The Liberal Democrats just won a by-election and now the Tories are down to a working majority of just 1.
There’s no way Boris Johnson can survive a confidence vote, right?
So Brexit will be postponed again. It’s just too bad that Jeremy Corbyn is so useless, any other Labour leader would be looking at a Blair like crushing of the Tories.
So, new elections in autumn and a Labour/Liberal Democrats/SNP/Green coalition?
Doesn’t “Brexit will be postponed again” depend on Europe rather unbelievably going along with it again? It looks like Boris has decided to go belligerent on demands Europe is unlikely to accept and as far as Brexit timeline goes, a no confidence vote means nothing. How can they cobble together a brand new government and bargain with Europe between now and Oct 31? I can’t see how hard Brexit isn’t pretty much gonna happen now.
Brexit won’t be postponed. Johnson can simply do nothing and it passes. Even booting him out of office won’t work, because noone can pass a Brexit deal. (It’s easy for Brexit dealers to criticize Johnson, but their attempts won’t work.) Johnson just isn’t going to try as hard as Theresa May, so the chances of a deal go from 0% to 0%.
The UK already voted for Brexit, and the EU has set a pretty firm deadline (which can only change if Johnson gives a you know what, but he doesn’t). I don’t support Brexit but the UK voted for it, and now they have to face the consequences. It’s called being responsible. (Well, sparking a war in Northern Ireland isn’t responsible, but someone should have thought about that earlier.)
If Boris is forced into a general election (or, indeed, chooses to seek a general election) the big unanswered question is whether he will then seek a short further extension of the A50 period so that it does not expire until some time after the election and the formation of the post-election government.
You can argue this one either way. On the one hand, he should do so in order to preserve the freedom of the post-election government to address Brexit in accordance with whatever mandate it may have sought and received in the election. On the other hand, Parliament has already approved serving of A50 notice, and has already enacted legislation, under both of which the UK will leave the EU after a set time, without a withdrawal agreement if none has been made by that time. Why should the already-enacted will of Parliament be suspended merely because an election is called? It’s one thing for a government in caretaker mode pending an election not to make signficant, hard-to-reverse policy decisions; quite another for a government in caretaker mode to reverse or suspect significant policy decisions already made by Parliament.
My guess is that Boris would seek a deferral in this situation, complaining all the while that he was being forced to do so. But my guess could very easily be wrong.
If he does seek a short deferral in this situation, though, I am fairly confident that the EU would grant it.
What would be the point of (another) election? The biggest political choices are a pro-Brexit Conservative Party, and … Corbyn. There’s a slight chance some more responsible Brexiteers could actually hatch a deal, but it would be a last minute thing.
The hope would be to get a government that could govern. Johnson has a majority of 3, but has already effectively conceded that he cannot get even uncontroversial Brexit-related legislation through Parliament. Whatever he does between now and the next election he has to do without the assent of Parliament, and it has to be something that does not require legislation. That limits his options. A lot.
Johnson’s hope would be to secure a larger majority, and to avoid any further reliance on the DUP. Both of these things would give him much greater freedom of action than he currently has. He might even feel able to become what you call a “responsible Brexiter”.
Corbyn would hope, obviously, for the reverse; to displace the Tories, which is by no means impossible. He’d also hope for a Labour majority, and to become Prime Minister himself, but that looks like more of a stretch. But even a multiparty government including Labour would, for Corbyn, be a better outcome than the present state of affairs.
The EU would hope for a Parliament that could actually take and implement a decision. They really don’t care whether it’s right, left or centre. Right now they’re looking not only at a no-deal Brexit, which is bad, but at a UK that even after a no-deal Brexit will still be unable to address the issues it badly needs to address, and take and implement decisions. The UK becoming a failed state is not in the EU’s interests, and a general election would at least open up an avenue by which this outcome might be avoided.
How is that possible in 3 months? New elections, new government, new brexit agreement during summer recess?
It is still a complete mess several years after the (poorly phrased) referendum.
Note that Boris’ Conservative Party does not have a majority. They are reliant on the DUP, who have 10 seats.
It’s hard to think of a skilful politician who could guide the country to a solution.
Certainly Boris is not the answer. :smack:
An election and a new government is certainly possible within 3 months. If that offered a realistic possiblity of an agreement in some slightly longer time, no doubt an extension of time to accommodate that would be possible.
If Boris is successful and manages to get an alternate Withdrawal Agreement with the EU that’s acceptable to Parliament, there’s certainly time to pass it. It wouldn’t need to be a new agreement. Putting in a deadline for the future agreement and weakening the Irish backstop would probably be sufficient changes. Even if there were further delays due to UK legislative procedural requirements, the EU would certainly offer an extension to the point where the alternate Withdrawal Agreement would become UK law. However, I think it’s very unlikely Johnson will get agreement on a substantially different Withdrawal Agreement.
