Brexit - the next steps

[Jack Knave]

But the vote of no confidence would only be passed if someone votes in favour - so the tories abstaining isn't enough unless other parties chose to vote for it - and why would they if they felt they'd lose seats.

Also remember that it is individual MPs who would have to vote - those MPs know that they have a job for another 3.5 years. Why would they risk an election when they could be out of a job in weeks.

So what would happen then if there was stalemate in parliament? Tories can't get their Brexit version (or repeal of the 1972 act) through and unwilling to budge and the opposition not willing to accept a few lines on their Brexit plan as being good enough and so on. Anyone not taking the challenge to go to the country would be seen as a coward and despicable and the pressure from the public would mount up. Are you saying we would just have to put up with say 3 years of deadlock. What do you think that would do to investment in this country and so on...

[Jack Knave]

A right leaning brexiteer is a fine one to be giving lectures on hubris Jack.

I don't follow, please explain. Are you saying Farron and the SNP aren't full of hubris?

[Jack Knave]

Exactly.

And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.

Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.

So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.

And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.

And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.

But many Remain voters are quite happy to accept the referendum result and to implement the leaving from the EU. Also, the Tories are on 42% which is pretty good so I can't see why the Tories would shy away from a GE by abstaining in order to get a bigger majority. Those MP's who fear for their jobs could be whipped  - if you see what I mean.

As I said before many of the Labour PLP are scared that they are going to be deselected anyway so why not get in there before that happens and get another 5 years in. And that's true of boundary changes as well.

And as I said in another post pressure from the public if parliament is seen to be stagnate due the two sides not giving ground.

[jeremyp]

So what would happen then if there was stalemate in parliament? Tories can't get their Brexit version (or repeal of the 1972 act) through and unwilling to budge and the opposition not willing to accept a few lines on their Brexit plan as being good enough and so on. Anyone not taking the challenge to go to the country would be seen as a coward and despicable and the pressure from the public would mount up. Are you saying we would just have to put up with say 3 years of deadlock. What do you think that would do to investment in this country and so on...

Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.

Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.

[Hope]

Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.

Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.

You might even get all major parties bar one standing on a Remain manifesto, since I get the impression that the majority of MPs - who of course have a say into any mandate - want to go that way.

[ProfessorDavey]

Those MP's who fear for their jobs could be whipped  - if you see what I mean.

Sorry, but the whips don't have that much power - if you are about to be kicked out as an MP (or even think it a serious possibility) you'll feel more worried about that than anything the whips could do if you don't vote the way they wanted.

But you would also need tories to vote in favour of no confidence in their own government - that would be unprecedented, bizarre and deadly on the doorstep.

[jakswan]

The government with it's absolute majority would have to lose the vote. It would have to vote against itself.

What law does that break?

[jakswan]

Exactly.

And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.

Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.

So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.

And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.

And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.

Paddy Power has 8/11 for 2020 and 6/4 for 2017, top of my head 20% margin for Paddy Power implied probability of c. 75% for 2020, 15% for 2017.

Sounds about right to me therefore I'm not betting, you disagree then go make yourself some money.

[jakswan]

Betfair have a market in play:-

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125858951

3.2 for 2017 31% implied probability
1.9 for 2020 50% implied probability

Tempted to lay 2020, if it was a little lower I would.

[jeremyp]

What law does that break?

None. But just because it is not illegal doesn't mean the government will be able to do it. Can you imagine the political fallout if the government made its MPs vote that it was incompetent just so it could gain an advantage from an early election.

[jakswan]

None. But just because it is not illegal doesn't mean the government will be able to do it. Can you imagine the political fallout if the government made its MPs vote that it was incompetent just so it could gain an advantage from an early election.

You brought up the law in post 364.

[ProfessorDavey]

Paddy Power has 8/11 for 2020 and 6/4 for 2017, top of my head 20% margin for Paddy Power implied probability of c. 75% for 2020, 15% for 2017.

Sounds about right to me therefore I'm not betting, you disagree then go make yourself some money.

I never said it was impossible, but difficult, for her to call an early election due to the FTPA, so 15% chance of a 2017 election sounds about right - possible but unlikely.

I was countering the impression some posters here appear to have that it is pretty easy and a bit of a foregone conclusion that May will call a 2017 election, in other words turning the likelihood of its head, say a 75% likelihood.

There is a further consideration that goes beyond the logistics of getting turkeys to vote for christmas (in other words persuading MPs who have 3.5 years to go before they have to face an election to opt for one in months with an uncertain outcome). That is that were May to call an election, which would necessarily be dominated by brexit, she would have no option but to clearly lay out her preferred brexit option in a manifesto - simply going brexit means brexit etc simply isn't going to cut it. If the electorate aren't clear on her strategy and think that she is continuing to obfuscate, while wanting their votes, that isn't going to go down at all well. But she desperately doesn't want to reveal her hand, not due to the stated line on negotiation, rather because as soon as she opt for either soft brexit, or hard brexit all hell breaks loose in her own party, with UKIP once again sniffing on the sidelines.

[Jack Knave]

Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.

Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.

That's a big assumption. I don't think the 17 million who voted for Brexit would trust a remoaner to do the right thing in respecting the referendum. That's where UKIP step in.

[Jack Knave]

You might even get all major parties bar one standing on a Remain manifesto, since I get the impression that the majority of MPs - who of course have a say into any mandate - want to go that way.

But they need the peoples' votes. I would have thought even you could have worked that one out to. 

