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?
I prefer Michael Gove's even more emphatic "we can dictate the terms".
That is just the way his mind works. He isn't very good at negotiation. That's why all his education reforms, which could have been genuinely transformational if he'd been willing to take guidance on some issues and how to work round them, have ended by being an utter train crash.
However, while he could do that with teachers and academics, he couldn't do it with the EU.
If anyone thinks the UK government never asked to reopen negotiations then they haven't been paying attention. Tusk, Juncker, Barnier and Von der Leyen have all refused. Their loss as far as I'm concerned.
I remember the name of the Grieve Amendment but forget what it actually was. Any chance of a reminder?
To give parliament the final say on signing the WA.
The importance of the meaningful vote is overstated. The more important thing was preventing Henry VIII powers from being able to be used to create the legislation to implement the deal.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
David's quite right. In any event it will be the Scottish Parliamentary elections due in 2021 that will determinse Scotland's constituional future - not a snap general election. By 2021 the SNP SNP will have been in power for 14 years, Brexit will have been done and the consequences of the Salmond trial may be reverberating around the Scottish political scene. People will want change at Holyrood.
FWIW I think the Tories will retain six seats at least in Scotland in a snap GE. The three in the Borders plus three in the NE (Moray, Banff & Buchan and Aberdeenshire West). I doubt very much that you will see Nicola in Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Buckie during the campaign!
That's still a loss of 7. Leaving a net gain of c20 in E+W to approach a majority.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
What is there to negotiate? The UK government actively wants to leave the EU on 31st October without a deal because it believes this offers it the best chance of winning the next general election.
Perhaps the time has now passed but there was a long enough period where May was keen to reopen negotiations and the EU refused. One thing the UK has been consistent with is the willingness to continue talks, the EU may well regret being so obtuse.
The EU has also said it is willing to talk. But what would they be talking about? It is clear that the UK government wants a No Deal Brexit. That's what we will now get. We'll then see what happens next.
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.
Mr. B2, if 400 odd MPs vote against something, singling out 30-50 of them and pretending the other 300-350 don't exist seems an odd way of expressing dismay the vote failed to pass.
Most MPs are pro-EU. These MPs have voted successively to leave the EU and against the deal. They're now upset that we're on course to leave with no deal.
The difference between them and the ERG is that the ERG is voting for what it wants and is glad it's getting it. The pro-EU bloc are voting for something they think is terrible and are horrified that their actions have consequences diametrically opposed to their desires.
Under the system that has evolved in response to FPTP, we conventionally have two sides of an adversarial House: the Government and the Opposition.
On whipped votes, the Opposition typically is expected to oppose Government proposals and legislations. This is not solely to be negative, but is intended to promote scrutiny and thinking again. You may very well think that the setup does not actually express this very well, and I would agree, but the voting system is set up to encourage adversarialism rather than compromise.
In the 2017 General Election, the Government lost its majority when it proposed (amongst other things) a Hard Brexit involving departure from both the Single Market and Customs Union. This caused issues and it cobbled together a shaky majority with the DUP. Unfortunately, its own lack of unity caused its proposals to fall apart.
In this system, if the Government fails to hold its own unity, it fails to bring about its legislation; the Opposition not stepping aside politely to usher it through for it does not reflect to a failure on behalf of the Opposition.
In such circumstances, either the Government abandons its legislation (very difficult), or forges compromise with one or more factions of the Opposition (never tried), or calls a fresh election (did not do). regardless, as the Government controls the agenda, gets to choose which route of the above to try, and had the numbers (had it remained united) to achieve its aims, the fault lies squarely with the Government. To blame the Opposition MPs, as if in the belief that the House consists of 650 Independent Members despite the pressures of FPTP and the evolution of the workings of the House, would seem somewhat disingenuous.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
Just out of interest, if the WA was changed let's say they struck out the backstop. Do you think it would pass in the HoC as currently constituted?
