Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if they commenced the removal today, May could cling on for long enough to cause insurmountable problems. If she loses a vote of confidence in the House, she's entitled to remain in office for another two weeks. She can't be faced with another vote of confidence in the party. Party officials could tell her her position was hopeless and Ministers could resign rather than serve under her, but even then she could ignore the party officials and appoint other Ministers rather than stand aside.

As matters stand UK crashes out without a deal by operation of law in 14 days time. May can impede the development of consensus in Parliament around an alternative course of action and, even if consensus develops, she can refuse to give effect to it. And, such are her limpet-like qualities, by the time they succeed in prising her out of Downing Street it may be too late.

In short, the UK cannot avoid a crash-out without May either co-operating with efforts to avoid it, or standing aside so as not to impede those efforts. I'd be hopeful that she'd do one or the other, lbut it does depend on her.

Michael Portillo had an interesting take on Andrew Neil last night.
The installation of a 'caretaker' PM (like Liddington) or the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock. Seems the monarchy still has that power if it wishes.

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the 'cave at the 11th hour' that the Brexiteers have been talking about. The problem is, they misunderstood it. The EU, the same as lots of other international and even national bodies, are great are pushing back supposedly iron deadlines, but that is very different from changing the actual position. The EU will happily give additional time for the UK for finally come around to its way of thinking.

Couldn't agree more with this, really well put !

robinph

If the HoC votes in a majority to revoke A50 for example, or any other option, but May refuses to go to the EU to do so then would it not be a case of popping round to see the Queen and whichever MP the HoC nominates saying that they are the leader of the commons, make me PM for this one issue, they then deal with the EU and get the revoke letter dealt with.

Then the next day they can start the arguing internally about who is then the leader of the closest thing to a majority and can be PM for the next stage of whatever.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

She cannot be sidelined.

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock

Anyone for Dominic Grieve? Ken Clarke?

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

Except that price will be participation in the EU elections. That would require lorry loads of popcorn.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except that price will be participation in the EU elections.

That is now inevitable - they cannot get the needed legislation in place by May 22 even if they pass the WA today.

Leroy42

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The EU want to avoid a no deal, if there is any glimmer of hope left that the UK can be helped to get to that position then the EU will find a way. The UK left the request for the original extension to almost the last minute (the day before I think) so I think it is perfectly possible that 11.59 (hell, well into the next day) the UK could decide to opt for a long extension and the EU would, if the proposal is plausible, find a way to facilitate it.

This is the 'cave at the 11th hour' that the Brexiteers have been talking about. The problem is, they misunderstood it. The EU, the same as lots of other international and even national bodies, are great are pushing back supposedly iron deadlines, but that is very different from changing the actual position. The EU will happily give additional time for the UK for finally come around to its way of thinking.

I dunno. They have signalled pretty clearly that if the UK wants an extension beyond 22 May they need to hold EP elections. 12 April represents the date by which any country holding EP elections has to have set the process in train (which is why 12 April was chosen as the limit for the short extension).

Right. UK turns up at 11:59 pm on 12 April gasping for breath and panting out that they want a long extension. But they're not going to get it unless they have already taken the legal steps to put in train the EP elections in the UK. Which means, of course, that they would have to have decided before 11:59 on 12 April that they were going to go for a long extension, and they would have to have made the statutory orders and served the notices etc etc. relating to the EP elections.

But the UK is not going to to do that unless they know they're going to get the long extension, which means they have to have talked about it in advance to the EU; they have to have explained what extension they want and what they propose to do with it, and they have to have got the nod from the EU to say, yeah, that works for us. And of course it's a unanimous decision of EUCO, so UK has to go through these issues with EU negotiators in sufficient time for member states to be briefed, make a decision.

So the sequence of events is:

- Some time before 10 April: HMG and EU negotiators talk about UK's plan, whether likely to be acceptable to EU; what conditions likely to be required before EU agrees. Probably a bit of back-and-forth here, so may be spread over a couple of days.
- Before 10 April: Governments of Member States briefed.
- 10 April. EU-27 governments decide if UK plan justifies extension and, if so, on what conditions. All going well, UK is given the nod.
- 11 April: UK takes legal steps in relation to EP elections, confirms to Brussels that it has done so, confirms will accept any other conditions attached to long extension.
- 12 April: EuCo formally offers long extension; UK formally notifies acceptance. (Or other way around; UK formally requests, EuCo formally grants.)

There's limited scope for skipping this process. Granting the UK a long extension (post-22 May) without participating in Parliamentary elections involves EU in considerable legal risk affecting matters that have nothing to do with Brexit. Extreme reluctance on EU side to run this risk, allow Brexit to jeopardise validity of general EU business.

No matter how willing you are to keep kicking the can down the road, sooner or later you run out of road, and we're getting close to that point now.

Pedro K

Is this meaningful vote (I love that they keep calling them that) due to happen around the same time as previous meaningful votes? 19:30ish?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

They can't unilaterally exend the deadline. Under the Treaty, this can only be done by agreement with the UK. HMG must signify agreement.

robinph

Pedro K wrote: »

Is this meaningful vote (I love that they keep calling them that) due to happen around the same time as previous meaningful votes? 19:30ish?

14:30ish I believe.

Cryptopagan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael Portillo had an interesting take on Andrew Neil last night.
The installation of a 'caretaker' PM (like Liddington) or the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock. Seems the monarchy still has that power if it wishes.

I think the Queen can indeed sack the PM and appoint a new one, though even in this scenario I’m not sure parliament would be content for her to exercise that power.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

It's also voted against a crashout Brexit. It has to pick something sooner or later.

Cryptopagan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's also voted against a crashout Brexit. It has to pick something sooner or later.

They don’t have to pick anything to achieve a crash out. Article 50 revocation is extremely unlikely.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

It is the option with the longest time for them to carry on kicking the can for though before actually having to decide something. Well other than no-deal but that doesn't count as having made a decision.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

If the HoC votes in a majority to revoke A50 for example, or any other option, but May refuses to go to the EU to do so then would it not be a case of popping round to see the Queen and whichever MP the HoC nominates saying that they are the leader of the commons, make me PM for this one issue, they then deal with the EU and get the revoke letter dealt with.

Then the next day they can start the arguing internally about who is then the leader of the closest thing to a majority and can be PM for the next stage of whatever.

Any attempt by the Queen to dismiss a PM would provoke a massive constitutional crisis. The Queen is not going to want to go there. If push came to shove, the strongest argument party figures could put to May to get her to resign would be the damage to the monarchy if it got to the point where Parliamentarians had to call on the Queen to dismiss her.

May could, eventually, be got to go, I've no doubt. She's weird, but she's not insane. But it's the kind of crisis that could take a few days to play out and, to be honest, they don't have that many days. At this point they need more than just an in-principle decision as to the kind of Brexit they want; they need an actual feasible plan for progressing it, and they need to work out how long that plan requires, and they need to work out how stakeholders are to be brought on board and kept on board, etc. All of that feeds into any request for an extension and, seriously, they have less than 10 days for this. They can't waste days on a constitutiional crisis with a Prime Minister who won't resign because she's in denial about the fact that she can't govern.

Cryptopagan

robinph wrote: »

It is the option with the longest time for them to carry on kicking the can for though before actually having to decide something. Well other than no-deal but that doesn't count as having made a decision.

Revocation would not be can-kicking. In revoking A50, the government would be cancelling the Brexit process and committing the UK to remain. It might be accompanied by some vague commitments to consult with the public and produce papers on what shape some future Brexit might take, but nobody would really believe it to be anything other than the end of Brexit.

murphaph

Cryptopagan wrote: »

They don’t have to pick anything to achieve a crash out. Article 50 revocation is extremely unlikely.

Crash out was by far the least popular option (400 votes against IIRC). They will surely have to pick something else.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

They will surely have to pick something else.

Just because they have to pick something else doesn't mean they will pick something else.

Cryptopagan

murphaph wrote: »

Crash out was by far the least popular option (400 votes against IIRC). They will surely have to pick something else.