[Jack Knave]

Sorry, but the whips don't have that much power - if you are about to be kicked out as an MP (or even think it a serious possibility) you'll feel more worried about that than anything the whips could do if you don't vote the way they wanted.

But you would also need tories to vote in favour of no confidence in their own government - that would be unprecedented, bizarre and deadly on the doorstep.

I was being humorous, hence the smiley.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was being humorous, hence the smiley.

Fair enough - so you accept that it won't be that straightforward for May to get her backbenchers (who may be nervously looking at their constituents voting record in the referendum) to vote firstly to declare that they have no confidence in their own government, and secondly to have to face the electorate over 3 years early.

[jakswan]

I never said it was impossible, but difficult, for her to call an early election due to the FTPA, so 15% chance of a 2017 election sounds about right - possible but unlikely.

We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.

I was countering the impression some posters here appear to have that it is pretty easy and a bit of a foregone conclusion that May will call a 2017 election, in other words turning the likelihood of its head, say a 75% likelihood.

To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.

There is a further consideration that goes beyond the logistics of getting turkeys to vote for christmas (in other words persuading MPs who have 3.5 years to go before they have to face an election to opt for one in months with an uncertain outcome). That is that were May to call an election, which would necessarily be dominated by brexit, she would have no option but to clearly lay out her preferred brexit option in a manifesto - simply going brexit means brexit etc simply isn't going to cut it. If the electorate aren't clear on her strategy and think that she is continuing to obfuscate, while wanting their votes, that isn't going to go down at all well. But she desperately doesn't want to reveal her hand, not due to the stated line on negotiation, rather because as soon as she opt for either soft brexit, or hard brexit all hell breaks loose in her own party, with UKIP once again sniffing on the sidelines.

I think it mostly depends on if she can run with a majority as small as it is and of course if May thinks she can win. Dianne Abbot has given Corbyn a year, the centre left of Labour seem softer on Brexit than the hard left, and a centrist politician from Labour isn't likely to be as easy to beat as the hard left.

The LibDems could be dangerous and gain enough support to force Tories into a coalition with another referendum on the deal being the price, a 2020 election this won't even be an issue so pressures both ways.

[Nearly Sane]

We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.

To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.

I think it mostly depends on if she can run with a majority as small as it is and of course if May thinks she can win. Dianne Abbot has given Corbyn a year, the centre left of Labour seem softer on Brexit than the hard left, and a centrist politician from Labour isn't likely to be as easy to beat as the hard left.

The LibDems could be dangerous and gain enough support to force Tories into a coalition with another referendum on the deal being the price, a 2020 election this won't even be an issue so pressures both ways.

I agree with quite a lot of this but there is no evidence of a huge upsurge in Lib Dem support that would give any such indication (the Richmond by election is essentially worthless due to its special circumstances). The one interesting piece here that seems missed is the possible effect of the boundary changes. Were they passed there are a few Tories, although many more Labour and some SNP mps , who would be forced on a chicken run for a changed seat. This may affect their willingness to vite for the boundary changes, and yet if passed, the changes will be lujkwy heavily beneficial to the Tories overall.

[jakswan]

I agree with quite a lot of this but there is no evidence of a huge upsurge in Lib Dem support that would give any such indication (the Richmond by election is essentially worthless due to its special circumstances). The one interesting piece here that seems missed is the possible effect of the boundary changes. Were they passed there are a few Tories, although many more Labour and some SNP mps , who would be forced on a chicken run for a changed seat. This may affect their willingness to vite for the boundary changes, and yet if passed, the changes will be lujkwy heavily beneficial to the Tories overall.

No evidence for LibDem surge other than speculation, a proportion of the 48% are passionate remainers and will consider EU membership more important than any other issue. That and the Corbyn effect.

[Nearly Sane]

No evidence for LibDem surge other than speculation, a proportion of the 48% are passionate remainers and will consider EU membership more important than any other issue. That and the Corbyn effect.

and yet in opinion polls no major move, and remember the surge you would need would be unprecedented in modern UK politics.

[ProfessorDavey]

and yet in opinion polls no major move, and remember the surge you would need would be unprecedented in modern UK politics.

Strangely I think the opinion polls currently are  better predictor of a 2020 election than a snap early one - on the basis that were there to be an earlier election it would become pretty well a one issue vote - the nature of brexit. I'm not at all sure that is easily predicted by the standard 'if there were a general election tomorrow which party would you vote for' polling, given that standard general elections (and standard polling questions on general elections) are based on an assessment of a wide range of issues, rather than a de facto single issue referendum, which a snap election would necessarily become.

[Nearly Sane]

Strangely I think the opinion polls currently are  better predictor of a 2020 election than a snap early one - on the basis that were there to be an earlier election it would become pretty well a one issue vote - the nature of brexit. I'm not at all sure that is easily predicted by the standard 'if there were a general election tomorrow which party would you vote for' polling, given that standard general elections (and standard polling questions on general elections) are based on an assessment of a wide range of issues, rather than a de facto single issue referendum, which a snap election would necessarily become.

I wouldn't disagree but that's still no evidence for a massive political surge to the Lib Dems way beyond the scale of anything in UK politics

[jeremyp]

You brought up the law in post 364.

Just for clarification:

The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.

[Nearly Sane]

Just for clarification:

The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.

I don't think jakswan is  ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'

[jeremyp]

That's a big assumption. I don't think the 17 million who voted for Brexit would trust a remoaner to do the right thing in respecting the referendum. That's where UKIP step in.

Believe me, the 16 million Remainers don't trust the Brexiteers to be able to shit in a toilet. Probably not the 13 million people that didn't vote at all, either.