Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

The possibility of a no deal Brexit has just been reduced by new legislation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48930417
MPs have voted by the thinnest of margins for a process that would make it more difficult for a future prime minister to prorogue Parliament.
Tory MP Dominic Grieve wanted to amend the Northern Ireland Bill to stop a future PM forcing through a no-deal Brexit by suspending Parliament.
His amendment - to require ministers to regularly report on the situation in Northern Ireland - passed by one vote.
It could provide a tool for MPs to block a no-deal Brexit in October.

Lackadaisical

The fact that suspending parliament is even under consideration is beyond shocking. The UK isn't a presidential democracy with parliament being a check and balance on the executive. It's a full parliamentary democracy. If they were to suspend parlement, they're walking into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Call me Al

blackcard wrote: »

Brexit: Behind closed doors on Rte now is explosive stuff. I am surprised at the access given to cameras and how undiplomatic some of the EU officials were

Have they called their UK counterparts turds yet? Or told the Irish to know their place in the negotiations?There are just two flies of many in the ointment in your assessment of EU diplomacy.

Nody

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The fact that suspending parliament is even under consideration is beyond shocking. The UK isn't a presidential democracy with parliament being a check and balance on the executive. It's a full parliamentary democracy. If they were to suspend parlement, they're walking into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

To be honest at this stage not really; I'm sure if someone could make a half decent idea out of a satanic ritual to make Brexit happen there would be politicians lining up to help at this stage. It's as Confucius said:

When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.

The goal (Brexit) is the only fixed target; anything and everything to get there is acceptable.

Lackadaisical

John Major has said he'll take legal action seeking a judicial review of any granting of a suspension of parliament and plenty of others will be lining up to do likewise.

There's even a plan that parliament will just meet elsewhere, if it can't meet at Westminster.

You're looking at a country that's beginning to tear itself to shreds.

It's also likely that if the PM asks to suspend parliament the Queen will just grant it, effectively proving the monarchy has no real constitutional role at all and is just a ceremonial rubber-stamping service.

InTheShadows

blackcard wrote: »

Brexit: Behind closed doors on Rte now is explosive stuff. I am surprised at the access given to cameras and how undiplomatic some of the EU officials were

Extremely undiplomatic. Something like that will hopefully to massive damage to how the EU are still viewed in the UK.

BonnieSituation

InTheShadows wrote: »

Extremely undiplomatic. Something like that will hopefully to massive damage to how the EU are still viewed in the UK.

The EU are carrying on like Soviet Russia eh?

Peregrinus

InTheShadows wrote: »

Extremely undiplomatic. Something like that will hopefully to massive damage to how the EU are still viewed in the UK.

Well, not really. When the EU is openly compared to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by British politicians, all but the terminally dim will have realised that it's quite likely that on the EU side some less than charitable language is likely to have been used about the UK in response. So the revelation that this has indeed happened isn't likely to change anybody's mind about anything.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not really. When the EU is openly compared to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by British politicians, all but the terminally dim will have realised that it's quite likely that on the EU side some less than charitable language is likely to have been used about the UK in response. So the revelation that this has indeed happened isn't likely to change anybody's mind about anything.

Except you forget this is the UK; you know the country that thinks it's the special cookie in the jar and have exceptions to everything because, well, they are special. Hence I'd not be surprised if they get offended by being treated the same way; how dare the EU do something like that! How rude! The fact their politicians have called EU far worse and for years does not count because that was Farage, or this or that excuse.

blackcard

BonnieSituation wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

Brexit: Behind closed doors on Rte now is explosive stuff. I am surprised at the access given to cameras and how undiplomatic some of the EU officials were

Where were you and your outrage when it was originally broadcast by a month or so ago?

Didn't realise it was a repeat. I said that I was surprised, I definitely wasn't outraged as I agree with many of the sentiments but didn't think that they would be expressed on camera

Lackadaisical

blackcard wrote: »

Didn't realise it was a repeat. I said that I was surprised, I definitely wasn't outraged as I agree with many of the sentiments but didn't think that they would be expressed on camera

Transparency? They're not trying to spin, be two faced and hide. Why pretend? What's it going to achieve?

ambro25

InTheShadows wrote: »

Extremely undiplomatic. Something like that will hopefully to massive damage to how the EU are still viewed in the UK.

And, after the last 3 decades of ignominously-misleading anti-EU headlines in UK red tops, and the last 3+ years of jingoistic anti-EU rethoric by an ever-broader set of ever-more mainstream British politicians all after out-Brexiting each other...

...the EU27 should care about such further 'massive damage' because?

