MPs attempting to block a no-deal Brexit may have run out of time and options to prevent Britain leaving the European Union on October 31, a respected think tank has said.
The Institute for Government has claimed that “time is running out” for the Remainers who are attempting to delay Brexit, and that “simply voting against” no-deal cannot stop Boris Johnson.
There needs to be a majority vote in favour of some other deal. Just being against the current status quo isn’t enough.
Which is the problem of course. There’s a lovely Commons majority against every deal. There’s just not one in favour of one.
There could be a majority for May’s ghastly WA, if only the zealots dedicated to overturning the result of the referendum could bring themselves to vote for it. Still quite a likely outcome, though I’d prefer WTO.
They SAY they want a deal. They mean they want to revoke. Everything they say and do therefore is disingenuous. What actually motivates them? Idealsim? I doubt it. Venery? How much money are they getting?
@rhoda
There are a handful of nice cushty EU jobs for failed politicians. Only the most loyal to The Project get those, ergo the bidding war between all the assorted nobodies to demonstrate that they are the most loyal and should get the sinecure.
” What actually motivates them? Idealsim? I doubt it. Venery? How much money are they getting?”
I don’t think the Brexit Deranged mob are in it for the money. Yes that might be in the back of the mind, but those who chase the dollar tend not to be too worried about where it comes from [cough]Anthony Charles Lynton Blair[cough]. So if the EU wasn’t able to give them it they’d just look for another trough to sup at.
My feeling is this is deep seated psychological stuff. A class of people who thought they and the likes of them were the ones in charge have been suddenly jolted out of their comfortable ruts and all the assumptions they have made about themselves, their position in life and the future have been totalled. Its not so much that the EU offers them anything in practical terms (money, position etc) , its they have invested so much of their persona in being part of it that leaving the EU is like having a part of them removed as well. Hence the derangement – they are suffering from psychological damage, and thrashing about in anyway they can to try and make it go away.
I don’t see it as a problem. I see it as the last sliver of hope that means we will actually get to leave the EUSSR in 2019.
That our enemies in the political class are in confusion and attacking each other is a plus, not a minus. Time for a good clearout of the traitors at the next General Election, but lets get out of the EU for real first.
“There needs to be a majority vote in favour of some other deal” …
… Or in favour of revoking article 50, or in favour of seeking a further extension, and/or in favour of a second referendum.
I at this point a Hard Brexiteer should mostly worry about these outcomes, though May’s WA probably has a better chance of a second wind in its sails than an outright vote to revoke does.
I think a Soft Brexiteer, the EFTA or phased withdrawal type, would be justified by despair – does anyone believe there’s enough time for a renegotiation bearing in mind the parties aren’t even talking at the moment, or that the fruit of such negotiation would pass the Commons when the opposition have such a good chance to bring the government down so have no reason to play along?
My feeling is this is deep seated psychological stuff. A class of people who thought they and the likes of them were the ones in charge have been suddenly jolted out of their comfortable ruts and all the assumptions they have made about themselves, their position in life and the future have been totalled.
Yarp. More broadly, Continuity Remain is also a manifestation of class hatred. Ostentatious virtue-signalling to delineate themselves from the plebs with their white vans and copies of The Sun and retrograde views.
As a Beeb staffer once told Dominic Cummings, “we love cappuccino and hate racists”.
Doesn’t really matter what the EU actually is or is about (contra the “they didn’t know what they were voting for” meme, very few Remainers understand what the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is, or the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR), it’s enough that patriotism is a prole thing, so they’re agin it.
See also: the endless humiliation politics of trying to snatch little pleasures such as booze, fags, sugar and foreign holidays away from the lower classes.
Parliament has been given four seperate options for not-no-deal, every single one has been voted down. By its expressed actions, Parliament has stated it wants No Deal.
@jgh – Indeed.
I’ve just seen an argument on a private forum I haven’t seen before:
So I went off to have a read and no matter what your views he does appear to have a point, although I’d like to see some legal opinion.
Whether of not its valid I must admit I dislike the approach, for the reasons given in the link but mainly because it will make law makers lazy and we’ll end up with the courts and judges becoming the de facto law makers.
PS I should have added my response:
BiND – I don’t think you have to be a legal beagle to take that one apart.
The problem is, an agreement was reached by May, and parliament acted via the provisions… and rejected the agreement.
This is only a “problem” for people determined to thwart Brexit.
No new negotiations have been entered into by this government,
True so far.
who have not indicated how they intend to proceed either, being entirley nebulous in regards to this….
Untrue, they’ve said they’re open to a “deal” but we’re leaving by All Saints Day (coming closer to youuu) with or without one.
these were not circumstances which could have been foreseen
Utter bollocks. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was introduced by a minority administration, barely treading water with the support of the DUP.
We had 5 different Prime Ministers in the preceding 10 years. So was absolutely foreseeable that Parliament might reject the “deal” negotiated (ha!) by the PM, and it was also very foreseeable that we might end up with a change in the composition of government as a result.
I would argue that the default position in law is not that we leave, but that we remain
I am Jack’s total lack of surprise.
Which is just another way of post-rationalising “I want the UK to remain in the EU and will therefore only acknowledge the legitimacy where Remain is enabled”.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to not only believe this utter garbage, but actually pronounce it as being “the only truly democratic decisions” is just beyond belief.
Welcome to Clown World.
“A class of people who thought they and the likes of them were the ones in charge have been suddenly jolted out of their comfortable ruts”
“I don’t think the Brexit Deranged mob are in it for the money.”
“More broadly, Continuity Remain is also a manifestation of class hatred.”
I submit this is the Left vs the Right.
The Left wants people to be subjects of the government. The Right wants people to be citizens of a republic, with substantial immunity from government. The EU represents an effective means of subjugating the people. The Right doesn’t want to be subjugated.
Sometimes, ‘it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . .
‘They should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’
In this case, you don’t need no stinkin’ reason.
The Remainers want to be subjects, but more importantly, they want YOU to be subjects. Some find liberty and freedom abhorrant, especially YOURS.
BiND’s source appears to be suggesting that when Parliament enacts legislation but subsequently makes a pig’s ear of what should reasonably ensue from that legislation, it should be the job of the courts to interpret what parliament intended when it enacted the legislation in the first place since parliament is dissatisfied with the immediate and logical consequences of its own laws.
This argument disregards the fact that the legislation followed a referendum result with which the majority of parliamentarians were at odds and the current hiatus is a direct result of this conflict between MPs’ own preference and their democratic obligation to respect the referendum result.
For the courts to be involved is altogether undesirable but anyone advocating such a course should be arguing to set aside the unknowable intentions of mealy-mouthed parliamentarians in making these laws and consider only the intentions of the voters who voted by a majority to leave the EU.
A side effect, in any case, would be the demise of parliamentary sovereignty.
@ Gamecock
I agree with most of what you say except that the Right do *not* want to be part of a Republic – we’ve seen lots of Republics and we much prefer HM. The other European monarchies seem to be generally happier and more prosperous than the republics, too. According to the CIA (IMF and World Bank ignore the two richest countries in europe because the never borrow any money) three of the four richest countries in the world are european monarchies (the other being an arab monarchy); we then geta former Portugueses colony, a British colony, a former British colony, two islands of which HM is Head of State [Bermuda sings “God Save the Queen”, Man does not because there she is “Lord of Mann” rather than Queen], then Ireland, then three more monarchies, then part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, then another British colony.
We have gor a “stinkin’ reason” – The EU is *not* what we signed up to which was the pre-Delors EEC.
Equally, how can we essentially say “In the event of doubt we must remain in the EU” when there is no such thing as the status quo as far as the EU is concerned. The whole concept of “ever closer union” acknowledges the fact.
To be honest, we should have called it a day at Maastricht.
JG
“To be honest, we should have called it a day at Maastricht.”
Precisely. Succeeding in dodging the Euro was always going to result in some sort of separation as the project inevitably moved towards fiscal and political union – it was only ever going to be a matter of timing.
Maastricht or soon afterwards would have been so much cleaner for everyone.
Vernon Bogdanor wrote a pretty fair assessment at the time as to why their should have been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. Can’t say I disagree even now. It certainly would have been easier to separate at that point than the pain and agony we are going through today, especially when Maastricht said in no uncertain terms where we were headed if we stayed in.
Why the people should have a vote on Maastricht: The House of Lords must uphold democracy and insist on a referendum, says Vernon Bogdanor
Purposive interpretation in this country applies, as far as I am aware, only where there is ambiguity in the statute.
