) Therefore Parliament is free to indicate to the Monarch that they will vote to have confidence in a new administration via some kind of indicative vote, at which point the Queen can use her existing power to dismiss the existing PM & appoint a new one, who can then go back to the House and have their position confirmed by a VOC.
Things get "interesting" if the Monarch appoints a new PM who then fails to win a VOC, but realistically all that means is that if no VOC is forthcoming, a GE follows. The PM would be PM in the mean time.
Under this interpretation, if the existing administration does not have the confidence of the House, but no other administration does then the Monarch is the ultimate backstop who decides who is PM. Dragging Her Majesty into this position will not put you in her good books!
Good summary. The bit that I (and apparently everyone else) is unclear on is whether or not a putative PM has to win a vote of confidence before becoming appointed PM, and if not, then how the Commons "demonstrates" they have confidence in their ability to form a government. In that case, Johnson is within his rights to not resign if he thinks they won't win the vote, in which case, er, I have no idea what happens.
Correct. The precedent for this scenario is probably 2010, when Brown stayed in office until the Conservative and LD parties issued a joint statement that they would form a coalition which had a majority. Another would be 1979, when an election was called a few days after a vote of confidence was lost, with Callaghan remaining as PM when it became clear that no-one else could command a majority.
Boris won’t resign until he sees some evidence that a named someone else has 326 MP supporters.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
That is not the Downing Street line. The Downing Street line is currently that even if a replacement is found, he's going to try to run the clock down.
[Citation Needed]
That's not in Downing Street's control. If a replacement is found then Boris is gone. That Boris won't resign without a replacement being found shouldn't be news to anyone though.
Those who think the FTPA is a mess are missing the point. Had the FTPA not existed then May in March, or Boris soon could have suddenly announced there is to be an election, dissolved Parliament and prevented Parliament from requiring an extension. Parliament also would have had no option of installing Corbyn or a GONU it would be over.
The FTPA prevents Boris or May in the past from doing that. Yes its complicated, like the LBW law, but its actually working as intended. The Commons has a responsibility to accept another government or accept an election, but the Commons gets to decide upon that rather than the existing PM.
Yes. And add other reasons why they are being silly.
I don’t believe for one second there will be a government of national unity to prevent a no deal brexit. I can prove how silly the suggestion is in one simple sentence, where does the GoNU stand on delivering a deal brexit? A no deal leading to deals and hard brexit with a deal is much the same thing, give or take the few weeks of additional chaos, no need at all for such fuss to prevent the former if indeed you find the latter acceptable
I am convinced EU and UK will thrash out a last minute fudge saving face on both sides. Why so utterly convinced? Because such a thing unlikely to happen when you are far apart from such a fudge. But we are not, are we. Basically the deal is in place, the fudge bit will be easy, a backstop involving checks away from border and a bit of technology, any other wa sticking points kicked into discussion whilst we transition.
However, if you are looking for a mutually acceptable candidate to briefly lead a government of national unity, how is Ed Milliband looking in the next prime minister stakes?
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
Precisely. People who expect Boris to go without a clear already agreed successor lined up don't understand the law or the constitution.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
That is not the Downing Street line. The Downing Street line is currently that even if a replacement is found, he's going to try to run the clock down.
Isn't it established constitutional practice that, faced with a VONC, the Prime Minister can either resign and recommend a replacement or call a General Election?
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
Would this be a bad day to remind the site's more fragile Leavers that "we hold all the cards" is not a Leave claim that has aged particularly well?
What difference would it make? They still seem to think that the Empire will be reborn in all its glory and the forriners will do as they are told.
Watching some of the right-wing posters on here reminds me of Plato's journey to the alt-right. I think we have two or three candidates for the Plato Memorial Award....
It would make no difference at all. But it would provide some unintentional humour to you, me, Alastair and maybe a few others to lighten our days.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
Which returns us to the key question of who can call for a vote of no confidence?
The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, the Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
That is not the Downing Street line. The Downing Street line is currently that even if a replacement is found, he's going to try to run the clock down.
[Citation Needed]
That's not in Downing Street's control. If a replacement is found then Boris is gone. That Boris won't resign without a replacement being found shouldn't be news to anyone though.
Try today's Times:
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Mr. Boy, the permanent UK-EU position would be determined, should we pass the WA, by negotiations yet to come. Labour's position makes no sense. They can vote for the WA and advocate our long term relationship includes customs union membership.
But then they wouldn't get to whine like bitches, complain about everything, and hope the country suffers and blames the Conservatives. It's party political bullshit.
Labour can "advocate" all they want from the opposition benches, the reality is that passing the WA as it currently stands would almost certainly lead to the hard Brexit that Labour opposes. The Tories could have compromised but their arrogance meant they didn't see the need. I would politely suggest that your "whining like bitches" comment is sadly typical of the right wing mindset and indicative of why the Tory party now stands on the precipice of total and utter failure.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
Which returns us to the key question of who can call for a vote of no confidence?
The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, the Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.
Which gives him the power to time a VONC with his agenda, which may be at odds with that of his party, remainers or brexitees.
Why would he call a VONC if he has no chance of taking over as PM?
Will he call a VONC after Boris has inflicted maximum damage to the Tory party or before?
Labour's position isn't hypocritical. It's bullshit.
They'll vote for something that isn't on offer, against everything that is on offer, then complain about the result.
No.
Labour's manifesto is clear. They'd negotiate for a better deal along the lines laid out, and there are pages and pages of it in the manifesto: customs union; single market; workers' rights; and on and on.
This is different from the current government which claims to want a better deal but has so far failed to tell us, or tell the EU, what this better deal might look like.
But it is the same as the government in that it does not see Theresa May's position as handed down from God on tablets of stone. The difference is Labour knows what it wants (or at least what it wanted in 2017). It is Boris's position that is claptrap.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
Precisely. People who expect Boris to go without a clear already agreed successor lined up don't understand the law or the constitution.
