Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Boris Johnson’s Government Fall?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected by his party to deliver on the Conservative Party promise to deliver on the people’s will, expressed in an extraordinary referendum in 2016. Similar to Chamber of Commerce Republicans in our political system, there are Remainer Conservatives, who represent business interests that have done well at the expense of the British people’s interests. Today, one of these members of parliament literally crossed the aisle, ending the current government majority.
MP Philip Lee left the Conservative Party and walked over to sit with the Liberal Democrats this Monday. The ensuing debate is live, carried by ITV:
Remainer Conservatives are desperately trying to justify their position, in an attempt to do their paymasters’ bidding while somehow keeping their seats, that are the basis of their current and further financial prospects. The recent EU Parliamentary election, in which the Conservative Party was wiped out by the three-week old Brexit Party, suggests this crew is not long for the world of British politics. We will shortly see if Britain will bow to Brussels, or go to the polls and give the elites a second two-finger salute.
See the Ricochet podcast “London Calling,” with James Delingpole and Toby Young for a half-hour of more informed explanation and speculation. They referred to a piece by an eminent scholar, Robert Tombs, who dares to be “out” supporting Brexit. A quick search turns up the following readable pieces, worth your time.
From 2018, a taxonomy of the Remainer body: “There are three categories of revolting Remainer: what makes them tick?“
There seem to be three main categories of Remainers: Ideological Remainers, Professional Remainers and Worried Remainers.
The Ideological Remainers, however vocal, are a small minority: opinion polls suggest about 5 per cent of the population. […] They have in common a negative image of both our history and our present society, which they convince themselves are tarnished by exploitation, racism and violence.
…More formidable in numbers and influence are the Professional Remainers: executives of multinational companies, employees of lobby groups and think tanks (many receiving funding from the EU), academics in receipt of EU grants, politicians representing Remain parties or constituencies, retired politicians who supported or indeed worked for the EU, civil servants and diplomats whose careers have been built round integration with the EU. For this group, familiarity with EU systems and contacts in Brussels give a major career advantage; conversely, Brexit poses a career risk.
…The third and largest category are the Worried Remainers. Most who voted Remain – a third of the total electorate – said that they did so primarily because they were worried about economic consequences. Their support for the EU is conditional and negative – as a lesser evil.
On the basic assumption being floated in Parliament by those who would defy the instructions given them by the people through the 2016 referendum, Robert Tombs wrote another brief explanation on who governs, or rules, in Britain. Without a written constitution, it is hard for outsiders to understand. This professor of French History at Cambridge University made it about as clear as can be back in 2016, shortly after the referendum was decided, in “Brexit means Brexit.”
The idea that parliament is the ultimate sovereign probably derives mainly from the writings of the great Victorian constitutional lawyer A. V. Dicey, but he makes it clear that this applies solely to legislation: parliament can make or unmake any law and none of its laws can be overridden by any other authority. […] The Crown governs, through ministers, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 stopped it from legislating. Parliament legislates, but since the fiasco of the Puritan Commonwealth it does not govern. The Courts interpret and apply the law.
Does this mean that parliament is a sovereign body superior to the popular will — expressed in this case through the extra-parliamentary channel of a referendum? Direct popular participation in crucial political acts has been part of our history since time immemorial. […] Parliaments, whether specially summoned or not, were instrumental in some of these great events; but parliaments acting with and as the voice of the national community, not separate from or independent of it.
Does this mean that the people, not parliament, the Crown or the courts, are the true sovereign, the ultimate source of authority? I would say — as a historian, not a constitutional lawyer — that it does: the people do not govern, or legislate, or interpret the law, but they are the ultimate source of the authority of those who do. The idea that parliament itself, in some hermetically sealed manner, holds ultimate sovereignty on the grounds of its inherent wisdom, and that this enables it to oppose a clearly and legally expressed popular choice is a strange perversion of history and of common sense. But we do not have to go so far as to proclaim the sovereignty of the people, if we find that a step too far. Popular consent by the people is a more modest and familiar concept. Expressed in a variety of ways, this consent has always been regarded as necessary for legitimate government. The referendum shows that the majority of the people no longer consent to government within the European Union. It would be a foolhardy parliament or law court that tried to ignore this reality.
For more, see his September 2, 2019, coauthored report: “Sovereignty: people, parliament, government.”
Brexit has always been about the sovereignty of the nation. It has now become just as much about sovereignty within the nation.