As I read it, Mr in North Dorset’s correspondent does not rely on ambiguity. Instead he relies on a) a problem which, as Steve says, is only a problem if you want to remain, and b) that the statute does not provide for certain circumstances. But that is not an ambiguity. I suppose it is possible that MPs deliberately decided not to provide for those circumstances. But it’s still not an ambiguity.
I’m reading the Act now, for the first time.
Section 9 (1) provides ministers with powers by regulation to implement the WA, where such power is subordinate to a statute approving the final terms of withdrawal.
Section 13 stipulates the basis on which the WA can be ratified.
Section 13 (4) explicitly considers what is to occur if one the vital components of that approval is lacking: a minister must make a statement explaining how HMG then proposes to proceed.
Well, look. I’ve spent 15 minutes on this, so I don’t claim to be an expert. But it seems to me that the Act explicitly envisages the possibility that parliament may not approve the WA, it explicitly considers how the WA is to be ratified, and it explicitly states what, if that ratification does not take place, is then to occur.
I don’t see anything to suggest that in the event of a failure to ratify, parliament was to ‘have the last word’. I don’t see anything to suggest that the Act begs that question, as a matter of ambiguity, in the event the WA is not agreed.
I mean, have the last word on what?
And on my cursory reading, I think the reason is probably that it was thought we’d leave on 29th March. In short, I think, absent agreement, section 13 (4) kicks in.
Edward,
Thanks. My take on it was that the provisions in S13 had fallen away and I’ve since been reading the Institute of Government report and that was their take as well.
As they don’t consider purposive interpretation i conclude that it’s a non-starter, but it could be the argument hadn’t been brought to their attention.
With all do respect, John, your “monarchy” appears to be a tourist attraction.
BiND, on one view it’s quite hard to see how the whole thing has not fallen away by virtue of the extension of article 50.
If so, we’re into the territory of the doctrine of implied repeal – save for, as I’ve previously mentioned on another thread, Lord Justice Laws’ reasoning in the metric martyr case in which he made-up the concept of ‘constitutional statutes’ which, uniquely, cannot be impliedly repealed by subsequent inconsistent Acts.
Presumably, this Act is one such.
Another observation: whilst I do not care for purposive interpretations, if they are to work then it is likely to be only in circumstances where a Bill is not hotly controversial. Not that I’ve ever seen a Pepper v Hart application (on which basis the court allows a purposive approach), or made one myself, but I have once or twice dug around in Hansard to get a feel for the underlying arguments in an Act. And what I found was a few dominant speakers, again and again. And in most cases, not many MPs voting on the final Bill.
But I cannot imagine that is the case here. There must have been dozens of speakers, and a three-line whip. Divining, on a purposive approach, parliament’s intention is likely to be a fool’s errand. Plus the parliamentary draftsmen are often pretty good, and they may have been a step ahead of the Members.
Quite correct and rightly so.
Brenda is little more than a constitutional bauble, but better than having President John Prescott or President Tony Blair. Provided she does nothing without the consent of her ministers, everybody is happy.
We’ve been whittling away at monarchy since the middle ages (John I), whittled away at absolute monarchy when we cut Charles I’s head off, Again with Papist absolutism with James II and the glorious revolution, so on and so forth.
The last monarch with any genuine power was probably Queen Victoria and she was followed by the almost epitome of constitutional monarchy in the form of Edward VII whose version of diplomacy was to a road map of the best eating places and brothels across Europe.
Even her Mag has done a few idiotic things, but for the most part is seen as a “safe pair of hands” because her ministers have been far more idiotic and on a more regular basis.
Indeed the most recent furore was caused because various parts of the “Continuity Remain” knaves were trying to cajole her Mag into dismissing Boris Johnson as PM if he loses a vote of no confidence and doesn’t resign. This has quietened down in recent days, presumably because the palace and relevant civil service types have been reminding MP’s that they are the ones that created this mess and her Mag is not going to intervene to fix it for either side.
As our constitution dictates, her Mag will follow the advice of her ministers (currently BoJo and Co.)
At least she knows how to do her bloody job, tourist attraction or not. Our MP’s could learn a lesson or two from Brenda.
@ Gamecock
Just because Grace Kelly married Rainier II, that does NOT mean than monarch is just a tourist attraction. The Changing of the Guard gets more tourists than the Monarch herself.
We have a final arbiter whom we can actually trust – how many Americans trust both Obama and Trump? I suspect that more distrust both than trust both.
How many of the other European monarchs are tourist attractions? How many Presidents have put their own lives on the line like Christian X? How many monarchs have plundered their country like Mobutu? Or presided over genocide? Compare Ethiopia under Emperor Haile Selassie with the Republic under Haile Mariam, Cambodia under Price Sihanouk with Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia under Tsar Nicholas which was so soft that it sent Lenin and Stalin to Siberia instead of executing them with Stalin’s reign of terror etc etc
For those actually interested, the standard text on the British constitution is “The English Constitution” by Walter Bagehot published in 1866 and the basis for the education of future princes (and princesses) in line for the throne since at least George V.
Link to PDF
@ John Galt
HM last visibly intervened to stop an unconsitutional coup in Australia (as I remenber it, without checking, the Labour party wanted to ignore the law and after being told to obey it started a “Republican Movement”). The exposure of a Labour PM as a KGB agent was immaterial in the view of the lefties.
@ John Galt
Edward VII did actually intervene in politics when he offered to appoint enough Liberal peers to eliminate the Conservative majority in the House of Lords if it blocked a reform bill.
He also changed the entire balance of power in Europe by the Entente Cordial – if we had maintained our alliance with Germany instead of France and von Moltke had not been idiotic enough to invade Belgium, WWI would have been almost a walk-over.
In fairness to her Mag, it is impossible to know the full details of the 1975 constitutional crisis without the release of the personal correspondence between Brenda and Sir John Kerr on the matter, correspondence which will not be released until 2027 at the earliest (and probably not even then given Brenda’s longevity).
Personally, I believe that Sir John Kerr was acting independently, but within his own delegation of authority, so can’t really see any justification to throw accusations at Brenda.
https://lens.monash.edu/2018/03/28/1338984/what-did-the-queen-know-about-the-dismissal
Edward,
Thanks again for you thoughts, they’ll help me develop my arguments.
I also thought his argument failed when you consider that parliament had an indicative vote on revoking A50 and despite it being cost free in political terms they still couldn’t muster a majority. He hasn’t responded to that point.
I thought this might be a good example of purposive interpretations:
It allows the law to develop to cover advances in medical science (eg Quintavalle)
Until I considered it as a way for parliament to avoid raking difficult decisions.
John,
Indeed the most recent furore was caused because various parts of the “Continuity Remain” knaves were trying to cajole her Mag into dismissing Boris Johnson as PM if he loses a vote of no confidence and doesn’t resign. This has quietened down in recent days, presumably because the palace and relevant civil service types have been reminding MP’s that they are the ones that created this mess and her Mag is not going to intervene to fix it for either side.
My reading of it was because they thought that Boris would have to resign and as soon as he lost the vote of NC, as James Callaghan did. They forgot that in that abomination the FTPA there is a 14 day period while the house tries to form a government with confidence.
They also didn’t seem to understand that the PM never actually resigns until they are in a position to recommend a replacement to HMQ eg Brown stayed in place until Cameron and Clegg had concluded their negotiations.
Most Remainers seem to be quite ignorant of our constitution as well as the EU and its various treaties.
@rhoda klapp August 12, 2019 at 9:06 am
+1 MPs don’t want a deal, they want Remain – May’s Brino vassal state was not sufficiently Remain.
Every one of them, except those who never voted for Mays WA, should be thrown out for malfeasance in public office, same with all the traitorous civil servants & Spads from Sedwill & Robbins down.
.
@Bloke in North Dorset August 12, 2019 at 12:06 pm
Broken link
Private forum name is?
@john 77 August 12, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Re: The EU is *not* what we signed up to which was the Common Market
Informative and interesting
This Sceptic Isle – Peter Hitchens (2005) – Youtube
This is covered, one of many fact/plans hidden from the public
Lack of information covered, pre Ref Remain campaign majority was Leave
imo if internet had been around in 1970s we’d have voted Leave due to easy access to information
hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/06/this-sceptic-isle-my-2005-bbc4-programme-in-britain-and-the-eu.html
@BiND – I agree that MP’s seem constitutionally blind to the mess of their own making in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
Equally, Brenda is quite right to assert her constitutional position is to ensure good government and listen to the advice of her ministers.
When all the hoo-haa of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been dealt with (by Boris trying and presumably failing to find a majority), it will be BoJo’s advice to her Mag to that the best interests of the country lay in a dissolution of parliament in order that a general election might be held on Thursday 7th November 2019.
Given that all of the legal and constitutional requirements for both a dissolution and a General Election have been met, what basis would Brenda have to refuse? None that I can see.