But the line coming from the Times this morning was that he wouldn't go in those circumstances anyway.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
Yes, exactly. I don't understand why people find this so difficult. It's really very simple, and actually no different to the situation when a GE is held, producing a hung parliament, as in 2010. Brown remained PM until it was clear that an alternative government would command the confidence of the House.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
Precisely. People who expect Boris to go without a clear already agreed successor lined up don't understand the law or the constitution.
But the line coming from the Times this morning was that he wouldn't go in those circumstances anyway.
Mr. Anorak, I've said before that leaving the EU and remaining in the customs union is intensely foolish. Better to remain, probably, than leave and yet have less influence over our own trade policy.
We'd be subjected to imports dictated by Brussels without any reciprocity, opening our markets to foreign goods whilst not receiving the same benefit in kind.
As we've seen recently (think it's Argentine beef, or suchlike) Irish farmers don't necessarily like the deals the EU strikes. When we aren't even in the EU, they'll have no incentive to do anything to help our economy and we'll be unable to strike better deals. Voting to leave yet handing over trade policy to a bloc we aren't even in is just stupid.
Thanks.
The EU does not make trade deals to impoverish its members, or make their lives worse.
The similarities between the UK and several other EU countries are such that I'm very confident that in the deals they make would be to our benefit (one-off edge cases aside). They also have huge negotiating clout, which the UK as a single entity does not, and as such can stand firm in the face of unreasonable or fundamentally undesirable outcomes (chlorinated chicken and the like).
This clout far, far outweighs the few edge cases referred to above.
Exactly. We should sign up asap before the backstop is withdrawn.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
This is not true. He resigned when it became clear tht there was no hope of a LAB/LD coalition and that the intention of the LDs was to form a CON/LD coalition. It was not yet a certainty that a coalition agreement would be signed.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
My interpretation of the runes is that Grieve et al don’t believe that the resignation of the PM is necessary. In effect they assert two things:
1) The PM is technically appointed by the Monach and serves at their dispensation, with the unwritten but iron rule that the Monarch will only appoint someone who can demonstrate the confidence of Parliament.
2) Therefore Parliament is free to indicate to the Monarch that they will vote to have confidence in a new administration via some kind of indicative vote, at which point the Queen can use her existing power to dismiss the existing PM & appoint a new one, who can then go back to the House and have their position confirmed by a VOC.
Things get "interesting" if the Monarch appoints a new PM who then fails to win a VOC, but realistically all that means is that if no VOC is forthcoming, a GE follows. The PM would be PM in the mean time.
Under this interpretation, if the existing administration does not have the confidence of the House, but no other administration does then the Monarch is the ultimate backstop who decides who is PM. Dragging Her Majesty into this position will not put you in her good books!
Good summary. The bit that I (and apparently everyone else) is unclear on is whether or not a putative PM has to win a vote of confidence before becoming appointed PM, and if not, then how the Commons "demonstrates" they have confidence in their ability to form a government. In that case, Johnson is within his rights to not resign if he thinks they won't win the vote, in which case, er, I have no idea what happens.
Correct. The precedent for this scenario is probably 2010, when Brown stayed in office until the Conservative and LD parties issued a joint statement that they would form a coalition which had a majority. Another would be 1979, when an election was called a few days after a vote of confidence was lost, with Callaghan remaining as PM when it became clear that no-one else could command a majority.
Boris won’t resign until he sees some evidence that a named someone else has 326 MP supporters.
Though Brown was not obliged to resign when he did - he could have remained PM for a further two weeks until defeated on the Queen's Speech.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
The first question for HMQ to ask of her advisors is "Would the House have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn?"
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
My interpretation of the runes is that Grieve et al don’t believe that the resignation of the PM is necessary. In effect they assert two things:
1) The PM is technically appointed by the Monach and serves at their dispensation, with the unwritten but iron rule that the Monarch will only appoint someone who can demonstrate the confidence of Parliament.
2) Therefore Parliament is free to indicate to the Monarch that they will vote to have confidence in a new administration via some kind of indicative vote, at which point the Queen can use her existing power to dismiss the existing PM & appoint a new one, who can then go back to the House and have their position confirmed by a VOC.
Things get "interesting" if the Monarch appoints a new PM who then fails to win a VOC, but realistically all that means is that if no VOC is forthcoming, a GE follows. The PM would be PM in the mean time.
Under this interpretation, if the existing administration does not have the confidence of the House, but no other administration does then the Monarch is the ultimate backstop who decides who is PM. Dragging Her Majesty into this position will not put you in her good books!
Good summary. The bit that I (and apparently everyone else) is unclear on is whether or not a putative PM has to win a vote of confidence before becoming appointed PM, and if not, then how the Commons "demonstrates" they have confidence in their ability to form a government. In that case, Johnson is within his rights to not resign if he thinks they won't win the vote, in which case, er, I have no idea what happens.
Correct. The precedent for this scenario is probably 2010, when Brown stayed in office until the Conservative and LD parties issued a joint statement that they would form a coalition which had a majority. Another would be 1979, when an election was called a few days after a vote of confidence was lost, with Callaghan remaining as PM when it became clear that no-one else could command a majority.
Boris won’t resign until he sees some evidence that a named someone else has 326 MP supporters.
Though Brown was not obliged to resign when he did - he could have remained PM for a further two weeks until defeated on the Queen's Speech.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
Would this be a bad day to remind the site's more fragile Leavers that "we hold all the cards" is not a Leave claim that has aged particularly well?
What difference would it make? They still seem to think that the Empire will be reborn in all its glory and the forriners will do as they are told.
Watching some of the right-wing posters on here reminds me of Plato's journey to the alt-right. I think we have two or three candidates for the Plato Memorial Award....
It would make no difference at all. But it would provide some unintentional humour to you, me, Alastair and maybe a few others to lighten our days.
