I don't think making unreasonable demands of Corbyn would do the Lib Dems any good, it would be obvious who's responsible if they force Corbyn to reject the demands and No Deal happens when it couldn't. Also, the National Unity gov't thing almost certainly isn't going to happen.
Even if he loses a vonc, Johnson can just call an election. He's not required to recommend the Queen seek a new gov't from the current HoC, he can just recommend an election, and she would be constitutionally bound (for all intents and purposes) into going with what he recommends.
And even if an election could happen before Brexit day, a referendum can't, and I don't think that the EU would give another extension. France at the very least would be opposed. And others might be leaning that way too, wanting Brexit done with so they can get on with other EU business.
So if Labour and/or a Remainer Coalition wins an election before Oct 31, and don't get an extension in which to have a refurendum, the only option is to revoke A50, and then have a referendum.
But more likely Johnson would just schedule the election for after Oct 31.
Besides, he probably thinks he can win an election. He's taking back voters from Farage, and the Lib Dems are taking voters from Labour. Unless Labour joins the other Remainer parties in a pact, I can easily see Johnson getting another minority. But this time with a weakener Labour opposition thathas less MPs, and with Corbyn either quitting or an attempt to force him out. I'm not sure that an election this year is really in Labour's best interests anymore, not with a resurgent Lib Dems and weaker Brexit Party.
Fixed terms act gives parliament 14 days to find a new prime minister. I'm sure EU would give other extension for a second legally binding referendum to avoid blame. They need a new Prime Minster instead of ordering BJ to extend because BJ could simply ignore it.
I don't think Lib Dems would have a problem screwing over Corbyn because a national unity government is an implicit endorsement of Labour and they could demand a lot without looking bad because of this.
I'm not sure the Lib Dems would demand anything except to revoke A50, and right now LD, SNP and Labour are 1 vote down on Tories and their lackies, whose abbreviation I have forgotten.
Whether the Lib Dems actually let that stop them turfing out the Tories I don't know. I don't think that they would refuse a further referendum if they thought that got them an extension, if they could not revoke A50 out right. But right now a NUG is actually the easiest route forward, because a general election is not a solution anymore.
Boris can't ignore a VNC and then a passed VNC for another government.
(August 6th, 2019, 11:57)Krill Wrote: Boris can't ignore a VNC and then a passed VNC for another government.
Yes, he can. What I've been reading is saying that under a strict reading of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act there is no requirement for the PM to quit, even if the HoC supports another gov't. And word from Number 10 is that they are planning exactly that. That would force the Queen to make an actual decision on whether to fire Johnson in favour of the National Unity gov't or call an election.
There's a Time article on the subject called "Boris Johnson to defy any vote of no confidence"
It's behind a paywall but I found the text on Reddit:
Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Ministers said that there was an emphasis on “getting stuff out the door” by bringing forward policy announcements before a possible election this year.
Constitutional experts confirmed yesterday that Mr Johnson would technically be under no legal obligation to quit if he lost a confidence vote. They warned that it risked the Queen being “dragged into politics” and put in an “invidious position” of facing calls to remove the prime minister herself.
Tory Remainers have conceded that there is no “absolutely foolproof” parliamentary mechanism to stop a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said yesterday it was “almost inevitable” that Labour would table a confidence motion next month. Dominic Grieve, a leading Tory Remainer and former attorney-general, said that it would be absolutely extraordinary if Mr Johnson refused to quit.
“The prime minister who has been defeated on a confidence motion has a duty to facilitate that process, not obstruct it,” he said. “It would be utterly extraordinary for a prime minister to refuse to leave office when he has lost a vote of confidence and there is an alternative individual available [and] able to form an administration.”
On Friday Mr Cummings made clear to government advisers that Britain would leave with or without a deal on October 31. He told colleagues that “nothing will stand in the way of that” and that the prime minister has the power to set the date for the next election after Brexit has been delivered.
Mr Johnson tried to play down speculation yesterday that he would call an election, insisting it was “the last thing I want to do”.
Catherine Haddon, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government think tank, said that, technically, under the Fixed-term Parliament Act, the prime minister was not required to resign upon losing a vote of confidence.
“In terms of a strict reading of the legislation, Boris is not required to resign. It is completely silent on all of this,” she said. “The onus is on the incumbent prime minister — they get to choose whether they resign. If they do not it is hard for a new government to be formed without dragging the Queen into politics.
