The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
As for Corbyn, of course being LOTO doesn't guarantee he'll get a majority together behind his name. It does give him considerable leverage, though: any candidature he doesn't agree with can be vetoed by the withdrawal of Labour votes.
Supposing a vote of no-confidence, there will be a period of intense tractations. The LOTO, having tabled the motion and obtained a majority behind it, will be in the driving seat for retaining the same majority for his (caretaker) PMship. If Corbyn himself falls short of a supporting majority, another person might be able to gather the necessary odd votes. Corbyn would, again, be in a position to weigh on that person's candidature: if there were not a clear understanding on 1) A50 extension; 2) immediate general election, he would be unlikely to support it.
There are going to be some Tory MPs who will be immensely solicited between now and mid-September. How many will put the interests of the country before their own re-election chances remains to be seen.
My prediction is that Boris will bully them into submission on the very first vote, and the rest of the suppositions above will be moot. Hope I'm wrong. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
I don't hold out much hope of any Tory with continuing political ambitions voting against him, but there must be quite a few who:
There is a political ritual we have to go through, whereby Jeremy exhausts every possible option before conceding that he cannot command a majority of the house for a caretaker premiership, no matter how attenuated.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, he agrees to nominate Harriet Harmon for the role, a labour loyalist of considerable ministerial experience who has acted as Labour party leader and deputy leader and Leader of the opposition before. A credible choice in constitutional and political terms but who at 69, doesn't appear to have further political ambitions.
Even if she wins the confidence of the House, could Boris refuse to resign? Could he attempt to dissolve parliament and call an election in any case? Can the Queen force him to resign and make way for Harmon?
I'm sorry, but with a constitution as vague and open to abuse as the UK's it is almost impossible to take the UK political system seriously, and I certainly wouldn't regard the HOC as "the mother of Parliaments" or the UK as a serious or advanced democracy. Index of Frank's Diaries
But this
is nuts unless you ask if he also has the police, the army, the secret services, and a well-formed civil-service conspiracy on his side. Such acts could not be accepted. Another MP has the confidence of the House, the monarch will be advised to call that person to be PM, and that's it. Boris can't dissolve Parliament, the monarch does that (and would be advised not to listen to an MP who has no majority behind him). That is hard-and-fast convention. Boris could only break it, as I say, with a hard coup. And against those, written constitutions are no rampart, either.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we probably won't get to see all that played out, since Boris will in all likelihood survive a VOC.
What worries me more than the constitution, is the bully-pulpit power of the right-sliding-further-right in the British "national conversation". And there I am adding quotes. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
I can see a caretaker cabinet trooping into Harriet's Commons office to be given their portfolios... Index of Frank's Diaries
If Boris wants to hole up in N° 10 (or 11, where it seems he has his abode) is immaterial. He will no longer be running the government. If he really wants to get silly, he can hide out in the broom cupboard until some discreet political policemen show up to winkle him out of there.
But, unless he really has the guns behind him, this is all rather pointless speculation. And guns work fine against a written constitution, too. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
If the guns are not out there, Boris will not make things up as he goes along. At least, not in the way you have suggested.
This argument just goes on and on, so this is my last comment on it. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
So there is no law restricting how long it can take to hold a general election after Parliament is prorogued. The minimum period is 25 days, but there is no legal maximum, just a convention that it is normally held on a Thursday within 7 weeks. Conventions are essentially unenforceable. They exist only until they don't. Bojo could remain PM almost indefinitely without breaking any law. Wonderful constitution you have there... Index of Frank's Diaries
Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 : The Act specifies that early elections can be held only: if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
Two things to note:
it is not the defeated PM who chooses or confirms the new government, it is the HOC;
that is not convention, it is written law. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
So what is the Times' political correspondent, Henry Zeffman, or, for that matter, Nikki da Costa, on about?
They seem to be implying that the Queen cannot "send for" whoever the HOC might elect without being advised to do so by the incumbent first. (He might claim he still has a chance of winning back the confidence of the House, within 14 days, regardless of the house having temporarily showered its affections on some other non-entity.)
They also seem to be implying that BoJo can run down the clock on the 14 days and then choose an election date of his liking, at his complete discretion, for the ensuing election despite having lost a vote of confidence. (I think they may be correct on this, unless the HOC elects someone else before the 14 days are over).
It may be that "the British Constitution" is very clear on this. But if The Times' political correspondent and senior advisors to BoJo can waffle on like this in seeming ignorance of its provisions, it doesn't bode well for the general populace being well informed...
You seem to be placing great faith in "the law". But you can usually find two lawyers to argue contrasting interpretations, and without an effective, and speedy judicial determination and enforcement mechanism, whatever the law says might well be moot. Index of Frank's Diaries
I also note that you place greater faith in correspondents of Murdoch's politically-biased rag than in official Parliamentary guidelines based on a recent and clear statute.
But have it your way. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
The other main problem I am highlighting is that laws with limited if any sanctions applicable to actions many months after the event have not been shown to change that event even where those actions are found to have been illegal - in which case they are little more than window dressing.
In countries with written constitutions, clear precedents, and strong and independent enforcement mechanisms, respect for "the constitution" seems (to me) to be much stronger, and any government which has been found to act unconstitutionally faces severe consequences. The very fact that Boris doesn't have to face some kind of impeachment process for suggesting he might ignore the will of Parliament - and before he can actually do so - is also a matter of concern.