It seems to be all we have left. Schaudenfreude (sp?) is not the best...
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
But the line coming from the Times this morning was that he wouldn't go in those circumstances anyway.
That is nonsense. The Times is being idiotic, or has been fed a porkie by Cummings, or probably both.
Well. I agree. But it is very dangerous nonsense nonetheless, which does not reflect well on the Editor. Who either doesn't understand the fundamentals of the Constitution, is ignoring/cba with his duty to fact check, or is trumpeting propaganda for an effective coup. Must be one of the three.
What exactly are talks without reopening the WA? Completely pointless.
They could talk about why the WA can't be reopened.
The value in that would be to help BoZo understand, because he doesn't appear to at the moment.
There is nothing to understand. We hold all the cards now.
They are desperate to avoid a hard border. If they insist upon the backstop then no talks, no agreement and they get a hard border. They failed.
Or they drop the backstop, we talk, agree a transition and settle the Irish border issue for the future in the future negotiations where it should have belonged in the first place.
Either way we are free. Checkmate.
Free in the sense that we are surrounded by a hard border and totally beholden to the goodwill of other countries to keep our planes in the air, our hospitals supplied with medicines, our capital moving and our goods trading. What a magnificent freedom it will be.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the Labour leadership and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
Her Majesty could only appoint X in that scenario if there is a vacancy. For there to be a vacancy Boris needs to resign or be sacked.
So the question becomes will Boris resign? Surely not, not unless absolutely forced to which requires proof of an alternative majority.
If Boris doesn't resign would Her Majesty sack him? Again surely no, not unless there is again proof of an alternative majority.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
Which returns us to the key question of who can call for a vote of no confidence?
The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, the Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.
Which gives him the power to time and VONC with his agenda, which may be at odds with that of his party, remainers or brexitees.
Why would he call a VONC if he has no chance of taking over as PM?
Will he call a VONC after Boris has inflicted maximum damage to the Tory party or before?
I imagine that JC wants an election either in November or early next year following a no-deal Brexit, which would be the time of maximum pressure on the government.
I can definitely see him sitting on his hands and not calling a VoC on the first day back in September, one of his key skills is masterly inactivity or indifference to what’s going on around him.
(Of course any other LotO would have called a VoC on 23rd July and be calling every week for Parliament to be recalled).
This would leave Grieve, Bercow and others scrabbling for a way to make it happen quickly enough to force an election on 24th October. This may involve Grieve himself finally resigning the Tory whip, but the much talked about GoNU needs a couple of hundred defectors from the two main parties if Corbyn doesn’t support it.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
The first question for HMQ to ask of her advisors is "Would the House have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn?"
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
Clearly Corbyn. Johnson has resigned. Corbyn is PM till the Queen calls someone else.
Mr. Cooke, it's Labour policy to leave the EU. That was in their 2017 manifesto. Voting against a deal then warning of the dangers of no deal is blatant hypocrisy.
Mr Dancer, Labour did provide an alternative route. Their policy was to leave the EU following that route. Their MPs have consistently voted in a majority for all Leave proposals that retain the Customs Union, in compliance with what they stood on. The Lib Dems stood on a policy to remain in the Single Market and also provide for a yes/no referendum on the final Deal. They have supported all motions to that end.
Neither party stood on a platform of "we will Leave the EU by any route, whatever the Tories decide".
Given that a compromise could have then passed Parliament, for the Government to refuse compromise routes out of the EU and then bleat that no-one would work with them is blatant hypocrisy. Especially given that they failed to win a majority on their particular Hard Brexit platform.
Parliament's exit choices (and support for these choices) is split between "Crashout Brexit", "Hard Brexit", "Customs Union Brexit", "Single Market Brexit" and "Confirmatory Referendum or not". MPs are each struggling with their best judgements on each of these (I do not support my local MP, Ed Vaizey, in much, but I recognise and and impressed by his wrestling with these issues).
Portraying Parliament as "It's a bunch of Remainer MPs who have come together to thwart the will of the Brexit-seeking People" is a massive oversimplification that some would like to have accepted to make things easier for them to rail against the "out of touch MPs". It's not accurate, it's not helpful, and it's simply fuelling the adversarialism that's making things worse and worse - and it makes getting from where we are to an actually feasible and non-damaging outcome very difficult.
Mr. Cooke, it's Labour policy to leave the EU. That was in their 2017 manifesto. Voting against a deal then warning of the dangers of no deal is blatant hypocrisy.
Mr Dancer, Labour did provide an alternative route. Their policy was to leave the EU following that route. Their MPs have consistently voted in a majority for all Leave proposals that retain the Customs Union, in compliance with what they stood on. The Lib Dems stood on a policy to remain in the Single Market and also provide for a yes/no referendum on the final Deal. They have supported all motions to that end.
Neither party stood on a platform of "we will Leave the EU by any route, whatever the Tories decide".
Given that a compromise could have then passed Parliament, for the Government to refuse compromise routes out of the EU and then bleat that no-one would work with them is blatant hypocrisy. Especially given that they failed to win a majority on their particular Hard Brexit platform.
Parliament's exit choices (and support for these choices) is split between "Crashout Brexit", "Hard Brexit", "Customs Union Brexit", "Single Market Brexit" and "Confirmatory Referendum or not". MPs are each struggling with their best judgements on each of these (I do not support my local MP, Ed Vaizey, in much, but I recognise and and impressed by his wrestling with these issues).
Portraying Parliament as "It's a bunch of Remainer MPs who have come together to thwart the will of the Brexit-seeking People" is a massive oversimplification that some would like to have accepted to make things easier for them to rail against the "out of touch MPs". It's not accurate, it's not helpful, and it's simply fuelling the adversarialism that's making things worse and worse - and it makes getting from where we are to an actually feasible and non-damaging outcome very difficult.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
The first question for HMQ to ask of her advisors is "Would the House have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn?"
