They can’t, in practice, force Johnson to seek an extension, as the only threat they have against him is a no confidence vote - and if they are unwilling to call an election, that is an empty threat.
Add to that the fact that the EU is unlikely to grant an extension and the whole thing is pointless.
Labour knows there’s no good way to leave the EU, but doesn’t have the will and/or the balls to say so, and would rather us crash out under Johnson so they have someone else to blame when they’re in power, than actually try to fix the situation.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill 2019 - the one which will be debated on Wednesday if today’s SO24 application is granted and voted for - aims to do just that. (I think - this is all getting complicated )
As far as I can tell, there’s no mechanism in the bill that actually forces Johnson to make the request to the EU, nor that sanctions him if he doesn’t. He’s said that he won’t make the request, and as far as I know the only response Parliament has to that is a confidence vote.
This gets us into murky waters. The text of the bill says that unless Parliament approves a deal, or No Deal, then “The Prime Minister **must **[go through the process of requesting an extension of the EU].”
What does that “must” mean in practice? This isn’t a criminal law creating an offence to fail to request an extension. This is administrative law (I think) setting out the obligations of a public authority. I’m not sure what penalties apply to public authorities who fail to fulfill their legal duties, or what the process is for establishing that they have and that such penalties should apply. But I’m sure they exist.
However, it seems this process can only be retroactive - in order to show that the government had failed to comply with this, you would have to show that no extension had been requested. At what point can you say that? Before the 31st of Oct? There’s no deadline in the bill to say by when the extension should be requested, which is starting to feel like an oversight. If Johnson simply decides not to request the extension he would be in breach of the law and would be liable for whatever penalties - but the deadline would have passed by the time his argument that he was simply waiting for the opportune moment could be shown to be false.
So, if the bill passes, Johnson might simply refuse to obey it, as threatened. At some point - say 30th Oct - a case might be brought to say that he was acting unlawfully by not making the request. Could a court force the PM to write the letter? If he refused, could it authorise some other figure to write the letter in his name? The logic of the bill is that this is exactly what should happen, following due process, but these seem like big steps.
Politically speaking, Boris probably wouldn’t defy Parliament because if he did he would take sole responsibility for No Deal and taking responsibility isn’t his bag. But if he did decide to defy Parliament some pretty consequential decisions would have to be made.
A confidence vote would kick him out, but owing to the FTPA it likely wouldn’t (assuming that Parliament is asked to vote on a deal after Oct 17th) allow enough time for a new PM to emerge.
IMO Labour is long overdue for a proper leadership challenge. I would have thought they’d reached that particular tipping point long ago, but they flounder on.
Is anyone running (or can anyone run) on a platform of no Brexit, or postponing Brexit for a new referendum? If not, why not? It seems like there would be a significant electorate in favor of this.
An new referendum has been the Lib Dem’s position for a while now, and on some days Corbyn seems to suggest he might be OK with that, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
The problem with that is what question should be asked on a potential referendum.
The Green Party is also strongly opposed to Brexit. Although they have only one MP, they are a legitimate political party in the UK unlike the USA greens which exist just to ratfuck Democrats. The Greens did quite well back in May in the local elections.
Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who want Brexit-with-a-deal. But it should be abundantly clear to everyone now that, at this point, the only possible way to get that is to repeal the Article 50, take your time negotiating a deal, and only then re-invoke Article 50.
Which means, of course, that that’s not going to happen.
The EU isn’t making anyone do anything. They’re letting you shoot yourself in the foot. But the loading of the gun, the aiming of it at the foot, and the pulling of the trigger are all being done by the Brits.
Which needs 2/3 parliamentary approval. The main opposition leaders all said in the chamber tonight that they insist that tomorrows Bill be implemented first. (Actually it sounded like that had all been co-ordinated beforehand)
I know the EU isn’t forcing us to agree to anything. The EU is holding its head in its hands while we tie our hands behind our backs while saying they did it.
)