Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: Prorogation

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 28/08/2019 11:10

Its come to this.

Boris Johnson is to ask the Queen for permission to suspend parliament.

There are several legal challenges in the system to prevent this from happening.

It is unlikely to be able to stopped and the Queen is unlikely to intervene either. To do so would expose the Monarchy directly to a political threat which could lead to the downfall of the Crown if the cards lined up. Johnson has deliberate set up the situations where if she does, he is on the 'side of the people' whilst she is on the 'side of the establishment'. If she does nothing, she might be exposed still but none action, can be spun as political neutrality.

As David Allen Green points out:
^David Allen Green @davidallengreen
This is now the realm of pure politics

No court is likely to intervene - and it is not obvious what remedy a court could even grant so as to satisfactorily resolve the matter

"Not justiciable" as judges sometimes say

As we have seen so far, the opposition have been completely outclassed when it comes to 'pure politics' partly because of tribalism, partly because they lacked the capacity to understand and imagine how bad this could get - they never thought Johnson would go this far (massive tactical mistake) and partly because they so far do not understand whats driving this and have not produced and alternative narrative and explaination to counter those social and political fractures. Indeed everything they are doing is only serving to reinforce and widen those rifts and their complete lack of self awareness has been to blame. Johnson not only sees these fractures, he understands them, knows how to exploit them and most importantly is willing to do anything to retain power.

Authoritarians are always driven by this lust for power and are won't stop for anything. Thats why they are so dangerous and why checks and balances were put into the system. The trouble is the opposition didn't read the signs and are flapping in the wind now its reached the point where they suddenly realise its too far gone to be able to do much. The runaway train is firmly off the rails.

This all comes a day after the opposition apparently have agree a strategy to oppose No Deal. Which seems to include a VoNC. Remember this will always require Tory Rebels as even working together the Opposition haven't got the numbers - especially considering there are a few Labour Brexiteers.

This is being framed as a coalition of anti-democrats (which is something of a contradiction on several levels) by the government and the Brexit Party.

They have signed a pledge to set up an alternative parliament if government does prorogue parliament. This is full on civil war era stuff aka as a full blown constitutional crisis. Its actively into dangerous terrority. And as such, we very much into talking about the very real possibility of civil unrest. This is no longer something that can be considered hyperbole.

The timetable of this would see parliament prorogued just a few days into September (next week), closed to prepare for a new Queen's Speech and returning around the 17th October remembering the crucial final EU sumit on the 17th October. A VoNC doesn't necessarily mean the government will go though. There is no legal requirement to force the government to stand down. We may yet end up with a situation of two governments claiming legitmacy at the same time in late October. Prime Ministers Corbyn and Johnson.

A GE might eventually be the result of such a constitutional crisis but we would be way past 31st October before that happens.

Would we end up with an extension in such circumstances? Well the Prime Minister has to ask for one formally from the EU and the EU have to agree to one.

The problem being, who do the EU recognise as our PM?

We also have things coming into legal effect on the 1st November which would otherwise need revoking by parliament.

Which Parliament?

Things are going to get very very messy indeed.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
wheresmymojo · 29/08/2019 15:53

The rumour mill on Twitter is suggesting the BXP's event in BJ's constituency on Saturday is to announce their PPC.

And it will be Farage!!!

Comes from Lib Dem PPC in the same constituency....

RedToothBrush · 29/08/2019 15:58

The Unherd Article is brilliant, and sounds like everything I've ever read about Cummings or by Cummings.

He used to go on and on and on about game theory.

It was his favourite thing (or seemed like it).

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 29/08/2019 15:59

I don't know enough about 'game theory' but this was my hunch about Cummings too, that he's applying it in his 'strategising'.

Game theory is applying statistics to outcomes to derive the best strategy. With a caveat that "best" != "winning". The problem with politics is that it butts right up to the law of large numbers and population behaviour.