“It would put huge pressure on the incumbent prime minister to resign. We would have a clash between a technical reading of the legislation and constitutional norms.”
If the Commons passed a motion of no confidence in Mr Johnson’s government there would be a 14-day period in which MPs could attempt to form an alternative government. If they did not do so there must be a general election. By refusing to resign, even if MPs believed that they had the majority needed to form an alternative government, Mr Johnson would cause a constitutional crisis.
A resigning prime minister who accepts an alternative government would be expected to notify the Queen, who would then appoint a successor on his or her “recommendation”. A refusal to resign by Mr Johnson could result in calls for the Queen to intervene.
Yesterday Downing Street criticised Remainer MPs who “choose which votes to respect”, but minutes later refused to say whether Mr Johnson would respect a vote of no confidence in his government. Mr Johnson’s spokesman said: “The UK will be leaving the European Union on October 31 whatever the circumstances, no ifs or buts. We must restore trust in our democracy and fulfil the repeated promises of parliament to the people by coming out of the EU on October 31. Politicians cannot choose which votes to respect. They promised to respect the referendum result. We must do so.”
Asked in the same briefing whether Mr Johnson was committed to “respecting” a no-confidence vote against his government, the spokesman said: “One hasn’t been called, and one hasn’t been held, and I have never discussed hypotheticals.”
In a sign of increasing tensions in the Conservative Party, Mr Cummings used a meeting with aides yesterday to accuse Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, of blocking no-deal funding.
Allies of Mr Hammond said that Mr Cummings was wasting taxpayers’ money on a no-deal Brexit that Mr Johnson has said has only a “million to one” chance of happening.
I read that article, and I think it is rather poorly written as it completely ignores the constitutional background on which that legislation sits.
Quote:The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Boris (no PM) can demand an election. He advises the queen that there is no one capable of forming a government, and queen dissolves parliament. Part of this is going to come out in arguments at the COurt of Session in Edinburgh, due to ther judicial review lodged by some MPs attempting to reinforce this point.
The queen is also advised by the Privy COuncil and is constitutionally required to seek a government that can command the majority of the house of commons.
Quote:Constitutional experts confirmed yesterday that Mr Johnson would technically be under no legal obligation to quit if he lost a confidence vote. They warned that it risked the Queen being “dragged into politics” and put in an “invidious position” of facing calls to remove the prime minister herself.
This is just demonization of the Monarchy, because this is the Queens' constitutional role.
Quote:John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said yesterday it was “almost inevitable” that Labour would table a confidence motion next month. Dominic Grieve, a leading Tory Remainer and former attorney-general, said that it would be absolutely extraordinary if Mr Johnson refused to quit.
It would be absolutely extrordinary, because What Boris would be attempting to do here is to misinform the Queen, which is why the judicial review mentioned previously has been lodged.
Quote:“The prime minister who has been defeated on a confidence motion has a duty to facilitate that process, not obstruct it,” he said. “It would be utterly extraordinary for a prime minister to refuse to leave office when he has lost a vote of confidence and there is an alternative individual available [and] able to form an administration.”
So, the allegation is that Boris would be negligient in his duty if he did not follow this process. And the Queen will have her own opinion on this, based on other advice she has recieved from Queens Council and Privy COuncil. And I would bet a lot of money that the Queen will order Boris about exactly what he is to do if he loses a VNC, before that ever happens. HE serves at her pleasure, after all.
Quote:On Friday Mr Cummings made clear to government advisers that Britain would leave with or without a deal on October 31. He told colleagues that “nothing will stand in the way of that” and that the prime minister has the power to set the date for the next election after Brexit has been delivered.
Mr Johnson tried to play down speculation yesterday that he would call an election, insisting it was “the last thing I want to do”.
This misses the point and isn't worth answering. It's been discussed beofre.
Quote:Catherine Haddon, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government think tank, said that, technically, under the Fixed-term Parliament Act, the prime minister was not required to resign upon losing a vote of confidence.
“In terms of a strict reading of the legislation, Boris is not required to resign. It is completely silent on all of this,” she said. “The onus is on the incumbent prime minister — they get to choose whether they resign. If they do not it is hard for a new government to be formed without dragging the Queen into politics.
