Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

... it would seem that the only other GE route would be if Johnson called a VoNC in his own government.

Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.

I'm not sure this would be allowed.

The ability to call a VONC is, by convention, reserved to the official opposition. So if (let's say) the SNP were to call for such a vote the speaker would reject that call. Given that the Government calling a VONC in itself would clearly be a contrived approach to try and get around the way a Government can call an election - via the FTPA (which they've tried and failed) I suspect that Bercow would refuse to allow it, as would be his right.

[Dicky Underpants]

I thought that everyone is actually afraid of a denouement.  I mean that assuming we leave the EU on 31 October, no doubt the Brexiters will celebrate, but many people will have a feeling of dread.  It's like an unconscious delaying of Brexit, as nobody really knows what will happen.  Maybe there will be a land flowing with milk and honey, but maybe medicines and food will be restricted, there will be an Irish catastrophe, and so on.  Do you feel lucky?

wiggi

Regarding a possible Irish catastrophe, it does seem that Boris and his cronies are committed to minimising the problems which are already arising. I was surprised to come across some disturbing comments on the Good Friday Agreement made by Gove back in 2000, quoted in the Irish Times, July 5th 2016:

Mr Gove, a former journalist, wrote a pamphlet in 2000 called Northern Ireland: the Price of Peace in which he compared the agreement to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s and the condoning of the desires of paedophiles.

The Scottish-born Brexit campaigner said the agreement was a “rigged referendum”, a “mortal stain” and “a humiliation of our army, police and parliament”.

Mr Gove’s views are “a fanatical unionist protest against the agreement”, said Brendan O’Leary, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and an adviser to the UK Labour Party and the Irish government in the years running up to the signing of the agreement in 1998.

[Gordon]

I'm not sure this would be allowed.

The ability to call a VONC is, by convention, reserved to the official opposition. So if (let's say) the SNP were to call for such a vote the speaker would reject that call. Given that the Government calling a VONC in itself would clearly be a contrived approach to try and get around the way a Government can call an election - via the FTPA (which they've tried and failed) I suspect that Bercow would refuse to allow it, as would be his right.

According to this the government can initiate a VoNC in itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

If Johnson did this it would indeed be contrived, as you say, though I doubt that would bother him.

[Udayana]

If a VoNC found that there was no confidence in the Johnson government, is it it beyond the opposition to put in place a government with a sensible plan for brexit or another referendum without an election until brexit was settled?

[Gordon]

If a VoNC found that there was no confidence in the Johnson government, is it it beyond the opposition to put in place a government with a sensible plan for brexit or another referendum without an election until brexit was settled?

They could - but the issue is Corbyn would wand to be interim PM and the 20 or so Tory (now ex-Tory) rebels would baulk at that: not unless the cooperation over the recent bill and FTPA vote has produced enough trust for Corbyn to be acceptable for a limited period, or he would stand aside in the spirit of cooperation to make Johnson's position untenable. If the VoNC was, say, next week and they couldn't agree an interim government arrangement that would result in a GE sooner than end October, which is what the opposition parties are trying to avoid.

It all sounds a bit soap-opera-ish.

[Gordon]

Marina Hyde in devastating form, again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-twilight-zone-police-escort-conservatives

[Harrowby Hall]

Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.

But Johnson is leading a minority government established by Theresa May.  I may have this wrong, but isn't a consequence of the fixed-term Parliament legislation that, in situations like this, if the opportunity to form another government exists then there is no need for an election?

[Gordon]

But Johnson is leading a minority government established by Theresa May.  I may have this wrong, but isn't a consequence of the fixed-term Parliament legislation that, in situations like this, if the opportunity to form another government exists then there is no need for an election?

I think there is a need for a VoNC first, which certainly brings the option of an alternative government. However, that would need an agreement among the opposition parties and the ex-Tories involved in recent events, and if Corbyn insists on being the interim PM that agreement might not be forthcoming, as we saw from recent reactions to the idea from the likes of Jo Swinson, and if no intermin government is forthcoming then as I understand it there would be a GE.

Therefore, as far as I know, and I may be wrong, the risk of a VoNC before mid-October is the risk of a GE if an interim government approach can't be agreed - so if Johnson tries this before parliament is prorogued it might be in the interests of the opposition parties trying to avoid no-deal to, ironically, give Johnson their 'confidence' to as to prevent his government falling until such times as any GE would be after October 31st. 

Of course I may be wrong, and things could all change by tomorrow.

[Gordon]

Looks like Brexit has indeed become quasi-religious for some.

The former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith encouraged Mr Johnson to break the law, saying he would be seen as a Brexit “martyr” if judges opted to put him jail for breaching parliament’s terms.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-short-of-options-as-rebels-vow-to-secure-brexit-delay

[Anchorman]

Looks like Brexit has indeed become quasi-religious for some.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-short-of-options-as-rebels-vow-to-secure-brexit-delay

     



Did you have to mention IDS?
I've had to reach for the sick bowl.
Now I'm going to have to go get more popcorn, and, what with this brexit omnishambles, theres a shortage.

[ippy]

Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.

The position he's in now is a position where he'd be breaking the law if he doesn't ask for an extension, the extension that was only introduced by those doing all they can think of, as they see it, intended to thwart the result of referendum.

I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.

Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?

ippy

[Stranger]

Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.

This is what Michael Gove said about no-deal back in March:

"But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.

Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment." [my emphasis] source

He was right.

I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.

The vote was not about anything that is now on offer, it was not free and fair (the law was broken), and the majority of the country didn't vote to leave.

The irony is off the scale - the referendum campaign talked about taking back control of our laws and giving our Parliament sovereignty and now you are prepared to go against the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament to push through something that the people have never been given a chance to vote on. Something that risks real people's jobs, health, and even lives, serious damage to the economy, the peace in NI, and the integrity of the UK itself.

For what? You still can't or won't give any down-to-earth, practical reasons for all this risk.

Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?

Which just underlines the religious cult-like nature of Brexit. You have still provided nothing resembling a rational or reasonable argument for Brexit - and neither has anybody else that I've seen. It appears to be based just as much on blind faith as any religious cult.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

…any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote…

Would that be the advisory only vote that was campaigned for on a false prospectus, illegally funded, and so meaninglessly worded that no matter what version someone now argues for they will claim “and that’s what 17.4m people voted for” – something that clearly cannot be the case?

You do realise I hope that it was only the advisory status that caused it not to be re-run because it was so corrupt?

Oh and speaking of strength of feeling, what do you think that strength of feeling is among those of us who feel so many opportunities have been stolen from our children’s futures by the liars, chancers and neo-fascists who lied their way to the result?

Now that people know the alternative to membership is closer to a lake full of crocodiles than it is to the Eden that was promised to them, why would you not want there to be a referendum on some facts rather than rely on the one that promised fantasy? 

[jeremyp]

Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.

But they wouldn't do that. They would support the motion and then create a coalition government within the 14 day time limit and Johnson would be completely out of control.

[Gordon]

Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.

No-deal wasn't always on the table though - remember at the outset we were told by the lead Brexidiots that it would be 'the easiest trade deal in history'.

The position he's in now is a position where he'd be breaking the law if he doesn't ask for an extension, the extension that was only introduced by those doing all they can think of, as they see it, intended to thwart the result of referendum.

Because as events have shown, the result of the referendum was ill-informed and will damage everyone in the UK, so it needs to be stopped.

I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.

That may well be the case where you are, ippy: protest away, but remember you'll be supporting a decline in circumstances for the rest of us. I suspect that here in Scotland there will simply be relief if Brexit is binned (and perhaps the odd outbreak of dancing in the streets), since it does seem that enthusiasm for Brexit occurs mainly in England. If it happens the UK really will be fucked, and given the circumstances not an altogether bad thing from some perspectives, like mine. That Brexit has caused so much acrimony might indicate that it probably wasn't a good idea in the first place or has been badly handled, or both.

Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?

Brexit's first idiot more like, though he is that already.

[Gordon]

But they wouldn't do that. They would support the motion and then create a coalition government within the 14 day time limit and Johnson would be completely out of control.

They might not support a VoNC if Corbyn insisted on being interim PM, since the Lib-Dems and ex-Tories seem reluctant to see that happen - of course that could change if PM Corbyn would be the only (albeit temporary) way to get past 31st October without a GE.

[ippy]

I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?

I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?

The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?

I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?

In an advisory referendum over 3 years ago in which no deal wasn't on the ballot and wasn't remotely implied as an option by the leave campaign.

There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. Indeed it is likely that there is no mandate for any form of brexit in Sept 2019 even if there might have been years ago.

[Gordon]

I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?

I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?

The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?

I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?

ippy

Sometimes 'winning' isn't everything, ippy, and especially so when what you've 'won' turns out the be the booby prize.

[ad_orientem]

I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?

I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?

The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?

I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?

ippy

Leave wouldn't have been so bitter if it had lost. As for intellect, you only have to look at the state of the remainers protesting outside parliament to know leave was superior.

[Stranger]

I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?

You certainly seem to be trying to reinforce that view by the way you ignore all the actual points and just repeat your mantras.

I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?

The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal.

The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?

It wasn't "free and fair" either - the law was broken.

[ad_orientem]

The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal

The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.

[Stranger]

The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.

Except that it wasn't a simple question at all. It was a totally stupid question to put to a simple, one-off, in/out referendum. I very much doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the population had all three of the time, inclination, and aptitude to learn enough to cast a truly informed vote. I did my best but there were still aspects I missed.

Subsequent events have shown that the picture painted by the leave campaign is not something that can be achieved, even approximately, and no-deal is nothing at all like it. As Gove himself admitted in March, the vote was not about a no-deal; the electorate were promised a deal.

This isn't difficult. If you bought something from Amazon and the product description was as inaccurate as the Leave campaign was, you would have the right to return it. To deny the same right to the electorate is undemocratic in the extreme.

Anyway - perhaps you can give us any actual, real life reasons why the EU is so terrible we should risk severe economic damage, real people's jobs and health, the peace in NI, and the break up of the UK, in order to get rid of it?

[Gordon]

The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.

I think 'simplistic' question would be a better description: we now see the complexities, such as the Northern Ireland situation, which wasn't highlighted by the Brexit enthusiasts in 2016 and yet turns out to be a major obstacle - of course 'leave' wasn't meant to be result.

[ad_orientem]

The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people, and which is why I have sympathy with independence movements such as the Scottish and Catalan. Rule should be as close to the people as possible. A deal would be preferable but the question was a simple one, do you want to leave the EU. That needs to be implemented.