Yes, it’s one of the few things that produced a majority from the many indicative votes that were held in the Commons. Minds would also be focussed if it were clear that no-deal was the alternative.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
David's quite right. In any event it will be the Scottish Parliamentary elections due in 2021 that will determinse Scotland's constituional future - not a snap general election. By 2021 the SNP SNP will have been in power for 14 years, Brexit will have been done and the consequences of the Salmond trial may be reverberating around the Scottish political scene. People will want change at Holyrood.
FWIW I think the Tories will retain six seats at least in Scotland in a snap GE. The three in the Borders plus three in the NE (Moray, Banff & Buchan and Aberdeenshire West). I doubt very much that you will see Nicola in Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Buckie during the campaign!
In a snap pre-Brexit election SCons lose Moray and Aberdeenshire West due to split Brexit vote by the Brexit party.
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.
So the EU are willing to discuss anything except the Withdrawal Agreement? How does that help anyone?
Just out of interest, if the WA was changed let's say they struck out the backstop. Do you think it would pass in the HoC as currently constituted?
Yes, it’s one of the few things that produced a majority from the many indicative votes that were held in the Commons. Minds would also be focussed if it were clear that no-deal was the alternative.
What about Steve Baker's Clean Managed Brexit? Govt majority of one. Do you think it would get through? Not 100% sure and that as much as anything is reason enough for the EU not to reopen the WA.
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.
Mr. Topping, the EU is disingenuous. I recall Juncker firmly ruling out changes to the WA. Unless the UK wanted to remain tethered to the customs union. That change, to the EU's advantage, was something that could be discussed. But none of the changes the UK wanted.
Mr. Topping, the EU is disingenuous. I recall Juncker firmly ruling out changes to the WA. Unless the UK wanted to remain tethered to the customs union. That change, to the EU's advantage, was something that could be discussed. But none of the changes the UK wanted.
Can you explain why the CU is worse than a no-deal brexit?
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."
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.
Mr. Topping, the EU is disingenuous. I recall Juncker firmly ruling out changes to the WA. Unless the UK wanted to remain tethered to the customs union. That change, to the EU's advantage, was something that could be discussed. But none of the changes the UK wanted.
A customs union is mutually advantageous. It's only the UK's unilateral decision to withdraw from the political institutions that govern it that might be said to benefit the EU27.
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.
The FTPA is a real mess of a piece of legislation, it’s definitely replaced the Dangerous Dogs Act in that regard. Thanks, Nick Clegg.
I think the argument that Grieve et al are trying to make, is that they think the PM should be forced to resign against his will on the day after the first VoNC, even if it’s not clear who if anyone commands the confidence of the House, it then being up to Parliament to effectively choose the PM. In practice it’s not going to work like that. Johnson isn’t going to resign until it becomes obvious that a named someone has the confidence of the House, because if no-one does we’ll have an election called 14 days later with him still in charge.
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.
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
So the government isn't bound by the decision to give independence to Australia?
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
So the government isn't bound by the decision to give independence to Australia?
Surely a simpler solution is we abrogate the Treaty of Paris and reoccupy the USA. Admittedly it only applied to what is now the East Coast, but apart from California and possibly Texas we wouldn't want the rest as it's the farming lobby that's causing us grief in the free trade deals.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
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.
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.
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.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
Stonehenge is shit. Avebury is much much better.
+1 - skip the tourist trap - Avebury is far more fun to walk around...
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....
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'.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
David's quite right. In any event it will be the Scottish Parliamentary elections due in 2021 that will determinse Scotland's constituional future - not a snap general election. By 2021 the SNP SNP will have been in power for 14 years, Brexit will have been done and the consequences of the Salmond trial may be reverberating around the Scottish political scene. People will want change at Holyrood.
FWIW I think the Tories will retain six seats at least in Scotland in a snap GE. The three in the Borders plus three in the NE (Moray, Banff & Buchan and Aberdeenshire West). I doubt very much that you will see Nicola in Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Buckie during the campaign!
In a snap pre-Brexit election SCons lose Moray and Aberdeenshire West due to split Brexit vote by the Brexit party.
Brexit Party in those two seats would be absolutely minimal so unlikely. The votes they would attract would not all have been destined for SCons anyway - some would be SNP.
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
So the government isn't bound by the decision to give independence to Australia?
Technically, no it isn’t, in that they could pass or repeal legislation to have the effect of re-asserting sovereignty, and withdraw unilaterally from such Treaties as may exist.
It’s guaranteed to start a war though, and the Aussies have a big navy.
Much better to have our fights with Australia on the cricket field!
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'.
There's not a pick and mix selection. It's the deal, or, failing that, no deal (unless something dramatic happens in the Commons, which seems unlikely). Labour oppose no deal. They've voted for no deal. They want us to be closer to the EU and have rejected a closer relationship in favour of the most distant one possible. It's hypocritical.
Mrs C, odd how some Remainers like bringing up the Empire...
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.
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.
Brexit Party in those two seats would be absolutely minimal so unlikely. The votes they would attract would not all have been destined for SCons anyway - some would be SNP.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was gained on the back of a massive fall in Lib Dem votes from 2015 to 2017. Do you really think they are all going to keep voting for hard Brexit?
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.
The FTPA is a real mess of a piece of legislation, it’s definitely replaced the Dangerous Dogs Act in that regard. Thanks, Nick Clegg.
I think the argument that Grieve et al are trying to make, is that they think the PM should be forced to resign against his will on the day after the first VoNC, even if it’s not clear who if anyone commands the confidence of the House, it then being up to Parliament to effectively choose the PM. In practice it’s not going to work like that. Johnson isn’t going to resign until it becomes obvious that a named someone has the confidence of the House, because if no-one does we’ll have an election called 14 days later with him still in charge.
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!
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'.
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...
Hmmm, by "currently existing convention" (so far as it exists given the FTPA hasn't been around long), IF someone demonstrates they have a majority, then Johnson would go to the queen, resign and recommend that person be invited to form a government. If he refuses to do this, I think the queen and her advisors would probably do whatever wouldn't cause a massive constitutional crisis. Ignoring Johnson and following convention and parliament's wishes by inviting said someone to form govt, would be embarrassing for Johnson and for sure more of an active political step than she would like to have to take. But ignoring parliament's chosen successor and the spirit of the FTPA would, I think, cause a full-blown constitutional crisis so I'm guessing she would try to avoid that. But who knows?
Mr. Anorak, collectively, you're correct. And I agree with you that the EU packs a heavier negotiating punch than the UK alone.
But that doesn't make its deals necessarily good for member states. If a deal is good for Germany, Slovenia and Greece, but terrible for Spain, the overall EU balance is good so the deal gets signed. Spain loses out, other nations do better.
Negotiating for oneself decreases heft but increases the good done for a specific country.
Not to mention the democratic daftness of voting to leave the EU and then have them dictate our trade policy.
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.
Brexit Party in those two seats would be absolutely minimal so unlikely. The votes they would attract would not all have been destined for SCons anyway - some would be SNP.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was gained on the back of a massive fall in Lib Dem votes from 2015 to 2017. Do you really think they are all going to keep voting for hard Brexit?
No, but I think Andrew Bowie is sufficiently ahead and sufficiently well-regarded to hang on even if he bleeds some votes to the LibDems. The equivalent Scottish Parliament seat is also held by SCon and I think it unlikely that the LibDems will mount much in the way of a recovery in this part of Scotland.
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?
Because bills can no longer be treated as simultaneous votes of confidence.
That means that Theresa May could have used the first vote on the WA to call a general election, which would likely have driven several of the third rate unprincipled losers ERG into voting for it.
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.
Not at all. It is quite consistent with the manifesto.
Labour's 2017 manifesto explicitly rejected a no-deal Brexit: Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the economy.
It also rejected the Conservative proposals: We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
We have not changed govt yet, merely the PM and some senior positions, but this is the govt installed by the 2017 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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
So the government isn't bound by the decision to give independence to Australia?
Surely a simpler solution is we abrogate the Treaty of Paris and reoccupy the USA. Admittedly it only applied to what is now the East Coast, but apart from California and possibly Texas we wouldn't want the rest as it's the farming lobby that's causing us grief in the free trade deals.
There's not a pick and mix selection. It's the deal, or, failing that, no deal (unless something dramatic happens in the Commons, which seems unlikely). Labour oppose no deal. They've voted for no deal. They want us to be closer to the EU and have rejected a closer relationship in favour of the most distant one possible. It's hypocritical.
Mrs C, odd how some Remainers like bringing up the Empire...
The EU has repeatedly said the deal can be renegotiated if the UK changes its red lines. Labour's position is that it wants to change the red lines and get a better deal. The government's position is to refuse to find a compromise with Labour and instead try to blackmail them into supporting the government's deal, or they will blow everything up. Labour is right to not give into blackmail. No deal is the Tories' choice, not theirs.
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.
I'd also note that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE gave a shit about trade deals before Brexit, so the fact that they are being touted as being absolutely critical by people who have no idea of their realities (and I have a cursory knowledge at best) would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
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?
Btw. Time to say the daily thanks for the FTPA. Cheers Dave.
To be fair the FTPA is working as intended.
Well, yes. The fact that the intent behind it, to give a PM losing a VONC time and space to wriggle out of it, is ludicrous though. It used to be like catching the Golden Snitch. Game over, time to go or win a new mandate.
Brexit Party in those two seats would be absolutely minimal so unlikely. The votes they would attract would not all have been destined for SCons anyway - some would be SNP.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was gained on the back of a massive fall in Lib Dem votes from 2015 to 2017. Do you really think they are all going to keep voting for hard Brexit?
The Lib Dems gaining 3 seats in Scotland with their worst performance since 1970 was one of the weirder psephological stories of 2017.
There's not a pick and mix selection. It's the deal, or, failing that, no deal (unless something dramatic happens in the Commons, which seems unlikely). Labour oppose no deal. They've voted for no deal. They want us to be closer to the EU and have rejected a closer relationship in favour of the most distant one possible. It's hypocritical.
Mrs C, odd how some Remainers like bringing up the Empire...
The EU has repeatedly said the deal can be renegotiated if the UK changes its red lines. Labour's position is that it wants to change the red lines and get a better deal. The government's position is to refuse to find a compromise with Labour and instead try to blackmail them into supporting the government's deal, or they will blow everything up. Labour is right to not give into blackmail. No deal is the Tories' choice, not theirs.
They bear full responsibility when we chop her up...
I think here there is some confusion between the WA, which was always going to be much of a muchness unless either Northern Ireland left the UK or the Good Friday Agreement was torn up, and the political declaration, which the EU have said they are happy to talk about.
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.
The FTPA is a real mess of a piece of legislation, it’s definitely replaced the Dangerous Dogs Act in that regard. Thanks, Nick Clegg.
I think the argument that Grieve et al are trying to make, is that they think the PM should be forced to resign against his will on the day after the first VoNC, even if it’s not clear who if anyone commands the confidence of the House, it then being up to Parliament to effectively choose the PM. In practice it’s not going to work like that. Johnson isn’t going to resign until it becomes obvious that a named someone has the confidence of the House, because if no-one does we’ll have an election called 14 days later with him still in charge.
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.
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!
Her Majesty won't be dragged in. If the Commons votes via an indicative vote that it will give Confidence to an alternative PM then the Commons has decided that not Her Majesty. If the Commons doesn't do that then the PM remains in situ until the election. The Cabinet Manual is clear on that point.
The only reason Her Majesty might appoint a new PM who then fails to win a VOC is if one or more MPs vote differently in the Confidence vote to how they voted in the indicative vote. But that would be on the MPs not Her Majesty.
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.
I'd also note that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE gave a shit about trade deals before Brexit, so the fact that they are being touted as being absolutely critical by people who have no idea of their realities (and I have a cursory knowledge at best) would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
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."
Nothing is agreed.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
We have not changed govt yet, merely the PM and some senior positions, but this is the govt installed by the 2017 election.
It is not even being bound by its own agreements.
Not quite correct. In our system, a government depends on PM not on party. So this is technically a 'new' government.
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?
Under the previous system, PM Theresa May would have made the first vote on the WA a vote of confidence, so either it would have passed or she would have called an election back in December (with anyone who had voted against kicked out of the Conservative Party).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because bills can no longer be treated as simultaneous votes of confidence.
That means that Theresa May could have used the first vote on the WA to call a general election, which would likely have driven several of the third rate unprincipled losers ERG into voting for it.
Brexit Party in those two seats would be absolutely minimal so unlikely. The votes they would attract would not all have been destined for SCons anyway - some would be SNP.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was gained on the back of a massive fall in Lib Dem votes from 2015 to 2017. Do you really think they are all going to keep voting for hard Brexit?
The Lib Dems gaining 3 seats in Scotland with their worst performance since 1970 was one of the weirder psephological stories of 2017.
Yep - due, of course, to unionist tactical voting. I think that will continue which is why it is highly unlikely that we will see a repeat of 2015.
Btw. Time to say the daily thanks for the FTPA. Cheers Dave.
To be fair the FTPA is working as intended.
Well, yes. The fact that the intent behind it, to give a PM losing a VONC time and space to wriggle out of it, is ludicrous though. It used to be like catching the Golden Snitch. Game over, time to go or win a new mandate.
Actually no, that's not the point. The point is to give the Commons time to choose a replacement.
EG theoretically if the DUP pulled the plug on the government, but the Tories then managed to get an agreement with the SNP that there will be a SindyRef2 in exchange for Confidence then Confidence would be restored.
Or theoretically if the opposition wins a VONC then demonstrates it can itself command a majority, eg via elements of the government switching to backing the opposition, then it can continue.
The control now has gone from the PM solely to the Commons as a whole. If the Commons is incapable of forming a majority then an election is appropriate.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Negotiating for oneself decreases heft but increases the good done for a specific country.
Forgive me for deleting the rest of the post, but I think this captures the point of disagreement.
I think you are wrong on this. The average benefits of remaining in the CU far outweigh the occasional disappointment. And the deals we are able to strike in the event of no deal - in the full glare of the media given how importance the Brexiteers have placed on them - will be much poorer than those negotiated during a 5-year transition out of the EU, and poorer than those which the EU would have negotiated on our behalf.
Comments
The value in that would be to help BoZo understand, because he doesn't appear to at the moment.
That's actually flabbergasting. Surprised I didn't remember that.
Also, what would the advantage have been there for the pro-EU side?!
However, while he could do that with teachers and academics, he couldn't do it with the EU.
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.
On whipped votes, the Opposition typically is expected to oppose Government proposals and legislations. This is not solely to be negative, but is intended to promote scrutiny and thinking again. You may very well think that the setup does not actually express this very well, and I would agree, but the voting system is set up to encourage adversarialism rather than compromise.
In the 2017 General Election, the Government lost its majority when it proposed (amongst other things) a Hard Brexit involving departure from both the Single Market and Customs Union. This caused issues and it cobbled together a shaky majority with the DUP. Unfortunately, its own lack of unity caused its proposals to fall apart.
In this system, if the Government fails to hold its own unity, it fails to bring about its legislation; the Opposition not stepping aside politely to usher it through for it does not reflect to a failure on behalf of the Opposition.
In such circumstances, either the Government abandons its legislation (very difficult), or forges compromise with one or more factions of the Opposition (never tried), or calls a fresh election (did not do). regardless, as the Government controls the agenda, gets to choose which route of the above to try, and had the numbers (had it remained united) to achieve its aims, the fault lies squarely with the Government. To blame the Opposition MPs, as if in the belief that the House consists of 650 Independent Members despite the pressures of FPTP and the evolution of the workings of the House, would seem somewhat disingenuous.
https://twitter.com/johnnypixels/status/779231997080309760?lang=en
Mr. Sandpit, it's a baffling tactic. Be intriguing to check PB comments from the time.
Constitutional scholars are going to have a field day.
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.
May was not a dictator. Any agreement must carry Parliament, so tough cookies try again. And we hold the cards.
I think the argument that Grieve et al are trying to make, is that they think the PM should be forced to resign against his will on the day after the first VoNC, even if it’s not clear who if anyone commands the confidence of the House, it then being up to Parliament to effectively choose the PM. In practice it’s not going to work like that. Johnson isn’t going to resign until it becomes obvious that a named someone has the confidence of the House, because if no-one does we’ll have an election called 14 days later with him still in charge.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and no government can bind its successor.
It is called democracy. You Leavers bang on about it hard enough that I thought you might have a glimmering of how it works.
Boris, BTW, is an un-elected PM.
Edit: never mind: about three others got there first, and still the Remainers didn't understand the point.
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.
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.
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’s guaranteed to start a war though, and the Aussies have a big navy.
Much better to have our fights with Australia on the cricket field!
There's not a pick and mix selection. It's the deal, or, failing that, no deal (unless something dramatic happens in the Commons, which seems unlikely). Labour oppose no deal. They've voted for no deal. They want us to be closer to the EU and have rejected a closer relationship in favour of the most distant one possible. It's hypocritical.
Mrs C, odd how some Remainers like bringing up the Empire...
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.
I suspect it’s in “clarify its position”.
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.
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!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004#Part_2:_Emergency_Powers
But that doesn't make its deals necessarily good for member states. If a deal is good for Germany, Slovenia and Greece, but terrible for Spain, the overall EU balance is good so the deal gets signed. Spain loses out, other nations do better.
Negotiating for oneself decreases heft but increases the good done for a specific country.
Not to mention the democratic daftness of voting to leave the EU and then have them dictate our trade policy.
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.
(So says he, sitting 100 miles from the Straight of Hormuz).
That means that Theresa May could have used the first vote on the WA to call a general election, which would likely have driven several of the
third rate unprincipled losersERG into voting for it.Labour's 2017 manifesto explicitly rejected a no-deal Brexit:
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade.
We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the economy.
It also rejected the Conservative proposals:
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union
So not Theresa May's deal but not no deal either.
It is not even being bound by its own agreements.
It used to be like catching the Golden Snitch. Game over, time to go or win a new mandate.
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.
I think here there is some confusion between the WA, which was always going to be much of a muchness unless either Northern Ireland left the UK or the Good Friday Agreement was torn up, and the political declaration, which the EU have said they are happy to talk about.
He's a right card, and no mistake...
The only reason Her Majesty might appoint a new PM who then fails to win a VOC is if one or more MPs vote differently in the Confidence vote to how they voted in the indicative vote. But that would be on the MPs not Her Majesty.
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 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.
EG theoretically if the DUP pulled the plug on the government, but the Tories then managed to get an agreement with the SNP that there will be a SindyRef2 in exchange for Confidence then Confidence would be restored.
Or theoretically if the opposition wins a VONC then demonstrates it can itself command a majority, eg via elements of the government switching to backing the opposition, then it can continue.
The control now has gone from the PM solely to the Commons as a whole. If the Commons is incapable of forming a majority then an election is appropriate.
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.
Don't see the gift of the PM as at all a problem. History suggests snap elections for purely party advantage are rarely successful.
I think you are wrong on this. The average benefits of remaining in the CU far outweigh the occasional disappointment. And the deals we are able to strike in the event of no deal - in the full glare of the media given how importance the Brexiteers have placed on them - will be much poorer than those negotiated during a 5-year transition out of the EU, and poorer than those which the EU would have negotiated on our behalf.