Is there any mechanism by which an act of parliament previously given royal assent could be blocked during the wash-up period before prorogation? None that I can see.
In short, even if we are headed towards a vote of no confidence under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, a 14-day period of attempting to find parliamentary consensus and then a request to the monarch for a dissolution of parliament prior to a general election at no point could the previous legislation be repealed or override and at no point would Boris Johnson be required or obligated to resign. Indeed I would argue that he is obligated to continue as acting prime minister (as Gordon Brown did) until such time as parliamentary consensus supports another.
Am I mistaken or otherwise delusional?
John 77, the UK quacks like a republic.
Call it whatever you like to. That doesn’t change definitions in Funk & Wagnalls.
And to think that Major Attlee and milud of Battenburg, the one a drippy socialist empty suit and the other an incompetent mountebank, achieved Indian independence in a mere six months.
OK, OK. They caused the deaths of 600,000 people in the process. But the real, rather than imagined, problems they faced were far greater.
#cando!
Pcar
Link: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php
Forum is Yachting and Boating World Lounge
John Galt,
The Institute of Government report is worth a read, the nuclear option starts on page 13, this is a section:
Of course other sources may disagree, but you’ve got think they’re a good starting point to understand the processes.
Parliament has made its decision about the proposed deal, it cannot force the EU to agree to changing the deal. It would then seem that even taking intent as an argument that it would be a hell of a stretch parliament intended to give the EU the power to revoke Article 50 by the simple expedient of not agreeing a deal which would effectively seem to be what they are arguing.
Also the comments on the deal and strategy are disingenuous, it is the EU saying no to renegotiation and Boris (clearly enacting the will of Parliament) saying what’s on the table is not acceptable to U.K. Takes 2 sides and blaming us all the time seems a standard remain policy
Gamecock – I submit this is the Left vs the Right.
The Left wants people to be subjects of the government. The Right wants people to be citizens of a republic, with substantial immunity from government. The EU represents an effective means of subjugating the people. The Right doesn’t want to be subjugated.
Dunno if you’ve seen “Brexit: The Uncivil War” starring Benedict Bandersnatch, it’s worth a watch. The producers’ Remain sympathies colour the screenplay, but they did a good job of trying to explain/dramatise the Leave point of view.
And Doctor Strange is compelling in it, even with a Geordie accent.
Anyway, Brexit isn’t a Left v Right thing, and we would’ve lost the referendum without the support of a substantial number of Labour (and Plaid Cymru, and SNP voters).
Social class does loom large in the matter though (the Cumberbatch drama is reasonably good at teasing this out, including some amusing contrasts between brash Brexit barrow boys Banks and Farage versus the posher, wonkish “respectable” Brexiters).
I reckon there’s a similar-ish dynamic in the US of States, with the Democratic Party becoming the party of wealthy white urbanites (+ racial minorities) versus Trump’s blue collar and rural coalition. Attitudes towards the benevolence of government play a part, but basically the question is “whose side are you on?”
If the Tory Grandees want their shite Party to survive they must deliver Brexit. End of.
BoJo needs to break the remainiac shite MPs. Were I PM it would take …12 hrs or so.
They are out of politics sans compo and pension. Arrested for treason and emergency powers used to put their votes in any Brexit-related matter as their constituents voted on 23/6/16. New by-elections would be held AFTER Brexit.
Meanwhile CCHQ would be purged of BlueLabour trash.
With a proper Brexit done TBP has no more purpose and will have–like UKIP–to realign itself as an anti-deep state, anti-globo-elite Party.
BoJo next fixes the boundaries and goes after ZaNu’s imported vote-fixers. And if he was smart would introduce my “100 years no votes for migrants or offspring”.
Then the Tories MIGHT have a chance of survival. MIGHT.
Just watching my videos from Referendum Night once more.
Still loving it. Loving the looks of horror and disbelief of the political talking heads.
Welcome to my world boys.
Q: What about the 48% who voted Remain? How do we make them feel included?
A: They will be included. They’ll be leaving the EU with us.
🙂
The “48%” is long gone despite endless remainiac lies. Millions have seen the EU and the Deep state remainiac scum trying to use votes as toilet paper. There is a hard corp of 4-5 million POS who I would class as traitors and servants of a hostile foreign power. And thanks be to Brexit for showing the dirty treasonous bastards into the light.