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

John Major has said he'll take legal action seeking a judicial review of any granting of a suspension of parliament and plenty of others will be lining up to do likewise.

There's even a plan that parliament will just meet elsewhere, if it can't meet at Westminster.

You're looking at a country that's beginning to tear itself to shreds.

It's also likely that if the PM asks to suspend parliament the Queen will just grant it, effectively proving the monarchy has no real constitutional role at all and is just a ceremonial rubber-stamping service.

She can refuse to prorogue parliament and I wouldn't dismiss the notion.

Igotadose

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She can refuse to prorogue parliament and I wouldn't dismiss the notion.

That'd be dramatic if it happened. I wouldn't put it past Elizabeth either, she's got some spine and put her life on the line for the UK during WWII. Her actions would shut up the kind of Brexiteer mentioned in that article yammering on about WWII.

Lackadaisical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She can refuse to prorogue parliament and I wouldn't dismiss the notion.

It's regarded as highly unlikely that she won't just do what she's told. She's very likely constitutional power to go against the advice of a prime minister.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

That'd be dramatic if it happened. I wouldn't put it past Elizabeth either, she's got some spine and put her life on the line for the UK during WWII. Her actions would shut up the kind of Brexiteer mentioned in that article yammering on about WWII.

Apparently if she believes that it's been done for the wrong reasons then she can refuse. The optics of Old Etonian English nationalists in an impasse with the Queen would a sight to behold.

Lackadaisical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Deleted post.

Well effectively the UK's constitutional monarchy stems from a civil war that nearly ended the monarchy. The Queen arguably has far more power in her other realms, as was shown when her governor general dismissed the Australian PM back in 1974. The monarchy has far less power domestically.

Although since they're ripping up the constitution anyway, she might as well just make it up as she goes along. Everyone else seems to be!

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Well effectively the UK's constitutional monarchy stems from a civil war that nearly ended the monarchy. The Queen arguably has far more power in her other realms, as was shown when her governor general dismissed the Australian PM back in 1974. The monarchy has far less power domestically.

Although since they're ripping up the constitution anyway, she might as well just make it up as she goes along. Everyone else seems to be!

Yes indeed. History has a lot to teach. Let's hope she doesn't lose the head metaphorically and literally.

Stop moaning ffs

She’s always been tight lipped on her opinion of her PMs but I can’t see any universe where she has anything but contempt for Johnson.

Loafing Oaf

Banned.

Professor Moriarty

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

She’s always been tight lipped on her opinion of her PMs but I can’t see any universe where she has anything but contempt for Johnson.

I think you're spot on. I've haven't had the chance to discuss it with her yet, but I get the sense she would be very anti Brexit.

Lackadaisical

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

She’s always been tight lipped on her opinion of her PMs but I can’t see any universe where she has anything but contempt for Johnson.

She's actually been remarkably reserved and pretty much has carried out the office without ever going anywhere near politics. She's been the model of absolutely hands of, purely ceremonial constitutional monarchy and really hasn't set a foot wrong or even had a hair out of place for her entire career. She's the single reason why the brush monarchy remained popular, despite a lot of turbulence.

That being said, she's also never faced anything approaching a serious constitutional crisis before either. It's the first time that one's prime minister might be a disappointment.

It would say a lot for her if she (as an unelected monarch) actually stands up for parliamentary democracy. Although you can guarantee the Brexiteers wouldn't see if that way.

She could end up making on of the biggest statements of her career in her 90s.

Peregrinus

The queen's personal opinions about the qualities of the Prime Minister or the wisdom of his policy are irrelevant here; they would not represent good reasons for refusing to act as advised by him.

I think the only constitutionally-permissible question she could ask herself is this; does the Prime Minister enjoy the confidence of the House in advising me to prorogue Parliament? If he does, she cannot reject his advice without provoking a constitutional crisis that could well end the monarchy.

On the one hand, you could argue that the whole reason the PM would be asking her to prorogue is that he does not enjoy the confidence of the House - if he did, he wouldn't need a prorogation. On the other hand, you could argue that the House could have held a vote of confidence in the PM at any time up to that moment and, if it chose not to, it's not for the monarch to decide that the PM no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. And Parliament could also have legislated at several points to prohibit a no-deal Brexit; each time, it chose not to. Who is the monarch to decide that Parliament would prevent one, if Parliament itself hasn't decided that? Plus, prorogations are a regular occurence, and in fact one is overdue; if the PM denies that he is doing this in order to implement a policy that he knows Parliament would oppose, and instead offers some more constitutionally respectable reason, who is the monarch to call the PM a liar?