Updated September 4th: The rest of the Remainers voted against the government to seize control of the legislative calendar, allowing the Remainers to force a vote to stop Brexit, with the false claim of only wanting “delay.” PM Johnson is now effectively rid of them, having removed their Conservative Party authorization to continue running for office. By carrying through on his threatened sanctions, he shows the British public that he is serious and not using the cover of difficult MPs to excuse decisive action. Now he is hammering Labour for suddenly wanting to avoid a general election, where they once expected to win the next election.
This flow chart from the Daily Mail Online, on “the Battle for Brexit,” shows the possible paths ahead (click image to enlarge):
The reason is that they know that most people are willing to cede their rights to them if they use sweat enough words. These are the elites…the politicians, lawyers, media folks, professors and teachers and others who produce nothing but spend their lives speaking eloquently about those that do.
America is an idea that is exceptional in human history. The idea is steeped in private property rights and free will (liberty). The rest of human history is defined by authoritarianism. Those who moved to and settled America were the types who valued liberty but sheer biology has been bringing us back to the mean ever since.
The people voted for the Parliament to manage the nation. If the people Vote to leave and then Vote in a government in capable or unwilling to carry out that instruction it is the people’s fault. They could have voted for an all Brexit all the time government. They didn’t they vote for these sad sacks. The people have been hoisted by their own petard it would seem.
How dare you attack Star Fleet’s greatest French captain with a British accent!
As to the the PEOPLE’s Vote. Why not since everyone here loves direct democracy so much? The people voted for Brexit once let them vote for No-Deal Brexit. Everyone loves the plebiscite so long as it comes out their way and then they never want another lest the vaunted people change their mind. One vote one time. Frankly I think this shows my a direct vote is basically always a stupid idea. If the people’s will for Brexit were real they should have been forced to construct through the normal electoral process where all matters are weighed a government willing and capable of delivering that outcome. A one of vote invites people to be unserious and unconcerned about the larger overall picture. In an ideal world we’d all get what we want all the time. In the real world you have trade offs to make. And maybe you would want Brexit, but not at the cost of a No-Deal break, or maybe not at the cost of a Tory government, or at the cost of a Corbyn Government… or all sorts of other variables. The normal electoral process filters that all in. While a referendum allows people to pretend like an issue really just stands on its own. When it never does.
They will have another election.
There’s an added wrinkle here too, one @jamesofengland has brought up before (and a vulnerability of parliamentary governments): the rise of the so-called “Brexit” party, which has seen a bunch of single-issue MP candidates flood the ballots and dilute the Tory party.
OK, you might say “what of it, they’re giving the people what they want, right?” Umm, no. They’re not. Many of these candidates have been the sorts of people you don’t normally want anywhere near public office. James could go into specifics, but he’s being rather kind when he has referred to many of them as “grifters”. The kindest thing one could say about them is that they are uncompromising purists, but “purists” is really just a nice euphemism for “zealot who always insists on the perfect over the good”. In other words, rather than actually help the Tories cling to power and actually see any sort of Brexit through, they’ll happily run against even Brexit-favorable Tories for not being pure enough, not giving a tinker’s curse for whether that results in yet another seat for Corbyn (knowing damned-well that Labour will scuttle Brexit entirely).
Right. So, in this case, the people voted to leave. Therefore the UK should leave. Then there can be another vote to see if the people want to go back to the EU. But until the UK leaves, it’s not “one vote at a time.” It’s “keep on voting until the desired result is achieved.”
To the extent this is true, then it’s entirely the fault of the grifters in the Tory party who lied to their own constituents about implementing Brexit. If the Tories were actually doing what the pledged to do then there would be no need for the Brexit party. The fault is Theresa May’s.
Sure, there’s a lot of blame to go around. One of chief sins of the Brexit party, though, is its sheer indiscriminacy, which tends to put the lie to the notion that they actually want Brexit more than they want the sort of chaos that lets them profit. If they really and truly wanted Brexit, they’d stop trying to unseat Tory MPs who have actually been on their side.
But you are right that May’s ghastly tenure as PM opened the door to this.
The Opposition, for once, does not want another election. An opposition too frightened to govern? Why is anyone paying attention to them?
You mean there will be another election in the UK one day in the future, perhaps in the next 1,000 years?
Yes, I suppose anything is possible.
Can’t Johnson petition the Queen to cause a new election to be required? I don’t really know all of the nuances of how this works in the United Kingdom.
There is another view of what is happening.
Apparently according to Mish Shedlock of Mish Talk via Zerohedge, in
“Another Weird Brexit Turn: Tories Vote to Support No-Deal Bill in House of Lords”
the latest Benn-Burt bill that passed Parliament demanding a new extension prior to Brexit, triggers a British Constitutional approval called the “Queen’s Consent” where the Prime Minister must approve the bill which we know ain’t gonna happen.