I have, for instance, also been critical of countries where this doesn't appear to be the case: for example where the pre-trial incarceration of Catalan separatist leaders seems to be motivated by an overly politicised judicial process. The separation of powers is an important constitutional principle.
The breakdown of respect for convention and the rule of law seems to me characteristic of a descent into authoritarianism and totalitarianism and the UK political class and media have not been slow to use the language of "traitors", "collaborators", "defeatists" and other xenophobic references to anyone associated with a less confrontational attitude to "Brussels".
I hope you are right and "the will of parliament prevails" and a "no deal" Brexit is avoided. Perhaps my parents German background makes me overly sensitive to any creeping undermining of democratic norms. However Rafel Behr also draws parallels to the onset of the Great War and notes a similar fatalism growing amongst Remainers that a no deal Brexit will happen in any case despite the catastrophic consequences they see coming.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" Index of Frank's Diaries
I would assume that the monarch only acts on the advice of the PM to preserve the monarchy. Has the UK had a crisis where the monarchs power to appoint the PM and cabinet was lost due to a conflict with the parliament? If so, then the reason not to act but on the advice of the PM is due to the power of the parliament, not the PM. So the only reasonable move would be to go with the PM that actually has the support of parliament, even if that would break the letter of convention. Just declare that the outgoing PM handed in his resignation, thank him for his services, and call for the PM who has support.
The Times is either getting lost in the letters of conventions, and losing their meaning, or they are throwing up any reason to prevent Johnson being voted down in the first place. Or of course they might be laying the propaganda groundwork for a coup, but I think that is less likely.
So the horse trading would be done by her advisors, who would represent the Crown - a rather nebulous constitutional entity that is supposed to represent the State, but which in practice acts primarily to preserve the business interests of the monarchy.
Now - hypothetically - what if the current generation of advisors were all Brexiters? It wouldn't matter what the Queen wanted, because the advisors are literally the power behind the throne, and the Queen has very limited power of action without their support.
This is pure speculation. I have no idea if it's true. But the arrogance of Johnson etc worries me.
There's self-assurance, and then there's the kind of blind and stupid action that comes from a belief that the Establishment supports you and won't act against you.
Granted, Johnson isn't the most self-aware of all political operators, and it's perfectly possible he's simply a delusional narcissist.
But it's also hard to see how Brexit could have gotten as far as it has without at least some Establishment support. Considering how hard it is to make any big changes in the UK, it's been extraordinarily effective in a relatively short time. And that wouldn't have happened if the Establishment wasn't at least partially in favour of it.
So the question is - how much of the Establishment supports it, and from what power base? We can take the Home Office for granted, because it's Fascist Central anyway. The FO will be more pragmatic.
But the Queen's own office? It's impossible for outsiders to know what's happening there. But it's certainly impossible to guarantee it's a fervent Remainer outpost.
Also, she's got a lot of real estate in Scotland that will pose an interesting question when they break off from England in about a year.
Supposing a vote of no-confidence, there will be a period of intense tractations.
Intense and zero-time-required transactions? The scenarios for avoiding Brexit are getting hilariously convoluted. According to my limited understanding:
First, parliament needs to be back in session. Second, Corbyn needs to introduce a no confidence motion. Third, BoJo needs to lose the motion. Fourth, BoJo needs to lose his effort to regroup the wavering Conservatives by threatening them with Corbyn. Fifth, Corbyn needs to win his effort to group the anti-Brexit factions. Sixth, assuming that he fails, "somebody else" needs to get a majority. Seventh, either Corbyn or "somebody else" needs to pass a motion to retract or delay Article 50. Eight, that has to go over to the EU Brexit negotiating team, which needs to be gathered back together and put back into operation. Ninth, that team needs to approve it. Tenth, the EU states need to approve it.
All of these items, each one by itself thickly painted in emotion and politics and general craziness, and each one opening numerous avenues that BoJo can use to throw a wrench into the works, have to be completed in approximately six weeks.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The question, in this case, is whether the majority in Parliament and the country against a no deal Brexit is, or can be, as organised as the pro-Brexit forces. At the moment, the answer has to be no, but there are still some weeks available for this to play out.
Nevertheless "grasping at straws" is probably a fair description of the chances of reversing Brexit at this stage. If there has been any greater incompetence than on the part of successive UK governments, it has been on the part of those in the UK opposed to successive UK governments... Index of Frank's Diaries
So does Corbyn or "somebody else" issuing a withdrawal letter before an election count as democratic???
It's a mess, that's for sure.
Intense and zero-time-required transactions?
I wrote "a period of", therefore not zero-time. The period being the 14 days required by the fixed-term Parliament Act.
The minimum time for an election is 25 working days, ie 5 weeks. An election could be held before 31 October.
The EU has already signalled readiness to accept an extension for a major democratic event such as a referendum or general election. An extension could be very quickly granted.
Time is not the problem. The problem is that the opposition to no deal will not get their act together/ will not chip off enough Tories to beat the government. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 12 comments
by Oui - Jan 16 4 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 57 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 1 comment
by gmoke - Jan 16
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 8 77 comments
by Oui - Jan 14 21 comments
by Oui - Jan 171 comment
by Oui - Jan 164 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1514 comments
by Oui - Jan 1421 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1412 comments
by Oui - Jan 1357 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1046 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 611 comments
by Oui - Jan 659 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 229 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3151 comments
by Oui - Dec 3122 comments
by Oui - Dec 2834 comments
by gmoke - Dec 28