Again, just repeating what has been discribed above.
Quote:“It would put huge pressure on the incumbent prime minister to resign. We would have a clash between a technical reading of the legislation and constitutional norms.”
And this is the crux of the matter, and Boris has no power here. He does what he is told. But the Queen can't dissolve parliament without making the constitutional crisis even bigger (it literally would be civil war 3 level constitutional crisis IMO).
Quote:If the Commons passed a motion of no confidence in Mr Johnson’s government there would be a 14-day period in which MPs could attempt to form an alternative government. If they did not do so there must be a general election. By refusing to resign, even if MPs believed that they had the majority needed to form an alternative government, Mr Johnson would cause a constitutional crisis.
A resigning prime minister who accepts an alternative government would be expected to notify the Queen, who would then appoint a successor on his or her “recommendation”. A refusal to resign by Mr Johnson could result in calls for the Queen to intervene.
This writer is shit, and the editor is no better. Third time this point has been mentioned. The rest of the article is just bullshit to pad out word count.
The TL;DR is simple: Yes, the FTPA does not require Boris to resign if he loses confidence, but he is constitutionally obliged to advise the queen that someone can, and the Queen is constitutionally obliged to asked that person to become PM. The Queen dissolving Parliament (to enable an election to take place) when there is someone that can command the confidence of the House is what led to Civil War in the past and so is not going to happen. Boris will be told this in no uncertain terms (and may already have been told this in private by the Queen).
The other point is this: What happens if there is a majority in parliament and they get fed up with what is happening? What is to stop them taking control of the business of the house of commons, and then passing primary legislation that changes all the current rules anyway?
This is another grey area that people seem to forget. And Bercow has been quoted as saying: "ending the current session of Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit is "simply not going to happen"." If there is a majority that have an agreement to form a government, and they think they are getting screwed over, all bets are off. A majority can pass legislation amending the FTPA to require the PM resign and give a period of time specifically to another group to try and form a government.
A "Humble address to the Queen" could be sent, signed by a majority of MPs demanding a specific MP be asked to become PM. I see this as irrelevant, but you get the point that MPs can intercede directly with the Queen this way.
And don't think for a moment that the Opposition parties are doing nothing right now. THis summer rfecess is being used to negotiate to see if they can form a new government. First day back, a VNC goes up, and if all the negotiations have worked out, then the numbers should be there to make Boris fail. And then they come out and say there are the numbers for a GNU and see what happens. That's just day 1, maybe day 2 of return after Summer recess depending on when the VNC gets called by Bercow (and my guess is that Boris would try to push it as much as he could, Bercow scoffs and schedules it for tomorrow and to hell with what Jacob Rees-Mogg says as Leader of the House). But end of day 2 Boris has that decision to make, and day 3 the potential GNU starts putting whatever they need into place to take control of the business of the house of commons, day 4 take control of the business of the house, and day 5 start putting out what they need to displace Boris (that would be day 4 after a VNC).
That's just with my basic understanding of how it occurs.
(August 6th, 2019, 10:59)Mr. Cairo Wrote: it would be obvious who's responsible if they force Corbyn to reject the demands and No Deal happens when it couldn't.
Speaking as an American, the idea that the party not in government would be "held responsible" for why things fall apart seems laughable. Regardless of who's actually responsible, it's the President and his party that gets blamed for any shortcomings in Washington.
Sorry to sidetrack, but that line is so not how this side of the pond works.
(August 6th, 2019, 10:59)Mr. Cairo Wrote: it would be obvious who's responsible if they force Corbyn to reject the demands and No Deal happens when it couldn't.
Speaking as an American, the idea that the party not in government would be "held responsible" for why things fall apart seems laughable. Regardless of who's actually responsible, it's the President and his party that gets blamed for any shortcomings in Washington.
Sorry to sidetrack, but that line is so not how this side of the pond works.
Well, that specifically was to do with negotiations between two different opposition parties, and not between the opposition and the government. Not something you ever see in America to be fair.
But in general, you're right. The Tories are taking the blame for the current situation, although it was one of their making
Question from an American outsider: What exactly does "form a government" mean here? I see that phrase keep recurring but it's foreign to me. The US presidency and Congress just always exist, they don't need to be formed each election cycle. It sounds roughly akin to the US president appointing his cabinet?