What Mish and others across the pond are saying is that the Remainers trapped themselves, and granted Boris what he really wanted:
A. Greater likelihood of a No-Deal Brexit October 31st.
B. The Calling of a new Snap Election in October, where the Remainers must now defend their foolish Benn-Burt bill which effectively allows for no negotiation with the EU, and effectively a full capitulation.
C. The exposing of the Tory Remainers and the forcing them out of the Party clearing the way for a straight forward alliance between the Brexit Party and the Conservatives in the next election.
Now there are all sorts of legal opinions which might object to this analysis, but in this one from a Remainer Institution, the London School of Economics is:
“Queen’s Consent is a procedural requirement for any Bill passing through the Commons and Lords where the terms of the Bill would ‘affect’ the exercise of any royal prerogative if it was passed. The effect on the prerogative must be more than de minimis.
Queen’s Consent is normally a formality, because the government usually proposes (or more accurately for Private Members Bills, acquiesces to) all Bills that are successfully voted through both Houses. The current scenario could see a situation where a Bill passes in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the government.
Prerogative powers are legacy powers of the Crown that are now mainly exercised by the government. Conducting foreign affairs, and in particular the power to agree treaties and operate treaty powers, is an important part of the prerogative and is the relevant power for this post. Under that power, the UK government has agreed new treaties, and particular laws, at EU level over the last 46 years (and indeed continues to do so).
The story behind the passage of Cooper-Letwin is more complex than many realise. The drafting of the original version was masterly. Cooper-Letwin mandated the then Prime Minister (PM) to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. The word ‘seek’ is crucial. The reason it is so crucial is that it allowed the argument to be made that Queen’s Consent was not necessary for the Bill. This was because to ‘seek’ an extension does not actually have any effect in terms of changing the date of exit at EU level. Seeking an extension arguably does not ‘affect’ prerogative exercise as a matter of law.”
Continued on the next post
The London School of Economics Legal opinion on Benn- Burt continued from previous post:
The sheer cleverness of the drafting of Cooper-Letwin rests on the fact that it left entirely open what would happen after the extension was ‘sought’. The negotiations and agreement of a new exit date were without doubt exercises of prerogative power and any Bill that sought to regulate or supplant those aspects of securing an extension would certainly have required Queen’s Consent during the passage of the Bill.
The issue of Queen’s Consent was taken very seriously during the passage of the Cooper-Letwin Bill and was so controversial it resulted in a [formal ruling](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-04-03/debates/0F559E56-033F-…(Withdrawal%29(No5%29Bill#contribution-DC5CD990-C745-4B29-825C-B2404A764AF4) by the Speaker. That ruling made clear that the original draft of the Bill did not require Queen’s Consent.
The Benn-Burt bill
If Benn-Burt had precisely followed the format of Cooper-Letwin and only mandated that the government seek an extension, then it would have placed no obligation on the PM to agree or accept any extension. That would remain part of the prerogative power to be exercised as the PM sees fit in his negotiations with the EU27.
However, Benn-Burt goes much further than Cooper-Letwin. It mandates that the PM must not only seek but also agree to an extension, either 31 January 2020 or another date if the Commons approves a date suggested by the EU27. Mandating that the PM agrees to an extension manifestly affects the prerogative. It is difficult to see how requesting Queen’s Consent can be avoided for this Bill. If so, it follows that the government must agree to the Bill being passed during Third Reading.
What is most fascinating about this dilemma is that the Cooper-Letwin prototype gave such clear and unequivocal evidence of where the bright line on Queen’s Consent is actually drawn by the legal experts who understand, and indeed determine, these issues within the Commons. Can there be any doubt that if a stronger wording could have been secured without triggering Queen’s Consent then such a wording would have been used last time?
continued on the next post:
London School of Economic Legal Opinion on Benn-Burt continued:
Conclusion
The proponents of a new Bill to prevent No Deal are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they had drafted a Bill that only mandated the PM to seek an extension, the PM would be left free to refuse to agreeor accept any extension in negotiations with the EU27.
But the actual Bill tries to impose a requirement that the PM either agrees to 31 January 2020 or agrees any new exit date suggested by the EU27 (as long as a motion approving the alternative date in the House of Commons is passed). House of Commons procedural rules mean that the government is required formally to approve the Bill by affirming ‘Queen’s Consent’ to the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is because the power to agree or accept an extension is normally exercised using a prerogative power. If passed, this statute would have the legal effect, by whatever means, of forcing the PM to agree an extension to the Article 50 process would manifestly ‘affect’ the prerogative for the purposes of the relevant test as to whether Queen’s Consent is required.