If there's one thing the UK monarchy is heavily invested in, it's the survival of the UK monarchy. And the course of action less likely to lead to the collapse of the monarchy is acting on the PM's advice. So odds are she would act on it. She might counsel against it, she might warn against it, but if the PM persists in advising her to prorogue, I think she would.

Leroy42

Remarkably reserved? When you entire existence is predicated on saying nothing and turning up to events to wave I think anybody would be able to do it.

Well anybody that realises that opinions and being right are worth a hell of a lot less than the state funded palaces, money and deference she and her entire family is given.

What does she care? EU, NATO, WTO, Trump, Mugabe. Just another gold cutlery event to attend and be feted as the greatest thing ever. Why would she get involved, and put her position at risk? No matter what happens she'll be perfectly fine

Lackadaisical

Well previous monarchs weren't as reserved. She's almost like a Disney creation of what a queen should be. It's easy to forget that she took on that office extremely young and has been moulded into a very dutiful character who was a big part of the symbolism that was very fundamental to nation building in the aftermath of WWII and during the wind down of the empire. Everything about the symbolism of the office is extremely deliberate.

FrancieBrady

InTheShadows wrote: »

Extremely undiplomatic. Something like that will hopefully to massive damage to how the EU are still viewed in the UK.

What was 'undiplomatic'?

We saw their real reactions, but when they were actually dealing with the British they were impeccably diplomatic.

What this programme underlined was that these are human beings under intense pressure, and human beings with a myriad of opinions and political positions. But they managed, because they are a team working for a 'unified' goal to coalesce as a single point of view, without any single voice being louder than another.
That's a triumph of democracy and diplomacy imo.

Enzokk

Seems like the UK is still trying to negotiate even now.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1148850634227113985


But as the next tweet points out that the conditions of the extension was that the withdrawal agreement would not be open for re-negotiation.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1148851611936141312

I think Boris Johnson can get away with not knowing what was agreed by the government as he was not in government when it was agreed, but Hunt has no excuse. He was in the cabinet when this extension was agreed so with collective responsibility, he agreed to that position and should not even consider going to the EU to try and talk about the WA.

As for the article in the tweet, we have the Brexit secretary once again using us and a reason why the EU want to go back to the negotiating table.

Britain’s Brexit secretary has urged the EU to come back to the negotiating table on Brexit – warning that the UK would take Ireland’s economy down with it if went ahead with a no-deal.

Stephen Barclay, who is backing Boris Johnson for leader, said EU chiefs should recognise the fact that British MPs had rejected the withdrawal agreement three times.

Declaring that “no-deal is better than no Brexit” after a meeting with Michel Barnier and Ireland’s EU Commissioner Philip Hogan in Brussels, Mr Barclay said 40 per cent of Ireland’s exports went through Dover and would be caught up in the ensuing chaos.

...

“I think the impact of no-deal is greater to the Irish economy than it is in the UK. So the EU want to avoid no-deal.”

The quotes part is from Stephen Barclay, more evidence that we are back at the start.

trellheim

I think the only constitutionally-permissible question she could ask herself is this; does the Prime Minister enjoy the confidence of the House in advising me to prorogue Parliament? If he does, she cannot reject his advice without provoking a constitutional crisis that could well end the monarchy.

Per as I am sure you know they have no written constitution so the question of permissibility makes it all very vague ... as does a Constitutional crisis


Compare to our own Bunreacht Art 13.2

2° The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.

Sam Russell

Just a small point.

The current PM, TM, has yet to resign as PM and advise Her Maj on her replacement. Now her advice is predicated by her belief that her successor can command a majority in the HoC and can form a Government.

Now if a significant number of Tory MPs tell her privately that they will not back Bozo if he becomes PM, and will quit the Tory Party, or resign the whip, then she cannot advise Her Maj that he should become PM because .

So what is her advice? Call for someone else? Who? Or call a GE? A GE would appear to be the only choice.

Now to go off piste - or try and get a National Government to form - but who could head such a government? Perhaps a Lord might do - or a Tory grandee still in the HoC - Kenneth Clarke (79)? Not many names spring to mind - maybe Michael Hestletine (86) or John Major (76) or Chris Patten (75)? Although they are in the Lords, it would not exclude them.

John Major is not a lord so would not be possible without a safe seat.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

The quotes part is from Stephen Barclay, more evidence that we are back at the start.

You're saying that like we ever left in the first place; yes a deal was struck only to have May turn around and directly promise something else to her own parliament (i.e. amendments etc.) and then go back and try to re-negotiate it. It's nothing new; it's no progress and it's UK default of agreeing to something only to directly turn around and claim they did not agree to it and try to change it. No progress; never left start.