Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1778
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243279

Postby SteMiS » August 10th, 2019, 1:34 pm

Wizard wrote:
NeilW wrote:
SteMiS wrote:Again note the words 'new Government'. Again that would be a government different from the existing government.

Again that simply isn't the case in the law. Research briefings are not the law...

I heard another academic on the matter yesterday. She seemed to suggest a three step process, an informal vote of some sort in the Commons (I guess allowed by the Speaker, but it was unclear how this happened) which demonstrated a new Govt. coalition would have the House's confidence, that would force Johnson to resign and recommend a new PM. That new PM invited to form a new Govt. by the Queen, then the new Govt. subjected to the second formal vote envisaged in the FTPA.

The issue is the process by which that 'informal' vote would take place. There are quite defined rules as to who can bring motions before the house. Then there is the subject of who is picked to be the subject of such a vote (the obvious first choice, I suppose would be Corbyn, but failing him, what then?).

Wizard wrote:The one thing she was absolutely explicit about is the Queen will only follow Parliament's lead, she will not try to help them find a way out in an interventionist way.

Yes, parliament's lead. But again the issue is how parliament shows it's lead.

Wizard wrote:If she is right then it really is up to anti no deal MPs to organise themselves. I still think Corbyn will refuse to call a vote unless everyone agrees he is the PM for the coalition and many others will just not accept that. I therefore still have my money on the anti no dealers not even being able to get a no confidence vote called.

I don't think it's ever been in doubt that success rests in the hands of 'no dealers' organising themselves and particularly those who know it will be a disaster but are trying to decide whether to prioritize their principles or their career prospects within their party. I think Corbyn will call a confidence motion and I think there is a reasonable chance of success but what happens thereafter is anyone's guess. Of course he could wait until late enough that any election happens during the turmoil of a no deal exit on the basis that the chance of a Labour victory is thus enhanced.

zico
Lemon Slice
Posts: 868
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 198 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243285

Postby zico » August 10th, 2019, 1:50 pm

The anti-no-dealers appear to be focusing on stopping the Government taking us out on no-deal, not on toppling the Government. Makes particular sense of the Government responded to a No-confidence vote by scheduling a GE for literally the day after no-deal Brexit.

Seems sensible to me, as the easiest and most effective way of ensuring Boris fails to deliver.
However, I'd expect Cummings to get the government to resign anyway, to force a day-after GE. Does anyone know if this could be stopped?

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2723
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243289

Postby Wizard » August 10th, 2019, 2:00 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:
NeilW wrote:Again that simply isn't the case in the law. Research briefings are not the law...

I heard another academic on the matter yesterday. She seemed to suggest a three step process, an informal vote of some sort in the Commons (I guess allowed by the Speaker, but it was unclear how this happened) which demonstrated a new Govt. coalition would have the House's confidence, that would force Johnson to resign and recommend a new PM. That new PM invited to form a new Govt. by the Queen, then the new Govt. subjected to the second formal vote envisaged in the FTPA.

The issue is the process by which that 'informal' vote would take place. There are quite defined rules as to who can bring motions before the house. Then there is the subject of who is picked to be the subject of such a vote (the obvious first choice, I suppose would be Corbyn, but failing him, what then?).

Wizard wrote:The one thing she was absolutely explicit about is the Queen will only follow Parliament's lead, she will not try to help them find a way out in an interventionist way.

Yes, parliament's lead. But again the issue is how parliament shows it's lead.

Wizard wrote:If she is right then it really is up to anti no deal MPs to organise themselves. I still think Corbyn will refuse to call a vote unless everyone agrees he is the PM for the coalition and many others will just not accept that. I therefore still have my money on the anti no dealers not even being able to get a no confidence vote called.

I don't think it's ever been in doubt that success rests in the hands of 'no dealers' organising themselves and particularly those who know it will be a disaster but are trying to decide whether to prioritize their principles or their career prospects within their party. I think Corbyn will call a confidence motion and I think there is a reasonable chance of success but what happens thereafter is anyone's guess. Of course he could wait until late enough that any election happens during the turmoil of a no deal exit on the basis that the chance of a Labour victory is thus enhanced.