To be honest, if I wanted to win the election, I'd be looking at recruiting a few hundred volunteers to simply rock up in marginal constituencies and cast votes of people who never vote for the paying party. The only thing stopping me would be the need to trust so many people. I know it's something that has been researched in depth years ago.

prettybird · 29/08/2019 16:16

Haven't read the article yet, but I think that Cumming's "objective " is to win against the dreadful elite and Civil Service (of which he is of course not a part Confused) to prove that he is superior to them. Hmm

It really is just a game to him Hmm. No more skin in the game than an inferiority complex a supreme belief in his superior intellect. No ethics other than "they" are wrong mostly because they refuse to accept he is superior . No morality or sense of right and wrong other than he is always right. Winning at all costs. Hell mend the little people Angry

tobee · 29/08/2019 16:20

Cummings game is a massive adrenaline rush to him. Not to be underestimated.

Peregrina · 29/08/2019 16:21

This should be renamed the anti brexit thread. It is just the same stuff ad nauseum.

Try hiding the thread then. Or read stuff about style and beauty or whatever!

wheresmymojo · 29/08/2019 16:21

deselect "wrong thinking" sitting MPs (on both sides) on a wholesale scale is in fact a new craze?

Sorry, I'm not answering your question but having originally been against it I've come around to thinking that actually at the very minimum parties should have some kind of written guidelines about this.

It seems fair to me that MPs should sign up to the key policies of their parties and that if they disagree with their key policies they should resign from the party.

MPs may never agree with 100% of policies but surely there are some that are so fundamentally part of what the party they are in stand for that resigning and either joining another party or being an Indy should be the right course of action?

I think overall I agree that a by-election should then be triggered to allow voters to decide if they want to continue with that MP on their new footing.

What are the arguments against this? What am I missing?

Sarahlou63 · 29/08/2019 16:25

Apologies if this has been asked before but if there's a VONC on the 3rd how does the 14 day period work with prorogation starting on the 10th September?

Peregrina · 29/08/2019 16:30

And it will be Farage!!! Standing against Boris Johnson.

No it won't - Johnson will jump ship to a safe seat.

woman19 · 29/08/2019 16:38

Prorogation was a little taster.

The Rationalist has more:

BuzzFeed News has learned that in the last few days, Johnson’s senior team — led by his chief of staff Dominic Cummings and director of legislative affairs Nikki da Costa — has explored a number of increasingly controversial proposals it could deploy depending on the success of rebel attempts to thwart Brexit. The ideas under consideration include the following

Attempting to disrupt a Commons debate on Northern Ireland power-sharing due on Sept. 9, a day which could be used by rebels to attempt to delay Brexit. It is described by Johnson allies as a “time bomb” set for them in the final weeks of Theresa May’s premiership

Determining whether Johnson would be breaking the law by ignoring any successful rebel legislation or refusing to resign in the event he lost a vote of no confidence

Using a variety of mechanisms, including a potential budget, to create new Commons debates and further reduce time for rebels to act

Using the prorogation of Parliament to “kill the bill” by rebel MPs and force them to table it again after the Queen’s Speech on Oct. 14

Creating new bank holidays to prevent the House of Commons from being recalled during the prorogation period

Filibustering any bill by rebel MPs attempting to force Johnson to delay Brexit when it reaches the House of Lords

Ennobling new pro-Brexit peers as a last resort to kill any such bill in the Lords

Exploring what the consequences would be if Johnson advised the Queen not to give royal assent to any legislation passed by Parliament delaying Brexit

www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-brexit-extreme-measures

DGRossetti · 29/08/2019 16:39

It seems fair to me that MPs should sign up to the key policies of their parties and that if they disagree with their key policies they should resign from the party.

The problem is (as always) how do you start that from here ?

It seems like a lifetime ago (and may yet prove to be so) but the idea of local primary elections seemed an interesting development. That allows for a bit of flex so that policies can be shaped organically, rather than being imposed.

Although such a system might have meant missing out on the fun of seeing one Gisela Stuart MP ( currently residing in the "where are they now drawer" Grin) turning up to a local post office hoping for a photoshoot of her standing up for the local community, only to have to scuttle away after it turned out the locals remembered it was her party and her vote which meant it was closing.

Happy days.

Myriade · 29/08/2019 16:42

@woman19, very interesting link. Thank you.

BigChocFrenzy · 29/08/2019 16:47

One issue is that parties change:

Back in the 1983 GE, it was Labour wanting Brexit and Fortress Britain, while the Tories under Thatcher said that was madness

Tory policy right up to the ref was to Remain and their voters mostly agreed until at least the early Noughties

wheresmymojo · 29/08/2019 16:47

The problem is (as always) how do you start that from here ?

Good point. Someone needs to be taking notes of 'shit we need do once this is over to avoid it ever happening again'.

Like I do with my work projects Grin

PerkingFaintly · 29/08/2019 16:48

Um. I think that Unherd article about Cummings is interesting, but that it entirely misses the point – pretty much a metaphor for what's going on here!

The author assumes Cummings is in the Fiat Cinquecento, or cares about stopping the train.

Wrong!

Cummings is across town, planning to rob a bank while everyone is distracted by the train crash.

BigChocFrenzy · 29/08/2019 16:48

and of course a party can swing to the far right or far left, so that moderate MPs no longer fit

  • and naturally the other direction too

Any change in leader, or a single event like the ref, could mean drastic changes to the party and / or manifesto

Peregrina · 29/08/2019 16:50

Someone needs to be taking notes of 'shit we need do once this is over to avoid it ever happening again'.

I think that will come eventually, but who knows what damage will be done meanwhile?

howabout · 29/08/2019 17:03

Hannah Fry programme on Game Theory was on BBC4 recently (prob still on iplayer) Fascinating insights. eg turning the other cheek is sometimes necessary to prevent escalation if you are unsure whether the other side was aggressive on purpose but otoh a pre-emptive show of strength can be useful to signal intent.

Prisoner's dilemma is a well known example. Deals with imperfect information and why rational actors don't act rationally.

tobee · 29/08/2019 17:08

That's an interesting reply @wheresmymojo. I'll think it over GrinMy first thought would be everyone would end up being independent. Party system would be untenable. Not necessarily a bad thing!

DGRossetti · 29/08/2019 17:12

My first thought would be everyone would end up being independent. Party system would be untenable. Not necessarily a bad thing!

READERS OF A DELICATE (OR INTELLIGENT) PERSUASION MAY WANT TO ENSURE THEIR MOUTHS ARE EMPTY BEFORE CONTINUING

The problem with the "everyones an independent" school of politics is that it leads to a byzantine collections of alliances, cross-deals, stitch-ups and general lack of transparency that the party system avoids.

It's in the same bin category as FPTP delivers strong governments, and the Monarch exists to prevent extremism.

(as you were Grin)

tobee · 29/08/2019 17:15

Hmm. Thought a bit more!!! 😄 Brexit seems to show that MPs and voters can't cope easily where there's cross party agreement on one issue which also splits the parties. It's an anathema to them. I can't think immediately of anything similar in recent times.

Myriade · 29/08/2019 17:16

The author assumes Cummings is in the Fiat Cinquecento, or cares about stopping the train.

Wrong!

Cummings is across town, planning to rob a bank while everyone is distracted by the train crash

That’s a good point. What is the political aim for BJ (and Cummins)?

BigChocFrenzy · 29/08/2019 17:18

BJ wants to be PM for a few years
Cummings just wants to smash up everything. To hurt the grownups

tobee · 29/08/2019 17:18

Well a major problem with ditching FPTP is that government seem to end being mass coalitions which frequently fall apart at the seams causing instability and multiple elections. Proportional representation has great things going for it in theory but, like most systems, has big flaws imo.

BigChocFrenzy · 29/08/2019 17:18

I doubt if either counts as political aims

Swipe left for the next trending thread