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
It would be Corbyn, but I don't think those circumstances would arise. Corbyn would not be appointed unless it was obvious he commanded the confidence of the House.
This is another way the FTPA buggers things. In 1905 Balfour could easily advise the King to send for Campbell-Bannerman without all this farrago. Not that that is a happy precedent for Boris given what happened the following month!
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
You can add Gordon Brown to that. He, rightly, did not resign until it became clear that a deal between the Tories and Lib Dems would get done.
This is not true. He resigned when it became clear tht there was no hope of a LAB/LD coalition and that the intention of the LDs was to form a CON/LD coalition. It was not yet a certainty that a coalition agreement would be signed.
He could have remained in office even when the coalition agreement had been reached and insisted that support be tested on the floor of the Commons post Queens Speech. There was a fair bit of unease in LibDem ranks and Brown could have sought to foster dissent by presenting a more attractive programme in his own Queens Speech - effectively he could have gone above Clegg's head to entice discontented anti-Tory LibDem MPs.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
Probably
Bear in mind, one of the people who has to grasp this is Dominic Raab.
If there is a vote of no confidence passed, presumably Johnson would try, probably unsusccesfully, to get a majority in the 14 day cooling off period. To get that her would have to relax his plans. If in the meantime a national unity group is formed and has a majority in the Commons the Queen could then invite them to form government, ignoring the PM who in this situation would not get a majority. If he refuses to go, what next Tanks on Whitehall?.
...
Constitutional scholars are going to have a field day.
Indeed. Conventions are just that. Monarchs have chosen the PM before, but not for a very long time. We are entering dangerous territory here.
I wonder if Boris/Cummimgs will go down the route of declaring that parliament, the civil service and the queen are all conspiring to thwart 'the Will of the people' and that Boris should be granted 'emergency powers'.
The consequences of filibustering a No Deal result out to 31st October will be very grave to the Conservative cause and lots of things I care deeply about. It’s not all about the purest cleanest Brexit. That’s just ideology.
As things stand they will sow the most toxic of winds and reap the whirliest of whirlwinds this country has ever known.
The short-sightedness here is remarkable.
But there's no alternative. An agreement requires unanimity between the government, the EU and Parliament. That doesn't exist. Therefore No Deal is the default.
If it happens now it is not due to fillibustering it is due to over 400 MPs rejecting the deal in January and no alternative being found in the nine months since.
What I detest is the gross lack of responsibility from MPs. They voted to Leave. They then voted against the Withdrawal Agreement three times. That is the crux of the issue.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
I hesitate to disagree with Cameron's distinguished former tutor, but I think he's not quite right. However, if he means that in the current circumstances, where a lot of MPs might rebel, it would be hard for the usual 'soundings' to determine whether a new PM would command the confidence of the House, then he's right on that point. I don't think it has anything much to do with the fact that the new PM might not be the LOTO. (Of course palace officials would as part of their 'soundings' enquire whether Corbyn thought he could form a government.)
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
I think exeunt should be the new collective noun for the zoomier end of Brexiteers (which now appears to be most of them). Also, rhyming slang possibilities.
My interpretation of the runes is that Grieve et al don’t believe that the resignation of the PM is necessary. In effect they assert two things:
1) The PM is technically appointed by the Monach and serves at their dispensation, with the unwritten but iron rule that the Monarch will only appoint someone who can demonstrate the confidence of Parliament.
2) Therefore Parliament is free to indicate to the Monarch that they will vote to have confidence in a new administration via some kind of indicative vote, at which point the Queen can use her existing power to dismiss the existing PM & appoint a new one, who can then go back to the House and have their position confirmed by a VOC.
Things get "interesting" if the Monarch appoints a new PM who then fails to win a VOC, but realistically all that means is that if no VOC is forthcoming, a GE follows. The PM would be PM in the mean time.
Under this interpretation, if the existing administration does not have the confidence of the House, but no other administration does then the Monarch is the ultimate backstop who decides who is PM. Dragging Her Majesty into this position will not put you in her good books!
Good summary. The bit that I (and apparently everyone else) is unclear on is whether or not a putative PM has to win a vote of confidence before becoming appointed PM, and if not, then how the Commons "demonstrates" they have confidence in their ability to form a government. In that case, Johnson is within his rights to not resign if he thinks they won't win the vote, in which case, er, I have no idea what happens.
Correct. The precedent for this scenario is probably 2010, when Brown stayed in office until the Conservative and LD parties issued a joint statement that they would form a coalition which had a majority. Another would be 1979, when an election was called a few days after a vote of confidence was lost, with Callaghan remaining as PM when it became clear that no-one else could command a majority.
Boris won’t resign until he sees some evidence that a named someone else has 326 MP supporters.
Though Brown was not obliged to resign when he did - he could have remained PM for a further two weeks until defeated on the Queen's Speech.
Yes that’s technically correct, although DC could have called a vote of confidence in him at any time, and once the Tories and LDs announced their intention to form a coalition, Brown was morally obliged to offer his resignation as he’d clearly didn’t have the confidence of the House and someone else did.
The first question for HMQ to ask of her advisors is "Would the House have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn?"
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
It would be Corbyn, but I don't think those circumstances would arise. Corbyn would not be appointed unless it was obvious he commanded the confidence of the House.
This is another way the FTPA buggers things. In 1905 Balfour could easily advise the King to send for Campbell-Bannerman without all this farrago. Not that that is a happy precedent for Boris given what happened the following month!
Indeed. That was the equivalent of choosing to bowl and seeing 700 for 3 after two days.
What happens in the 14 days is not unknown, it is like the LBW law in cricket. The rules are laid out, just some people struggle to wrap their head around it.
Boris is PM, if nothing changes then he remains PM through the 14 days [which can not be extended] then chooses the election date.
Unless the Commons chooses within 14 days to give Confidence back to Boris. In which case no election, Boris continues.