On your first point I do not think Corbyn will get enough others to agree to him leading. So IMHO it would have to be lead by somebody like Letwin or Benn as a back bencher. If Benn and Letwin went to the Speaker and said "we can deliver a coalition with the House's suppor" and Corbyn, Swinson and Blackford all said they were behind it, given his interventionist approach I am pretty confident the Speaker would find a way for that to be tested.

Butt I still do not think Corbyn will accept that and so will not call the no confidence motion in the first place. There is no benefit calling a no confidence motion if there is not a plaj for afterwards. If they call it and lose to Kohnson he is damaged, if they call it and can't displace Johnson he is damaged just as an electiin starts. As you say, much better for him to give no deal Brexit a month or two and then call it. The only issue with that is all the Tory anti no dealers will hate him even more then for allowing a no deal Brexit so may just hold their noses and swing in behind Johnson.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243290

Postby ursaminortaur » August 10th, 2019, 2:01 pm

zico wrote:The anti-no-dealers appear to be focusing on stopping the Government taking us out on no-deal, not on toppling the Government. Makes particular sense of the Government responded to a No-confidence vote by scheduling a GE for literally the day after no-deal Brexit.

Seems sensible to me, as the easiest and most effective way of ensuring Boris fails to deliver.
However, I'd expect Cummings to get the government to resign anyway, to force a day-after GE. Does anyone know if this could be stopped?


Under the FTPA the Government needs the support of two thirds of MPs to call a General Election itself. It is one of the many absurdities created by the FTPA that a Government can't actually resign without that two thirds support.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2723
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243291

Postby Wizard » August 10th, 2019, 2:03 pm

zico wrote:The anti-no-dealers appear to be focusing on stopping the Government taking us out on no-deal, not on toppling the Government. Makes particular sense of the Government responded to a No-confidence vote by scheduling a GE for literally the day after no-deal Brexit.

Seems sensible to me, as the easiest and most effective way of ensuring Boris fails to deliver.
However, I'd expect Cummings to get the government to resign anyway, to force a day-after GE. Does anyone know if this could be stopped?

But how else do they stop Brexit?

An election only follows if during the 14 day period a government with the confidence of Parliament can't be established. The only way to stop a day after Brexit GE is to put an alternative Govt. in place.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1778
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243301

Postby SteMiS » August 10th, 2019, 2:34 pm

Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:I don't think it's ever been in doubt that success rests in the hands of 'no dealers' organising themselves and particularly those who know it will be a disaster but are trying to decide whether to prioritize their principles or their career prospects within their party. I think Corbyn will call a confidence motion and I think there is a reasonable chance of success but what happens thereafter is anyone's guess. Of course he could wait until late enough that any election happens during the turmoil of a no deal exit on the basis that the chance of a Labour victory is thus enhanced.

On your first point I do not think Corbyn will get enough others to agree to him leading. So IMHO it would have to be lead by somebody like Letwin or Benn as a back bencher. If Benn and Letwin went to the Speaker and said "we can deliver a coalition with the House's suppor" and Corbyn, Swinson and Blackford all said they were behind it, given his interventionist approach I am pretty confident the Speaker would find a way for that to be tested.

Butt I still do not think Corbyn will accept that and so will not call the no confidence motion in the first place. There is no benefit calling a no confidence motion if there is not a plaj for afterwards. If they call it and lose to Kohnson he is damaged, if they call it and can't displace Johnson he is damaged just as an electiin starts. As you say, much better for him to give no deal Brexit a month or two and then call it. The only issue with that is all the Tory anti no dealers will hate him even more then for allowing a no deal Brexit so may just hold their noses and swing in behind Johnson.

Corbyn will call for a confidence vote because he wants a general election. There's no point waiting for Brexit to take place to do it because there's little motivation in Tory rebels supporting him once it has. Ok, it's a risk that it fails but the bigger risk is that he's seen to sit there passively and allow a no deal Brexit to take place. He might want one to take place, but he can't risk being seen to have done nothing to stop it (both in the eyes of the Labour rank and file and in the eyes of the electorate).