Zealots? Anyone with or without a brain can be labeled a zealot.
The remainer/remoaners are not zealots? Have people opened their eyes to their behavior?
Every political person has to start somewhere.
The Left tried to cast aspersions and do the same thing to the Tea Party movement a few years ago, but without the Tea Party movement we would today have Democrat Charlie Crist instead of Marco Rubio, former Democrat Trey Grayson instead of Rand Paul, a soon to pass away Bob Bennett instead of Mike Lee, a soon to pass away Arlen Specter still claiming to be a Republican instead of Pat Toomey, insider David Dewhurst instead of Ted Cruz, etc. The Republicans probably would have kept that senate seat in Delaware, but you can’t win every battle.
Zealots?
UKIP refused to allow James Delingpole to be one of their candidates. Peter Noone’s brother Damon was a UKIP candidate. I don’t know of any other UKIP/Brexit candidates other than the obvious ones. I’m sure they didn’t want James due to his writings. (That didn’t stop Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, etc.) This philosophy is how we are led by men such as David Souter and Anthony Kennedy instead of Robert Bork. The Brexit Party already purged itself away from UKIP in attempt to get Brexit through and not be a cheerleader for Tommy Robinson.
Zealots? Some of them probably just didn’t go to Oxford and Cambridge…
The Cloaked Gaijin:
“The remainer/remoaners are not zealots? Have people opened their eyes to their behavior?
Every political person has to start somewhere.
The Left tried to cast aspersions and do the same thing to the Tea Party movement a few years ago, but without the Tea Party movement we would today have Democrat Charlie Crist instead of Marco Rubio, former Democrat Trey Grayson instead of Rand Paul, a soon to pass away Bob Bennett instead of Mike Lee, a soon to pass away Arlen Specter still claiming to be a Republican instead of Pat Toomey, insider David Dewhurst instead of Ted Cruz, etc. The Republicans probably would have kept that senate seat in Delaware, but you can’t win every battle.”
– Nailed it.
Or in other words if you are not a “zealot” for Constitutional Liberty in these days of looming Fascism from so many quarters, you are either a fool or an idiot. That does not mean one should strive for perfection – yes the Perfect is the enemy of the Good- or advocate violence, engage in lying or misrepresentation of the Truth or unconstitutional acts but the fear of zealotry has become the boogieman for so many who need to recognize the serious danger the Country is in.
Ah, but what of Paul Ryan, Amash, and all the others of the Republican non-Trumpers? They’re equally standing on their principles but have frequently been termed here on Rico as traitors, sell-outs, dupes, parasites, and yes even zealots. They have all laid claim to (as you put it) being zealous for “Constitutional Liberty in these days of looming Fascism“. I somehow doubt you would commend their holding to their principles over the needs of the party specifically, or conservatism generally.
If you are more interested in maintaining your purity of conscience on a single issue and letting your opponents win, than in actually governing, which is a messy process of making deals, compromises, sometimes voting on bills that you don’t think go far enough, and keeping the other party from winning votes, then you are a zealot. Quite a number of the Brexit party people have thus far proven they’d rather see Labour in power (which turns Brexit into a dead letter entirely) than a “compromise” Brexit. Yet you would praise them at the same time as condemning Amash et all here for leaving the Republicans and running 3rd party spoilers?
And they need one. Because they need a Government that can actually govern.. Though in looking at the situation and given everyone’s triangulation in the matter I think it isn’t likely to help until the Brexit issue is resolved one way or the other. Which of course is the Catch-22 of it all. You need to be done with Brexit to have an effective government again, but only an effective government can get Brexit done. Makes me glad to be an American. I mean as bad as our government is at least we aren’t them…
I actually think I agree with this. Though the process can be more complex than you laid out. In a sense the Government has delivered on the Brexit Vote. It invoked Article 52 (I think that’s the number) to leave the EU. Now maybe they need to have a vote on how to do it. Deal or No-Deal. Then they can have a third vote to see how they like what they got? Ultimately I think the issue of voting until you get the desiered outcome is always the possibility in any democratic system? But that is the thing people’s desires change over time. This is why doing Brexit through the formal process of electing Parliament would have been better and more robust if slower. The Fact that UKIP and Brexit party are just a bunch of grifters is testament to the fact that maybe Brexit wasn’t a serious issue. Because it could not inspire enough serious people into government. It was an issue for charlatans, and political performance artists.
