What nuance of UK politics is expected to be discussed in this thread that cannot be accommodated in one of the other current ones? I mean, given the pressure of events, it’s all mostly Brexit anyway.
KarlGauss asks a perfectly good question - but it is one that has been discussed for literally years in the various threads. There’s only so many times that UK posters can be expected to answer the same questions, and it is sub-optimal when new threads are created on what seems to be random whim.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Unfortunately politics has this thing called “face saving”. There’s no face saving way of doing another referendum. It’s been three years, IIRC.
I think at this point, people are just tired of it. They voted to go, even though that’s a mistake, so go. It’s already been delayed seven months.
That’s not a “real” choice. It is one to achieved the desired result.
But what if you did have a new referendum with “real” choices and the results are: 46% Remain, 23% May’s Deal, 22% No-Deal, and 9% Norway-Style? Is it first past the post? Then, again, it is results oriented. You know you will split the Brexit vote while consolidating the Remain votes.
I know you keep saying that it is not sour grapes, but it certainly seems like sour grapes. Not only that, but a type of sour grapes second referendum where Leave cannot possibly win.
It would be like if in the United States after the 2018 mid terms, the Republicans said, “Gee, do you hear all of the socialist shit that AOC and her ilk are spewing? Surely the people didn’t want this. Let’s have new elections.”
A vote of 46% remain, 22% no-deal, 32% abstain would, of course, be a win for remain. What else could it possibly be?
And if Leave cannot possibly win an honest referendum that doesn’t include magical unicorn dust, then what does that tell you?
I thought Hermits like to go it alone 
That’s not an honest election. That is guiding it by the choices. Do you think it would be fair if in the US the choices were Trump and all 20 Dem candidates in a first past the post? That is exactly what you are doing with this supposed “choice” in a second referendum.
I am suggesting a choice between two alternatives. You are suggesting a choice between 21 alternatives. 2 is not exactly the same as 21.
If ‘Norway-style’ is an option, why hasn’t it happened?
Brexit is designed to be ‘No Deal.’ The liars who plotted it all have somewhere else to go when England’s economic depression becomes intolerable. But it will plunge the world into a global depression; which is probably useful for existing fascist dictatorships in Brazil, Russia, & the USA; and presumably appealing for reasons to some mad stuffed shirt in an office in the Square Mile.
It wouldn’t satisfy the right wing of the Tory party, around whom the entire situation has revolved post-2016. The whole point of “Brexit means Brexit” was that only the hard brexiteers’ opinions matter.
Didn’t they say the same thing the last time?
While most of the rather horrific consequences of a no-deal Brexit would fall on the UK (and surely lead to its dissolution), the fallout wouldn’t be great for the EU either.
Suppose the EU just keeps giving 6-12 month extensions to the UK, and the UK continues to fail to make a decision. What’s the downside for the EU?
European companies would probably like to plan more than 6 months in advance. Europe would probably not love having to replan the distribution of political representation every 6 months.
If everyone was sure it was a polite secret that Brexit was never going to happen and extensions would be granted for the rest of time, that might work. But that probably wouldn’t happen and you’d get massive economic uncertainty semiannually.
Doing that means a permanent state of uncertainty. Bad economic news might be bad for businesses, but uncertainty is even worse. If you know that, six months from now, the UK will be out of the EU, then you can plan for that. If you don’t know whether they will be or not, you can’t plan for that.
I think this outcome is a “dream”, largely because a recalcitrant BoJo is already in a position where he can at the very least prevent Parliament from canceling Brexit. The legal situation right now is Parliament has approved and a previous PM conveyed to the EU that it is leaving the Union, under Article 50. This happens automatically on October 31st. There would need to at the very least be a new Prime Minister to stop this, as BoJo will not. There are a number of mechanisms at his disposal (most of these he’s at least hinted he is willing to do, or been coy about) where he could prevent Brexit from being blocked:
If he loses a VONC, he is not obligated by any law to resign. Under the fixed term Parliaments act, the Parliament would be dissolved within 14 days but the PM actually holds his office by grant of the sovereign, and can continue to function as the executive head of government of the country essentially “indefinitely” until a new Parliament is convened that puts someone else in power. There’s a strong expectation a PM losing a VONC resigns relatively quickly, and at the very most runs things in caretaker mode for a brief period. But it would be difficult to force BoJo to resign quickly, he could easily make this whole process go past 10/31.
BoJo as Prime Minister can prorogue Parliament. Using the sovereign’s royal prerogative power to porogue (which he basically can use at any point while he’s PM) he can basically shut Parliament down for long enough that there is no functional way for a new Parliament that can replace BoJo to win election and start functioning before 10/31.
The address #1, BoJo’s close allies have basically already said he more or less plans to do this. To actually block this one of two things would have to happen:
A coalition can actually form that can control Parliament, and petition the Queen to make their leader the new PM–this is what’s “supposed to happen” during the 14 day period after a VONC as per the fixed term Parliament act, the 14 days is a time when minority parties are expected to try to cobble together a viable coalition. Given the politics involved, it’d be hard to make this work as it’d be a weird beast.