The best outcome for Corbyn is that the government falls and that it leads to an election in the aftermath of a no deal. I believe that's why he didn't call for a no confidence vote before the recess.

I agree with you that Corbyn won't support a compromise candidate. He's already had his outriders (Long Bailey and Owen) out preparing the defence - 'we are by far the biggest opposition party and it should be us who form an alternative government. If you don't support us, it's you who is failing to compromise and who are allowing a no deal to take place'. In some way I do kind of agree with him. It would be very hard for any/many Labour MPs not to support a Labour led government. But they can argue that one not led by the Labour leader is a betrayal. The other parties of course know that Corbyn wouldn't mind Brexit to happen so it puts the pressure directly on them. What do they want least - a no deal Brexit or a Labour led government (even for a month or two)?

OwenSwansea
Lemon Slice
Posts: 275
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:51 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243305

Postby OwenSwansea » August 10th, 2019, 2:40 pm

A no deal Brexit will happen because that is what Corbyn and his Marxist colleagues want. They have never been in favour of the UK being in the EU, and this view has not changed.

Owen.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4647
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243307

Postby BobbyD » August 10th, 2019, 2:49 pm

OwenSwansea wrote:A no deal Brexit will happen because that is what Corbyn and his Marxist colleagues want. They have never been in favour of the UK being in the EU, and this view has not changed.

Owen.


...and there you have it. Boris is Comrade Corbyn's useful idiot! That's got to be embarrassing.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243310

Postby ursaminortaur » August 10th, 2019, 2:53 pm

OwenSwansea wrote:A no deal Brexit will happen because that is what Corbyn and his Marxist colleagues want. They have never been in favour of the UK being in the EU, and this view has not changed.

Owen.


Corbyn wants to leave the EU but he wants to leave with a deal. Leaving with no deal would play into the hands of the Tory far right and probably boost Boris' chances in a subsequent snap election (before the economic consequences became fully clear) and even if Corbyn won that election he wouldn't be able to do anything because of the economic consequences of no deal and his need to deal with those adverse consequences as a priority.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1461
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243322

Postby richfool » August 10th, 2019, 3:20 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
OwenSwansea wrote:A no deal Brexit will happen because that is what Corbyn and his Marxist colleagues want. They have never been in favour of the UK being in the EU, and this view has not changed.

Owen.


Corbyn wants to leave the EU but he wants to leave with a deal. Leaving with no deal would play into the hands of the Tory far right and probably boost Boris' chances in a subsequent snap election (before the economic consequences became fully clear) and even if Corbyn won that election he wouldn't be able to do anything because of the economic consequences of no deal and his need to deal with those adverse consequences as a priority.

Corbin just wants the opposite of whatever the Conservatives want, whatever that maybe and thus changes his stance with the wind.

It's ironic isn't it, that after the referendum and around the time of the general election, he was saying we must honour Brexit and now it's a second referendum and even a trip to the Palace to stop a No Deal Brexit..

zico
Lemon Slice
Posts: 868
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 198 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243331

Postby zico » August 10th, 2019, 3:54 pm

Wizard wrote:
zico wrote:The anti-no-dealers appear to be focusing on stopping the Government taking us out on no-deal, not on toppling the Government. Makes particular sense of the Government responded to a No-confidence vote by scheduling a GE for literally the day after no-deal Brexit.

Seems sensible to me, as the easiest and most effective way of ensuring Boris fails to deliver.
However, I'd expect Cummings to get the government to resign anyway, to force a day-after GE. Does anyone know if this could be stopped?

But how else do they stop Brexit?

An election only follows if during the 14 day period a government with the confidence of Parliament can't be established. The only way to stop a day after Brexit GE is to put an alternative Govt. in place.