If Brexiters were serious people at heart instead of political performers they would have taken May’s deal. That would have formalized the break up with the EU, even if it left the UK still closely bound to it. But further separation could be achieved over time as deemed desirable. Instead they chose to emote so as to feel better. Now they are where they are, but worse off politically in every way. Increasing the odds ever further of disaster in one form or another.
Why do they need an election they control Parliament now with their coalitional majority. Boris taunting them to throw that away is proof of his own lack of power or forethought. He thought they wouldn’t band together to thwart No Deal. He was wrong. He can’t pass any legislation now, and they can pass whatever legislation they want. They don’t need an election they have won. What they need to do is secure their victory by passing the law to force Boris to request a further extension. My understanding is they will have that officially done by Friday. Then they can dance Boris like a puppet.
Crimenutely, UK. Do your business, or get out of the litter box.
Not these days. There is now a fixed term act, seeking to stabilize government by requiring a supermajority vote to ask for early elections.
There has been no refutation here of the points expressed in @unsk‘s three part commentary starting at #71 where it is asserted that the law passed to say no Brexit without a deal agreement is not law until approve by the government because of the Queen’s Consent is required on a bill affecting the royal prerogative. Is there a there there?
SkipSul:
“Ah, but what of Paul Ryan, Amash, and all the others of the Republican non-Trumpers? They’re equally standing on their principles but have frequently been termed here on Rico as traitors, sell-outs, dupes, parasites, and yes even zealots. They have all laid claim to (as you put it) being zealous for “Constitutional Liberty in these days of looming Fascism“. I somehow doubt you would commend their holding to their principles over the needs of the party specifically, or conservatism generally.”
Please tell me what these “principles” of the Never Trumpers are? All I see is a greedy desire to preserve their monied connections that have made them wealthy. The Never Trumper position is essentially the same as the lucrative Corporatist Globalist position that would rather sell out America to preserve the existing trade and financial arrangements that have inflicted so much pain on America, but have made the large Multi-National Corporations billions. Justin Amash was okay to mouth libertarian pieties until Trump jeopardized his cozy business relationships with the ChiComs. Paul Ryan sold out to become a lobbyist and his early “conservative” principles somehow “grew ” to protect the Deep State at every turn.
Perhaps you don’t recognize how so much reform of our government is blocked by the ways of the NeverTrumpers and the Progressive RINO Elite. Congress and our bureaucracy has tilted the playing field to stymie small business and innovation to protect the Multi-National Corporations and Big Banks. Hundreds of Billions of dollars are at stake for these Globalists and they out pay and out contribute ( legally and Illegally) small business and regular Americans many times over. The situation in Britain over Brexit is exactly the same. The issue is who benefits – the monied elite of London or the commoners in the Countryside.
And the 3rd partiers who claim to be Brexiteers aren’t themselves profiting from the chaos? They’re all pure as the driven snow? Political campaigns are great tools for lining your pockets with donations from aggrieved constituents, which is exactly what these people are doing – promise Brexit, claim everyone else is a fraud somehow but you’ll save ’em, spoil the election and pocket the money.
And the 3rd partiers who claim to be Brexiteers aren’t themselves profiting from the chaos?
Politicians of all stripes try to profit from chaos in the political system. But the level of pay offs and corruption by Globalist Corporatist Elite is off the charts in it’s corruption. They have overwhelmed the political system.
And btw the your principled Paul Ryan ( at least his aide) was an early recipient of the Steele Dossier in 2016 and did nothing. What a principled guy! He let Trump twist in the wind because basically he a Never Trumper and doesn’t give a crap about the Rule of Law and our Constitutional Republic.
Dang, Sean Connery just rode out Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas.
You won’t find a lot of 89-year-olds doing that!
He must also be one of the only actors to marry a second wife older than his first wife and older than him.
You are only proving that when someone sides with you to act as a spoiler they’re “principled” but when they disagree with you somehow they’re a sellout.
The bill has passed the House of Lords and has been sent to the Queen. So when she approves it, it will become law. So th . What happens? Boris ignores it? Why didn’t he stop it from going to the Queen or can Boris override her?
Is the Queen’s Consent government approval?
So that’s done. On Sunday, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab made noises about challenging the no-deal law in the courts and testing what it truly requires or not. But who knows if that will succeed?
With Boris Johnson’s hands tied, what do people think of his resigning and possibly handing over government to Corbyn or “national-unity” figure like Kenneth Clarke? The caretaker government will eventually have to call an election, but if the UK government ends up asking the EU for an extension to stop exit on Oct 31, they will own that decision, not the Tories under Boris Johnson.
@mrnick?