Parliament could directly petition the Queen to remove BoJo to prevent him from using his executive power to delay the general election until after 10/31. The issue here is this isn’t customary at all, for the Queen to intercede in this way she would be making an “active, political decision” to exercise her powers as sovereign, which is out of line with constitutional norms in the UK. As per the law, the PM has a minimum period he/she must wait before calling a new election after losing a VONC, there is no maximum period at law. Under the duly passed laws of the United Kingdom, BoJo losing a VONC and refusing to schedule the election until after 10/31, is complying with properly passed laws of Parliament. For the Queen to intercede would be to put her judgment ahead of the judgment of Parliament. I’ve seen a number of articles lately from various “rags” like the Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7326241/Queen-SACK-Boris-Johnson-refuses-quit-losing-Commons-confidence-vote.html saying this MUST be done, but they dream. The Queen won’t interfere in this manner.
To address #2, it would be complex and probably time consuming to fight prorogation by Boris. The power to prorogue Parliament was specifically preserved in the fixed term Parliament act; and it’s a royal prerogative. Meaning at law it is the sovereign’s personal power, it is not subject to Parliamentary approval. Such powers are functionally exercised by the PM, as the actual executive of government. There’s some other “QEII save us” fantasies about proroguing that suggest the Queen could simply “decline” the PM’s advice to prorogue Parliament. This will not happen–the Queen is not elected and she knows this, she does not have the real authority to say no to BoJo exercising an executive power.
The other attack on proroguing would be through the Supreme Court. While royal prerogatives are specifically not subject to judicial review (which should make it an open and shut case more or less that it can’t be reviewed), the reality is it would likely be found reviewable under the same sort of logic that lead to the Miller decision. Even when something is expressly exempted from review, the supreme court has found there are constitutional situations where it can still review such things. How it would actually rule is hard to say, and at least as a matter of law the PM is in a better position than May was in the Miller case. After Miller Parliament of course passed the requisite legislation authorizing Article 50 notification, which was then done, which got the UK to where it is now. So letting this happen is actually in line with previously passed laws. The argument against this is “but a majority of Parliament doesn’t want a No Deal Brexit.” That’s very true–but under the law such a Brexit is allowed and essentially is already on its way to happening, no law since passed by Parliament has countermanded this.
Wait, a PM who’s lost a Vote of No Confidence can postpone new elections indefinitely? How does this not lead to dictatorship-for-life?
Because they haven’t had Prime Minister Mitch McConnell?
Martin Hyde said "essentially ‘indefinitely’ ". Boris only has to hold out until Oct 31.
And if he tries to indefinitely suspend parliament and elections, I rather think that’s the one situation the British public would forgive the Queen for refusing his further recommendations.
You’ve made a very good point that Johnson, after losing a Vote of No Confidence (VONC), doesn’t have to call a general election before 31 October. He could easily set the date well afterwards, arguing that the electorate needs time to adjust to life after Brexit before deciding which party should be leading the country, or some other specious argument. It would then be up to Parliament to force an earlier election date. Here’s a discussion on how it might happen – the third point within the article. Is it too late to stop a no deal Brexit? : Democratic Audit
I’m presuming that if a majority of Parliament is willing to support a VONC, they would also support a bill setting the date of a general election before 31 October.
Regarding your second point, I’m not sure that Johnson would be able to prorogue Parliament after losing a VONC. Constitutionally, the fourteen day period after the VONC is meant for Parliament to be organising a new government or deciding to hold a general election. I think that blocking Parliament from doing so would be considered unconstitutional. It would certainly create a constitutional crisis. Johnson could certainly prorogue Parliament before the end of the summer recess. Doing so would face judicial challenge, but as you’ve noted, it is a Royal Prerogative power. Proroguing parliament | Institute for Government However, one thing to consider is that Johnson cares far more about remaining in the Prime Minister’s office than he cares about Brexit. Running scared from Parliament is not a good way to convince the electorate that you’re capable of leading Parliament. I’d hope that Johnson would face an avalanche of opposition from every direction if he tries to prevent Parliament from sitting, guaranteeing he’d be bounced from office at the earliest opportunity. I think Johnson would rather gamble on a general election than try such a repugnant tactic.
Small bump. Jeremy Corbyn has sent out a strong signal that he intends to ask for a Vote of No Confidence by writing to the Cabinet Secretary claiming a post-Brexit general election is unconstitutional.
“Forcing through no deal against a decision of parliament, and denying the choice to the voters in a general election already under way, would be an unprecedented, unconstitutional and anti-democratic abuse of power by a prime minister elected, not by the public, but by a small number of unrepresentative Conservative Party members.”
I think that is probably true. There’s real cause for constitutional concern, Politico reported the other day:
Lord Lisvane notes that Johnson after losing a VONC, could basically block Parliament from voting in support of a new government, without that the new government cannot easily go to the Queen with a leader and get a new Prime Minister.
As noted though it would be “constitutionally destructive”, but procedurally legal.
I think any option where Johnson simply ignores the clear majority will of Parliament to use legal “tricks” to force a No Deal Brexit will be constitutionally destructive, whether it’s a delaying action on a General Election, proroguing, using procedural tools to block the house from voting on support of a new government etc. Hopefully that is reason enough we don’t see this happen, but it’s very concerning that when asked point blank about several of these very things, Johnson’s government has been coy and not committed to upholding constitutional norms.