As I understand it, Parliament can table a motion to compel the government to ask for an extension beyond end-October, and if it gets voted for, that's what will happen.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 401
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 241 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243332

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » August 10th, 2019, 3:55 pm

Spet0789 wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:I'm very pleased for you, Chris. I just wonder whether the majority shared your good fortune. I see it collectively as being if our currency is worth less, then collectively so are we.

Perhaps I'm just showing my naivety, but our country as our whole now being valued less seems like a very bad thing.

Matt

Our exports will benefit. Perhaps that may come in useful as future events unfold and in particular that comment is aimed at a "no deal" Brexit.

AiY


That statement is empirically false. Since the referendum the pound has depreciated by around 30% and our exports haven’t risen. Why do you think the next 30% of depreciation will have a different impact?

Please. Enough of the sweeping statements. Look at the facts.

Easy tiger :roll: . I agree it was a sweeping statement. Sweeping or not though, it is correct. It may be that I need to understand some of the facts better than I have and perhaps you could point me in that direction please. I'd be particularly interested in our balance of trade position and the amount by which our exports have decreased.

I look forward to hearing from you

Thank you

AiY

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4053
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243450

Postby XFool » August 10th, 2019, 11:44 pm

I found this to be fun, in a scary kind of way:

Cummings the new Rasputin is outshining Johnson as antihero-in-chief

The Guardian

After laying down the law on 7.55am meetings, Cummings is planning a perfect Brexit on 1 November, valid for one day only

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2723
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243453

Postby Wizard » August 11th, 2019, 12:23 am

zico wrote:
Wizard wrote:
zico wrote:The anti-no-dealers appear to be focusing on stopping the Government taking us out on no-deal, not on toppling the Government. Makes particular sense of the Government responded to a No-confidence vote by scheduling a GE for literally the day after no-deal Brexit.

Seems sensible to me, as the easiest and most effective way of ensuring Boris fails to deliver.
However, I'd expect Cummings to get the government to resign anyway, to force a day-after GE. Does anyone know if this could be stopped?

But how else do they stop Brexit?

An election only follows if during the 14 day period a government with the confidence of Parliament can't be established. The only way to stop a day after Brexit GE is to put an alternative Govt. in place.


As I understand it, Parliament can table a motion to compel the government to ask for an extension beyond end-October, and if it gets voted for, that's what will happen.

Would that not require a money resolution as it would mesn the UK continuing to make EU contributions? If so, is it not the Govt. alone that can put those forward? Otherwise it is just an opinion and will not compel yge Govt. to act on it.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 401
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 241 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243486

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » August 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Boris Johnson PM - How's it Going

So far so good?

Am I thinking this through well enough. It seems to simple.

  1. Get into No 10
  2. Set a Brexit date
  3. Commence operation "general election" without announcing it
  4. Option A - successful Brexit on 31st October
  5. - Call snap general election. Mandate - "I delivered Brexit"
  6. Option B - unsuccessful Brexit on 31st October
  7. - Call snap general election. Mandate - "I need your mandate (and more seats) to deliver Brexit"

And I also think the above ultimately amounts to a second referendum. Vote "me" in and (if we haven't left) we leave as "I" have the additional seats to deliver Brexit. Vote for "someone else" and we are "probably" staying or at the very least leaving with a deal, regardless of it's benefits or otherwise.

Simples?

Some Atrocious Notes

  1. Parliament has rejected the deal Theresa brought back. Pointless going over this again as "I" can't concentrate on that
  2. Pointless discussing the back-stop as the EU are just throwing that in as Red Herring
  3. "I" want my own elected mandate as PM - and the sooner the better
  4. "I" may as well start the general election tour now ahead of the other parties

AiY

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1990
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 1061 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243543

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » August 11th, 2019, 12:52 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Spet0789 wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Our exports will benefit. Perhaps that may come in useful as future events unfold and in particular that comment is aimed at a "no deal" Brexit.

AiY


That statement is empirically false. Since the referendum the pound has depreciated by around 30% and our exports haven’t risen. Why do you think the next 30% of depreciation will have a different impact?

Please. Enough of the sweeping statements. Look at the facts.