The next possibility is if there’s a successful vote of No Confidence, no new government is formed with current MP’s and a general election is called. There’s just time for that to happen before 31 October. Parliament returns from the summer recess on 03 September. If the motion for a vote of No Confidence is made on that date, the earliest date for a general election is 25 October, which is a Friday. Could there be an early general election? - BBC News
Suppose a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition emerges over the weekend with an agreement to hold a second referendum. I’m sure the EU would allow a delay while that second referendum was held.
The third possibility is that no motion for a vote of No Confidence is made, or Johnson is able to win that vote. If that happens, he sits on his hands for two months, and then Brexit under WTO terms happens.
So, again with the UK politics question: Let’s say I am a Tory who is a hard no-deal Brexiteer. Wouldn’t it be to my benefit to vote with Labour on the no-confidence vote in order to cause a new election to be held, thereby running out the clock on the possibility of a deal?
What’s better than proroguing Parliament if not dissolving it (for a time)?
Why?
This confidence seems to be reflected in the British media. I don’t understand. Why on earth would the EU do this, when they have said repeatedly and clearly that they would not, and when there is no prospect that the results of any British election would solve the problems that Parliament has been failing to deal with throughout 2019?
[Edit: re-reading the response, I see the point about the failed state, but that doesn’t seem tenable as a motivator to me.]
UDS and Wrenching Spanners, I understand that theoretically you just barely squeeze in a new election, government, and agreement. I don’t understand how anyone could think it’s remotely realistic. To move that quickly people would have to be really working together and that is simply not happening.
I don’t think a new deal is realistic. Either the EU would be offering cosmetic changes to the existing Withdrawal Agreement and the UK government and Parliament would accept these cosmetic changes, because hey, now Boris is in charge. Or, the EU would make concessions they haven’t yet made because Boris is calling their bluff. I think both of those scenarios are highly unlikely. However, they could be accomplished quickly. Note that in this scenario, no general election would be held.
What I think is more likely is that a vote of confidence takes place, the government loses both it and the general election that follows, and they are replaced by a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. A second referendum would be the price the Liberal Democrats would demand to join a coalition government. I’m sure the EU would agree to a postponement in order for a second referendum to be held. I think this is a likely scenario, although how probable it is, I couldn’t say. Ballpark SWAG? 35% to 55% probability.
I suppose an option I haven’t considered is that Labour wins enough seats that Corbyn doesn’t have to form a coalition, or only has to form a weak version of one. In that case, he might ask for a postponement so he can negotiate his form of a Withdrawal Agreement. I think a strong Labour result is unlikely, and goes against recent trends, but it’s not impossible.
On a side note, I’m not going to do the electoral math to figure out what it would take for the Liberal Democrats to come out with the most seats following a general election. However, I would absolutely laugh my ass off if Jeremy Corbyn has waited for the Conservatives to self-destruct, but has done such a poor job leading his party that they end up the junior partners in a coalition.
Any parliamentarian that votes against his own party in a vote of no-confidence, especially one that is lost, is very likely to be deselected from running for his seat again. Also, there would be a strong risk of the Conservatives losing the general election. Those are pretty high prices to pay for a tactical vote to ensure something that’s going to happen anyway.
What about someone like Ken Clarke who isn’t going to stand again?
Would Ken Clarke take a principled stand and vote in favour of a No Confidence motion in opposition to a No-Deal Brexit? Yes, that’s a definite possibility.
Would Ken Clarke vote tactically to enable Brexit as a procedural tactic? No.
Off topic, but the right people are here so please forgive me for asking: How likely is a return to sustained violence in Ireland with a no-deal Brexit? I ask out of foreigner’s ignorance. Thanks.
I’m a Canadian, so my answer would be conjecture.
I don’t know if there would be violence (at least not massive organized violence) but both Protestants and Catholics want to be connected to Ireland. I’m not exactly sure what the Protestants get out of it, but the DUP is a Protestant party and they don’t want trade barriers there.
What they need to do is to cancel Brexit, and hold a new referendum with the real choices: Continued EU membership, or a crash exit with no deal whatsoever. What the (bare) majority voted for was a chimera: A withdrawal from all of the responsibilities of membership, but maintenance of all of the benefits. That doesn’t and can’t exist, and I think that’s finally becoming clear to the people.
Nearly half the country voted for remaining. Nobody voted for a crash. Remaining is the only responsible option.
But I don’t think there’s any politician on the island with the balls to admit that.