Also unless the Commons identifies an alternative government that it will give Confidence to. If that government is identified then Boris is obliged to resign, recommend his successor and then the Commons votes to give them Confidence.
Simples. Some people mistakenly believe that Boris is going to randomly resign or the Queen is going to randomly sack Boris and call Corbyn or anyone else. It doesn't work that way. The Commons must indicate it will back someone else and then and only then will Boris be forced to resign.
Is that right? Vernon seems to be saying the queen would choose Jezza, being LOTO, by default, unless parliament specifically nominates someone else.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
The first question for HMQ to ask of her advisors is "Would the House have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn?"
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
Clearly Corbyn. Johnson has resigned. Corbyn is PM till the Queen calls someone else.
Which is why it would be completely reckless to recommend Corbyn, who has written approvingly of antisemitic tracts and commemorated Jew killers and invited anti-Semitic terrorists to parliament as friends.
So in the three weeks that I've been away, England have won the ODI World Cup (everyone seems to forget that they had already won the T20 variant) but reverted to form with batting collapses in Tests against Ireland and Australia. Trump tells several congresswomen to go back home. Mr Johnson has been nominated Prime Minister, promises the earth in a rabble rousing speech while pushing his foot down on the no-deal-gas-pedal.
On this forum a leavers are blaming the EU for a no-deal brexit, while remainers are blaming the government for a no-deal brexit. And all the while many of the posts are getting more and more vitriolic.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
Could I ask, has anyone altered their positions, or felt that other has caused them. to reconsider?
I have commented previously, that this place is like the WW1 trenches were the initial battles quickly became bogged down in trenches that then stayed (more or less) fixed for the rest of the war.
If anything, some of the stuff I read on here has pushed me further towards a Federal Europe. Pre-Brexit I was a moderate BOO-er. In the run up to the Referendum I looked more closely at the issues and positions of those involved and decided that Better-Off-Out was a fallacy and I voted Remain.
So in the three weeks that I've been away, England have won the ODI World Cup (everyone seems to forget that they had already won the T20 variant) but reverted to form with batting collapses in Tests against Ireland and Australia. Trump tells several congresswomen to go back home. Mr Johnson has been nominated Prime Minister, promises the earth in a rabble rousing speech while pushing his foot down on the no-deal-gas-pedal.
On this forum a leavers are blaming the EU for a no-deal brexit, while remainers are blaming the government for a no-deal brexit. And all the while many of the posts are getting more and more vitriolic.
How depressing it all is.
If that's cause and effect, can you postpone your next holiday for a few years please?
When both the PM and LOTO are proven and habitual liars who will say and do anything for personal political advantage is the Queen in a position to be able to trust anything they say to her? Perhaps new conventions will need to be developed.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
Probably
Bear in mind, one of the people who has to grasp this is Dominic Raab.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
More than 50% of Scottish exports to the Rest of the UK are services ( mainly financial) and utilities such as electricity. If there is gong to be serious impediments to this cross border trade, then much the same will apply to services trading with the EU.
You should tell the City of London about this - they seem to be assuming nothing significant will change.
If avoiding No Deal is paramount, why would Remainers be so fearful of making Corbyn PM for a few weeks - given his precarious parliamentary position?
Fine, Boris goes into opposition on a 'betrayal' ticket at Corbyn the puppet of the diehard Remainers and sweeps through Labour Leave marginal seats at the subsequent general election
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
If avoiding No Deal is paramount, why would Remainers be so fearful of making Corbyn PM for a few weeks - given his precarious parliamentary position?
Fine, Boris goes into opposition on a 'betrayal' ticket at Corbyn the puppet of the diehard Remainers and sweeps through Labour Leave marginal seats at the subsequent general election
That might be your hope and expectation, but it does not answer my question.
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
When both the PM and LOTO are proven and habitual liars who will say and do anything for personal political advantage is the Queen in a position to be able to trust anything they say to her? Perhaps new conventions will need to be developed.
Indeed. There's no reason in the circumstances why an indicative vote can't occur first. The Commons has 14 days in which to hold one and if one occurs its outcome is undeniable. Either way the Commons has decided and Her Majesty is not involved.
Dominic Cummings gives every impression of being someone who has read the FTPA and decided what it means without talking to anyone, least of all any constitutional lawyers. As we know, Boris Johnson is too bone idle to do anything other than take Cummings at his word.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
More than 50% of Scottish exports to the Rest of the UK are services ( mainly financial) and utilities such as electricity. If there is gong to be serious impediments to this cross border trade, then much the same will apply to services trading with the EU.
You should tell the City of London about this - they seem to be assuming nothing significant will change.
The city of London would take a hit from No Deal no doubt but Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aberdeen would be hit even more if No Deal was followed by Scexit
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
I suspect that they are using diplomat-speak to say "If you really are too dense to understand what your govt agreed, we can spell it out in single syllable words until it penetrates the solid bone that seems to fill the skulls of those in UK govt."
I suspect that even single syllable words will be too complex for the people that it needs to be explained to.
Probably
Bear in mind, one of the people who has to grasp this is Dominic Raab.
Who would have thought, when Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition, that it would be his Conservative opponent who would be preparing to drag the monarchy into political debate?
Boris isn't dragging her anywhere - he's not calling for a VONC.
He's threatening not to resign if he loses one in order to force a general election. That would require the Queen to decide whether she was going to sack him anyway, which would by far the most controversial decision of her entire reign.
Its not a threat, its his duty. His duty, like Callaghan's in 1979, is to remain in place unless or until alternative government can be formed.
The Queen has no decision to make. If the Commons finds a replacement, he goes and the replacement comes in. If the Commons doesn't then he stays.
That is not the Downing Street line. The Downing Street line is currently that even if a replacement is found, he's going to try to run the clock down.