Easy tiger :roll: . I agree it was a sweeping statement. Sweeping or not though, it is correct. It may be that I need to understand some of the facts better than I have and perhaps you could point me in that direction please. I'd be particularly interested in our balance of trade position and the amount by which our exports have decreased.

I look forward to hearing from you

Thank you

AiY

Regards the big depreciation in any currency, it's fairly obvious that the export market, if there's sufficient demand, will sell more of it's products. But of course the flipside being that imports will cost more!

None of this is rocket science, and of course one would need access to our net trade position to fully understand the impact.

However I was not being alarmist about the £s fall re. the UK's trade position in particular. It's more because whilst many have ridiculed guidance from our Project Fear folk (Carney? the CBI? Hammond? *), their pessimism has been reiterated/restated by the markets across the Globe. In my naive view, the fall in the £, is interpreted in the very simple fashion - big time investors worldwide exchanged assets valued in £s for monies in different currencies ($, Eur, Yuan etc). IOW our firms have been shunned in favour of foreign ones.

On a slightly different note, here's a collection of views from abroad, from a non-monetary perspective:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-johnson

I found them interesting, upsetting and probably true.

Matt

[*] Question marks since I'm not that well researched in who said what.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1778
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#243553

Postby SteMiS » August 11th, 2019, 1:30 pm

NeilW wrote:
SteMiS wrote:The Fixed Term Parliament Act does not mention the "current government", it simply says "Her Majesty's Government".

I also refer you to the House of Commons briefing paper

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport

If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar day period in which to form a new Government, confirmed in office by a resolution as follows: “That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered.

Again note the words 'new Government'. Again that would be a government different from the existing government.

Again that simply isn't the case in the law. Research briefings are not the law.

Neither, of course, are posts on Lemonfool by NeilW (or indeed Stemis).

NeilW wrote:The approach I have outlined - that Boris can just sit tight - was not only envisaged and raised but not objected to. Hansard is permissible in court.

Again, not true. Here's is a detailed analysis by Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law and Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He also served, from 2015 to 2019, as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. So, a pretty heavyweight opinion

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/0 ... al-brexit/

It follows that if, within the 14-day period, it had become clear that a cross-party Government led by a given MP could command the confidence of the House, it would be incumbent upon Johnson to tender his resignation to the Queen and to advise her to appoint the relevant MP as the new Prime Minister.

If Johnson were to refuse to do this, there is no constitutional reason why the Queen should not dismiss Johnson and invite the relevant person to form a Government. Indeed, it is possible to go further by arguing that it would be the Queen’s constitutional duty to do so. Although the Queen normally acts only on the advice of her Ministers, the convention that she does so applies only in the absence of a more specific convention that requires the Queen to act otherwise. It is for this reason that the Queen would have to ignore ministerial advice not to grant royal assent to a Bill passed by both Houses, since a more specific convention — that the Queen grants assent to such Bills — would take precedence. Similarly, the convention that the Queen acts on an outgoing Prime Minister’s advice as to the appointment of a new Prime Minister cannot be sacrosanct. If, for instance, a Prime Minister who lost an election advised the Queen to reappoint him, she would have no option but to disregard such advice. Equally, if a Prime Minister who had lost a vote of confidence refused to resign and/or refused to advise the Queen to appoint a person who clearly could command the confidence of the House, the Queen would have no option but to dismiss the incumbent Prime Minister and ask the appropriately placed person to form a new administration. In doing so, the Queen would not be playing politics: she would be acting as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental constitutional principle in a manner fully consistent with the nature of constitutional monarchy in the UK.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#244004

Postby ursaminortaur » August 13th, 2019, 1:59 pm

The legal challenge to Boris Johnson proroguing parliament has been fast tracked and will be heard on the 6th September.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/court-hears-challenge-boris-johnson-no-deal-brexit


A Scottish judge has fast-tracked a legal challenge backed by 75 MPs and peers to prevent Boris Johnson proroguing parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit.