But it’s also the default, and they have yet to indicate what something else is. No matter how unpopular nothing is, if they don’t choose something that’s what they are getting.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

This is while there are other options available. In 2 weeks the custo.s and efta and 2nd ref options may all be gone leaving only mays deal, no deal or revoke

Roger_007

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I think the Queen can indeed sack the PM and appoint a new one, though even in this scenario I’m not sure parliament would be content for her to exercise that power.

The Monarch has certain powers but dare not exercise them. If there is any conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy, the Monarchy has to lose. Parliament can simply pass legislation to remove any powers that the Monarch has.
Parliament has all the power in the UK and could pass legislation to abolish the Monarchy altogether if it so wished.
In the absence of a written constitution there is no limit on the powers of Parliament. It could even pass an act to abolish the Supreme Court in the U.K. In fact it could pass legislation to do just about anything.

blackwhite

Boris now indicating he'll support the deal.

DUP will soon be left on their own - question becomes can TM get enough Lab/Lib Dem/SNP to defect to overcome the DUP numbers.

Penn

Cryptopagan wrote: »

But it’s also the default, and they have yet to indicate what something else is. No matter how unpopular nothing is, if they don’t choose something that’s what they are getting.

Exactly. It happens automatically unless they actually decide and agree on an alternative. Like a car heading towards a tree. At some point the people in the car need to agree to turn the steering wheel to avoid it.

lawred2

Penn wrote: »

Exactly. It happens automatically unless they actually decide and agree on an alternative. Like a car heading towards a tree. At some point the people in the car need to agree to turn the steering wheel to avoid it.

not really - avoiding self harm is usually instinctive. Instincts don't require deliberation or a quorum reaching consensus...

actively seeking self harm would usually be a sign of mental illness.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any attempt by the Queen to dismiss a PM would provoke a massive constitutional crisis. The Queen is not going to want to go there. If push came to shove, the strongest argument party figures could put to May to get her to resign would be the damage to the monarchy if it got to the point where Parliamentarians had to call on the Queen to dismiss her.

May could, eventually, be got to go, I've no doubt. She's weird, but she's not insane. But it's the kind of crisis that could take a few days to play out and, to be honest, they don't have that many days. At this point they need more than just an in-principle decision as to the kind of Brexit they want; they need an actual feasible plan for progressing it, and they need to work out how long that plan requires, and they need to work out how stakeholders are to be brought on board and kept on board, etc. All of that feeds into any request for an extension and, seriously, they have less than 10 days for this. They can't waste days on a constitutiional crisis with a Prime Minister who won't resign because she's in denial about the fact that she can't govern.

If parliament decide on a plan of action that May refuses to carry out then parliament can tell the Queen to sack May. That shouldn't take long to carry out and wouldn't create a "constitutional" crisis that upsets parliament as they would be in charge of the situation.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

12 April represents the date by which any country holding EP elections has to have set the process in train (which is why 12 April was chosen as the limit for the short extension).

I don't believe that it is possible to hold EP elections if the process starts on the 11th, but not if it starts on the 13th.

If the UK show up at 11 pm on the 12th and say "ALL right! All right! We'll agree to any and all conditions for a long extension!" a way can be found to do it.

And the EU27 won't need to consult, they will have all possible plays agreed ahead of time, because by now they understand how the UK is operating. There will be an agreed Yes or No answer in seconds.

murphaph

blackwhite wrote: »

Boris now indicating he'll support the deal.

DUP will soon be left on their own - question becomes can TM get enough Lab/Lib Dem/SNP to defect to overcome the DUP numbers.

She has to also overcome those ERG members (eg Bernard Jenkin, Mark Francois) who are adamant they will not support the deal and add to those the remainers in the Tory party who are equally adamant. May is well short of the votes. I think it's extremely unlikely her deal will pass. I'd consider a GE more likely in fact.

Kermit.de.frog

Merkel coming to Dublin on Thursday.

Varadkar to see Macron Tuesday.

Brexit discussions no doubt. I'm sure they both want to know exactly what the plan is on the island of Ireland in the event of "no deal".