[Citation Needed]
That's not in Downing Street's control. If a replacement is found then Boris is gone. That Boris won't resign without a replacement being found shouldn't be news to anyone though.
Try today's Times:
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Of course, the prime minister can't call an election any more, and if after losing a VONC it were the case that someone else could form a government that would command the support of a majority of MPs, then it would be the PM's duty to resign and recommend to the Queen that she ask that other person to form a government.
Not even the zaniest of the Brexiteers here can deny any of that.
Of course, if Johnson did behave in that way, that would be clear justification for him to be dismissed as prime minister. Much clearer than the situation when the PM of Australia was dismissed in 1975.
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
Phillip, please never take up poker.
I play Poker.
The EU were bluffing. I have said this for the last year. We are calling their bluff - and about time too!
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
I think exeunt should be the new collective noun for the zoomier end of Brexiteers (which now appears to be most of them). Also, rhyming slang possibilities.
Wasn't the precursor to Dignitas called EXIT? Anyhoo, Exeunts. Yes I like it.
[Palpatine mode on] Hereforward we shall refer to the Brexiteers as...Exeunts. Rise, Lord Exeunt... [Palpatine mode off]
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
Do you think no-deal is priced into the currency markets yet?
With Brexit, the US/China trade war, German recession and the goings-on in Hong Kong, at what point does everyone run to JPY, SGD and CHF?
However, if you are looking for a mutually acceptable candidate to briefly lead a government of national unity, how is Ed Milliband looking in the next prime minister stakes?
If there were to be a not-so-controversial elder statesperson to be PM of a Emergency Government coming from the Labour side, Margaret Becket is much more likely than Ed Miliband.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
I had a nice chunky US dollar payment come through last week, just at Sterling's lowest point. Thanks Boris!
If there is a vote of no confidence passed, presumably Johnson would try, probably unsusccesfully, to get a majority in the 14 day cooling off period. To get that her would have to relax his plans. If in the meantime a national unity group is formed and has a majority in the Commons the Queen could then invite them to form government, ignoring the PM who in this situation would not get a majority. If he refuses to go, what next Tanks on Whitehall?.
...
Constitutional scholars are going to have a field day.
Indeed. Conventions are just that. Monarchs have chosen the PM before, but not for a very long time. We are entering dangerous territory here.
I wonder if Boris/Cummimgs will go down the route of declaring that parliament, the civil service and the queen are all conspiring to thwart 'the Will of the people' and that Boris should be granted 'emergency powers'.
The consequences of filibustering a No Deal result out to 31st October will be very grave to the Conservative cause and lots of things I care deeply about. It’s not all about the purest cleanest Brexit. That’s just ideology.
As things stand they will sow the most toxic of winds and reap the whirliest of whirlwinds this country has ever known.
The short-sightedness here is remarkable.
But there's no alternative. An agreement requires unanimity between the government, the EU and Parliament. That doesn't exist. Therefore No Deal is the default.
If it happens now it is not due to fillibustering it is due to over 400 MPs rejecting the deal in January and no alternative being found in the nine months since.
What I detest is the gross lack of responsibility from MPs. They voted to Leave. They then voted against the Withdrawal Agreement three times. That is the crux of the issue.
Agreed. Unfortunately they don't have the self awareness to resign and we cannot force a General Election...
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
Phillip, please never take up poker.
I play Poker.
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
I had a nice chunky US dollar payment come through last week, just at Sterling's lowest point. Thanks Boris!
Sterling's lowest point? Oh, it's going to get far, far worse, young Skywalker...
Could I ask, has anyone altered their positions, or felt that other has caused them. to reconsider?
I have commented previously, that this place is like the WW1 trenches were the initial battles quickly became bogged down in trenches that then stayed (more or less) fixed for the rest of the war.
If anything, some of the stuff I read on here has pushed me further towards a Federal Europe. Pre-Brexit I was a moderate BOO-er. In the run up to the Referendum I looked more closely at the issues and positions of those involved and decided that Better-Off-Out was a fallacy and I voted Remain.
Make of that what you will.
That mirrors my journey. I have been pretty eurosceptic disliking many aspects of the EU’s structure, approach and general tin-earedness. I was relatively relaxed about the result if it was out because I thought, wrongly and naively as it turned out, that both sides would pull back from the brink and negotiate something akin to a form of associate membership / EEA or EFTA or similar. And I thought that ultimately there would be a deal. It was not my ideal. But very little in politics is.
But the way the Brexiteers have behaved has turned me into much more of a Remainer now than I ever was in 2016. The level of hatred and bile directed at the EU and Europeans, the willingness to throw their lot in with the worst aspects of US politics and culture, the ignorance and dishonesty, the sheer indifference to the harm they might cause - not just to the economy or the people who voted to leave - but to our democracy and society - has been eye-opening. The willingness to indulge the DUP, a nasty, bigoted party, and ignore what NI voted for and one of the great achievements of British and Irish diplomacy (the GFA) has been revolting. The condescension to the Irish has shown the Tories at their absolute worst. And the contrast with the grown up, united way the EU has behaved has been a revelation. There have been faults on the EU side. But British politicians have shown themselves to be immature, ignorant and self-interested to a degree which has shocked me. They have not risen to the occasion.
If there were to be sensible deal for withdrawal followed by a long-term agreement with the EU and some semblance of a European strategy, I could live with that.
If we were to Remain now, I think I would go for an all in approach, though that would depend if we stayed as a result of revocation or rejoining. At any event, old verities and assumptions would need to be questioned and rethought.
But a No Deal crash out based on lies, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, vainglory: no.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
I think exeunt should be the new collective noun for the zoomier end of Brexiteers (which now appears to be most of them). Also, rhyming slang possibilities.
Wasn't the precursor to Dignitas called EXIT? Anyhoo, Exeunts. Yes I like it.
[Palpatine mode on] Hereforward we shall refer to the Brexiteers as...Exeunts. Rise, Lord Exeunt... [Palpatine mode off]
So in the three weeks that I've been away, England have won the ODI World Cup (everyone seems to forget that they had already won the T20 variant) but reverted to form with batting collapses in Tests against Ireland and Australia. Trump tells several congresswomen to go back home. Mr Johnson has been nominated Prime Minister, promises the earth in a rabble rousing speech while pushing his foot down on the no-deal-gas-pedal.
On this forum a leavers are blaming the EU for a no-deal brexit, while remainers are blaming the government for a no-deal brexit. And all the while many of the posts are getting more and more vitriolic.
How depressing it all is.
I believe that all are in agreement that the entire issue is simple and straightforward and the problems with it are ALL THEIR FAULT!
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
The broken country is more likely to be south of the border, and Scotland will be on the EU side in any negotiations with it.
Clearly untrue unless you are suggesting the EU would break its own rules to allow Scotland to join immediately without going through the normal treaty process.
And of course based on your own personal desire to see England broken for having the temerity to wantbyo leave your beloved EU.
The record is two years and nine months from application to accession, which Scotland would likely beat. That is probably shorter than the negotiations for a full FTA with the EU
Comments
If the coalition of remainia anti democrats turn up with 350 MP signatures ready to make Margret Beckett PM, then Boris will feel pressure to stand down.
Simply saying "you will help me get this through, even though you profoundly disagree with it, I will not bend it at all to your preferences and if you don't do it I will blow the country up" is not reasonable behaviour. In fact I think it belies an arrogant born to rule mentality that is ingrained in the Conservative Party, and it is wholly right that Labour has told them where to stick it.
Anyway, you lot are always telling us that no deal will be fine so I don't know what you are so worried about.
If it happens now it is not due to fillibustering it is due to over 400 MPs rejecting the deal in January and no alternative being found in the nine months since.
The only slight clarification I would make to your post is that the appointment of a new PM is done based on advice given to Her Majesty, usually but not necessarily by the outgoing PM, that X appears to be in a position to command the confidence of the House. Usually this is unambiguous, but occasionally it won't be clear. It doesn't require the Commons to positively vote for X. Nor does X necessarily actually command the confidence of the House; he or she must appear to be in a position to do so, but that in the end can only be tested after X becomes PM, by means of a vote of NO confidence - the clue is in the name.
Edit: And, in practice, no-one would bother to call a vote of no confidence in the new PM if it's clear that he or she would win it. So, for example, there was was no VONC after Cameron became PM.
Boris won’t resign until he sees some evidence that a named someone else has 326 MP supporters.
That's not in Downing Street's control. If a replacement is found then Boris is gone. That Boris won't resign without a replacement being found shouldn't be news to anyone though.
I don’t believe for one second there will be a government of national unity to prevent a no deal brexit. I can prove how silly the suggestion is in one simple sentence, where does the GoNU stand on delivering a deal brexit? A no deal leading to deals and hard brexit with a deal is much the same thing, give or take the few weeks of additional chaos, no need at all for such fuss to prevent the former if indeed you find the latter acceptable
I am convinced EU and UK will thrash out a last minute fudge saving face on both sides. Why so utterly convinced? Because such a thing unlikely to happen when you are far apart from such a fudge. But we are not, are we. Basically the deal is in place, the fudge bit will be easy, a backstop involving checks away from border and a bit of technology, any other wa sticking points kicked into discussion whilst we transition.
However, if you are looking for a mutually acceptable candidate to briefly lead a government of national unity, how is Ed Milliband looking in the next prime minister stakes?
A man who was mistakenly circumcised when he went to hospital for a routine bladder procedure has been awarded £20,000 in compensation.
Terry Brazier was meant to be having botox injected in his bladder when he went in for treatment at the Leicester Royal Infirmary last summer.
However, there was a mix-up and afterwards Mr Brazier said he was told "sorry, but we've circumcised you".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-49243595
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
I would politely suggest that your "whining like bitches" comment is sadly typical of the right wing mindset and indicative of why the Tory party now stands on the precipice of total and utter failure.
Why would he call a VONC if he has no chance of taking over as PM?
Will he call a VONC after Boris has inflicted maximum damage to the Tory party or before?
Labour's manifesto is clear. They'd negotiate for a better deal along the lines laid out, and there are pages and pages of it in the manifesto: customs union; single market; workers' rights; and on and on.
This is different from the current government which claims to want a better deal but has so far failed to tell us, or tell the EU, what this better deal might look like.
But it is the same as the government in that it does not see Theresa May's position as handed down from God on tablets of stone. The difference is Labour knows what it wants (or at least what it wanted in 2017). It is Boris's position that is claptrap.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/06/mps-thwart-boris-johnson-no-deal
The answer to this question leads to her next action. What I am not sure about is if she calls JC (and therefore BJ has resigned) and his first action is to loose a VOC, who is PM, JC or BJ?
However the government wouldn't resign. It is under no obligation to resign without a clear successor being already available.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
Who either doesn't understand the fundamentals of the Constitution, is ignoring/cba with his duty to fact check, or is trumpeting propaganda for an effective coup.
Must be one of the three.
====================================
UK I wanna divorce
EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement
EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement
UK It's gotta backstop
EU Yup
UK OK, make it cover the whole country
EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool?
UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension?
EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK?
UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement
EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement!
UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT!
EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want?
UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS!
EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
So the question becomes will Boris resign? Surely not, not unless absolutely forced to which requires proof of an alternative majority.
If Boris doesn't resign would Her Majesty sack him? Again surely no, not unless there is again proof of an alternative majority.
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
I can definitely see him sitting on his hands and not calling a VoC on the first day back in September, one of his key skills is masterly inactivity or indifference to what’s going on around him.
(Of course any other LotO would have called a VoC on 23rd July and be calling every week for Parliament to be recalled).
This would leave Grieve, Bercow and others scrabbling for a way to make it happen quickly enough to force an election on 24th October. This may involve Grieve himself finally resigning the Tory whip, but the much talked about GoNU needs a couple of hundred defectors from the two main parties if Corbyn doesn’t support it.
Could I ask, has anyone altered their positions, or felt that other has caused them. to reconsider?
The Lib Dems stood on a policy to remain in the Single Market and also provide for a yes/no referendum on the final Deal. They have supported all motions to that end.
Neither party stood on a platform of "we will Leave the EU by any route, whatever the Tories decide".
Given that a compromise could have then passed Parliament, for the Government to refuse compromise routes out of the EU and then bleat that no-one would work with them is blatant hypocrisy. Especially given that they failed to win a majority on their particular Hard Brexit platform.
Parliament's exit choices (and support for these choices) is split between "Crashout Brexit", "Hard Brexit", "Customs Union Brexit", "Single Market Brexit" and "Confirmatory Referendum or not". MPs are each struggling with their best judgements on each of these (I do not support my local MP, Ed Vaizey, in much, but I recognise and and impressed by his wrestling with these issues).
Portraying Parliament as "It's a bunch of Remainer MPs who have come together to thwart the will of the Brexit-seeking People" is a massive oversimplification that some would like to have accepted to make things easier for them to rail against the "out of touch MPs". It's not accurate, it's not helpful, and it's simply fuelling the adversarialism that's making things worse and worse - and it makes getting from where we are to an actually feasible and non-damaging outcome very difficult.
The Lib Dems stood on a policy to remain in the Single Market and also provide for a yes/no referendum on the final Deal. They have supported all motions to that end.
Neither party stood on a platform of "we will Leave the EU by any route, whatever the Tories decide".
Given that a compromise could have then passed Parliament, for the Government to refuse compromise routes out of the EU and then bleat that no-one would work with them is blatant hypocrisy. Especially given that they failed to win a majority on their particular Hard Brexit platform.
Parliament's exit choices (and support for these choices) is split between "Crashout Brexit", "Hard Brexit", "Customs Union Brexit", "Single Market Brexit" and "Confirmatory Referendum or not". MPs are each struggling with their best judgements on each of these (I do not support my local MP, Ed Vaizey, in much, but I recognise and and impressed by his wrestling with these issues).
Portraying Parliament as "It's a bunch of Remainer MPs who have come together to thwart the will of the Brexit-seeking People" is a massive oversimplification that some would like to have accepted to make things easier for them to rail against the "out of touch MPs". It's not accurate, it's not helpful, and it's simply fuelling the adversarialism that's making things worse and worse - and it makes getting from where we are to an actually feasible and non-damaging outcome very difficult.
This is another way the FTPA buggers things. In 1905 Balfour could easily advise the King to send for Campbell-Bannerman without all this farrago. Not that that is a happy precedent for Boris given what happened the following month!
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
Also, rhyming slang possibilities.
On this forum a leavers are blaming the EU for a no-deal brexit, while remainers are blaming the government for a no-deal brexit. And all the while many of the posts are getting more and more vitriolic.
How depressing it all is.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-delusional-good-trade-deal-with-us-warns-ex-obama-adviser_uk_5d493d3ae4b0d291ed060ef3?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=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&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEEbVJn4mf4XEIq-HXwcbAlOnCFxhUcnHWegS2B1mOEyEZfYr_9lg-cq_vTQnpwBKCVKDI6UxcesUBkW0ug2qyWHA9wqM77JOZ3wXazypzo-07U8Ax9QOUr9WZAqJh9TqBuLgj1wHHJDO3PIajzxV0s8Gum4P54lzZq8TmUv7sbl
If anything, some of the stuff I read on here has pushed me further towards a Federal Europe. Pre-Brexit I was a moderate BOO-er. In the run up to the Referendum I looked more closely at the issues and positions of those involved and decided that Better-Off-Out was a fallacy and I voted Remain.
Make of that what you will.
You should tell the City of London about this - they seem to be assuming nothing significant will change.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
The current President is a Republican
Not even the zaniest of the Brexiteers here can deny any of that.
Of course, if Johnson did behave in that way, that would be clear justification for him to be dismissed as prime minister. Much clearer than the situation when the PM of Australia was dismissed in 1975.
The EU were bluffing. I have said this for the last year. We are calling their bluff - and about time too!
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
[Palpatine mode on]
Hereforward we shall refer to the Brexiteers as...Exeunts. Rise, Lord Exeunt...
[Palpatine mode off]
With Brexit, the US/China trade war, German recession and the goings-on in Hong Kong, at what point does everyone run to JPY, SGD and CHF?
Sometimes you just despair.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
But the way the Brexiteers have behaved has turned me into much more of a Remainer now than I ever was in 2016. The level of hatred and bile directed at the EU and Europeans, the willingness to throw their lot in with the worst aspects of US politics and culture, the ignorance and dishonesty, the sheer indifference to the harm they might cause - not just to the economy or the people who voted to leave - but to our democracy and society - has been eye-opening. The willingness to indulge the DUP, a nasty, bigoted party, and ignore what NI voted for and one of the great achievements of British and Irish diplomacy (the GFA) has been revolting. The condescension to the Irish has shown the Tories at their absolute worst. And the contrast with the grown up, united way the EU has behaved has been a revelation. There have been faults on the EU side. But British politicians have shown themselves to be immature, ignorant and self-interested to a degree which has shocked me. They have not risen to the occasion.
If there were to be sensible deal for withdrawal followed by a long-term agreement with the EU and some semblance of a European strategy, I could live with that.
If we were to Remain now, I think I would go for an all in approach, though that would depend if we stayed as a result of revocation or rejoining. At any event, old verities and assumptions would need to be questioned and rethought.
But a No Deal crash out based on lies, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, vainglory: no.
The only disagreement lies in who "they" are.