The cross-party group, led by the Scottish National party MP Joanna Cherry QC, alleges it would be illegal and unconstitutional for the prime minister to suspend the Commons to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit before 31 October.
.
.
.
Doherty ruled an urgent hearing of the case should take place on Friday 6 September, giving both sides only 10 days to prepare their legal arguments and four more days to revise them.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2723
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#244117

Postby Wizard » August 13th, 2019, 11:09 pm

SteMiS wrote:
NeilW wrote:
SteMiS wrote:The Fixed Term Parliament Act does not mention the "current government", it simply says "Her Majesty's Government".

I also refer you to the House of Commons briefing paper

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport

If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar day period in which to form a new Government, confirmed in office by a resolution as follows: “That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered.

Again note the words 'new Government'. Again that would be a government different from the existing government.

Again that simply isn't the case in the law. Research briefings are not the law.

Neither, of course, are posts on Lemonfool by NeilW (or indeed Stemis).

NeilW wrote:The approach I have outlined - that Boris can just sit tight - was not only envisaged and raised but not objected to. Hansard is permissible in court.

Again, not true. Here's is a detailed analysis by Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law and Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He also served, from 2015 to 2019, as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. So, a pretty heavyweight opinion

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/0 ... al-brexit/

It follows that if, within the 14-day period, it had become clear that a cross-party Government led by a given MP could command the confidence of the House, it would be incumbent upon Johnson to tender his resignation to the Queen and to advise her to appoint the relevant MP as the new Prime Minister.

If Johnson were to refuse to do this, there is no constitutional reason why the Queen should not dismiss Johnson and invite the relevant person to form a Government. Indeed, it is possible to go further by arguing that it would be the Queen’s constitutional duty to do so. Although the Queen normally acts only on the advice of her Ministers, the convention that she does so applies only in the absence of a more specific convention that requires the Queen to act otherwise. It is for this reason that the Queen would have to ignore ministerial advice not to grant royal assent to a Bill passed by both Houses, since a more specific convention — that the Queen grants assent to such Bills — would take precedence. Similarly, the convention that the Queen acts on an outgoing Prime Minister’s advice as to the appointment of a new Prime Minister cannot be sacrosanct. If, for instance, a Prime Minister who lost an election advised the Queen to reappoint him, she would have no option but to disregard such advice. Equally, if a Prime Minister who had lost a vote of confidence refused to resign and/or refused to advise the Queen to appoint a person who clearly could command the confidence of the House, the Queen would have no option but to dismiss the incumbent Prime Minister and ask the appropriately placed person to form a new administration. In doing so, the Queen would not be playing politics: she would be acting as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental constitutional principle in a manner fully consistent with the nature of constitutional monarchy in the UK.

The very big "if" remains, can an alternative Govt. be formed. At the moment Labour will not a join a Govt. not lead by Corbyn and other parties will nog join a Govt. that is lead by Corbyn. Meanwhile Lucas wants an all female Govt.lead by Thornbury. The anti no deal forces are, at present, nowhere close to agreeing a form of alternative that would have the support of the House. Either Corbyn does not call a no confidence vote and we get no deal under Johnson, or one is called Johnson loses and after 14 days we head in to a GE with the date set for 31st October or later so we get no deal. What amongst all the legal posturing stops either of those scenarios? Which constitutional experts have said either of those is not legal?

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1778
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#244182

Postby SteMiS » August 14th, 2019, 10:52 am

Wizard wrote:The very big "if" remains, can an alternative Govt. be formed. At the moment Labour will not a join a Govt. not lead by Corbyn and other parties will nog join a Govt. that is lead by Corbyn. Meanwhile Lucas wants an all female Govt.lead by Thornbury. The anti no deal forces are, at present, nowhere close to agreeing a form of alternative that would have the support of the House. Either Corbyn does not call a no confidence vote and we get no deal under Johnson, or one is called Johnson loses and after 14 days we head in to a GE with the date set for 31st October or later so we get no deal. What amongst all the legal posturing stops either of those scenarios? Which constitutional experts have said either of those is not legal?

None, as far as I know. But I'm not sure what relevance your question has to the discussion in question...


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests