British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

To clarify: this will leave NI outside the customs union.

The fourth point there is to placate NI, who correctly would otherwise point out that Westminster signing NI up to a set of rules that NI will have no say in making, and that Westminster itself won't have to follow, is incredibly undemocratic. Giving NI a theoretical right to opt out addresses that and is probably key to getting the DUP on board.

But of course, even if the assumption is that NI would never vote to opt out, I doubt the EU will be happy with there even being that possibility.


Getting it through Parliament: as I say, I think it's unlikely, but I'm not sure it's impossible. I think a big chunk of those new Independent Tories would at least consider it - they're anti-No Deal, but not necessarily anti-Brexit, and this might offer a way out of No Deal, without the ideological problems of the backstop.
The other parties will vote against, because their policy is to vote against anything the Tories suggest on any topic. However, there's likely to be a handful, maybe a dozen, Labour Brexiteer defectors who could in theory vote with the government to get Brexit done, particularly if they fear the alternative is no Brexit. If the DUP stay on board once they've read the small print, and everything goes right for the government... I think the numbers are there to get this passed.

As I don't think the government will GET those numbers, because it'll have to persuade pretty much everybody who is vaguely persuadable, and I doubt that everyone's going to find this all that persuadable. But I think that, unlike with May's deal, the numbers are in principle there to be got.

It'll probably not come to a vote, because I would think he'll need approval from the EU and then a rubber stamp from Parliament, and the EU probably won't approve it. But it might be interesting if he got it, as it were, pre-ratified by Parliament, in order to put pressure on the EU. As it is, both the EU and Parliament can hide behind 'there's no point making compromises because the EU/Parliament won't agree to anything anyway', and if Boris actually wants a deal, he'll have to focus minds more tightly.

[I assumed he didn't want a deal, and would just waffle a bit and stick to 'like May's deal but no backstop', knowing it had 0% of being agreed, but this does look like a genuine attempt to at least try to get a deal...]


Of course, a lot may depend on how the media react to these proposals. Parliament will have a couple of weeks to mull it over, and I think it'll matter a lot what sort of consensus emerges in the public discourse. Particularly on questions like goods checks between GB and NI - if the papers all run with "hard border in the irish sea!", the deal is dead before it's born, but if they relegate it to a "regulatory conformance inspections on a small proportion of industrial and agricultural goods in transit" footnote on page eight, the chances of a deal look a lot brighter...

[zompist]

To clarify: this will leave NI outside the customs union.

OK, but leaving a customs union yet following its rules seems to be kind of muddled. Though the muddle is presumably the actual goal! This BBC article clarifies that that NI would remain in the common market, but according to the DUP will leave the common market. Nobody tell them!

I don't quite get the factory and inventory checks. Is that to make sure that NI producers are following NI law, which will follow EU rules? Or are NI/EU regulations expected to diverge somehow? Legally, how do you maintain this? If the UK parliament passes laws that affect EU trade, as is the dream of the Brexiteers, do they have to carve out exceptions for NI each time? Likewise, does something have to happen when the EU changes its laws? If so, what happens if the British side refuses to keep things in sync? If not, how do judges decide what NI law is?

Also, apparently services are not covered. That makes some prima facie sense since you don't export services over the border in a truck. But... you can export services in a car: a web designer or a massage therapist or whatever drives over the border. Can you have a server in Dundalk and literally run a cable under the border to Newry, or vice versa, and run your bank or other services provider that way?

(There's a reason trade deals take years to negotiate...)

[zompist]

Particularly on questions like goods checks between GB and NI - if the papers all run with "hard border in the irish sea!", the deal is dead before it's born, but if they relegate it to a "regulatory conformance inspections on a small proportion of industrial and agricultural goods in transit" footnote on page eight, the chances of a deal look a lot brighter...

Well, let's see what the Daily Mail says! Their main headline is:

Brother of slain black accountant hugs sobbing cop who murdered him in his own apartment and tells her he LOVES HER in astonishing act of compassion— as she is sentenced to just TEN YEARS in prison

OK, maybe the UK news page?

Tears of joy (and some cheers)! Briton Dina Asher-Smith WINS historic 200m World Athletics gold in front another sparse crowd in Doha after Lord Coe slammed BBC for criticism over empty seats

Nope. By the way, may I just say that this is the ugliest web page I've seen all year. Scrolling down, found it:

Boris Johnson's 'final offer' on Brexit: PM asks the EU to agree to a 'two borders for four years' plan so the Irish backstop can be scrapped - but how will it work and will Brussels go for it?

The article is kind of cringingly fawning to Boris's Toughness Toward Brussels, but they're certainly not hiding the Irish Sea border. Nor are they very sanguine about the EU reaction; they point out that the EU will consider it to be cherrypicking. You're supposed to accept the customs union as a whole, not just the parts you like.

[Salmoneus]

To clarify: this will leave NI outside the customs union.

OK, but leaving a customs union yet following its rules seems to be kind of muddled.

Well, that's the EU for you!
Currently Switzerland and the EEA are in the Single Market but not in the Customs Union, while the microstates are in the Customs Union but not in the Single Market.

Though the muddle is presumably the actual goal! This BBC article clarifies that that NI would remain in the common market, but according to the DUP will leave the common market. Nobody tell them!

I think the BBC is wrong, although it is a matter of definitions. NI will in this plan be subject to single market rules in certain (important) sectors, but there won't necessarily be free movement of people or capital, etc.

I don't quite get the factory and inventory checks. Is that to make sure that NI producers are following NI law, which will follow EU rules? Or are NI/EU regulations expected to diverge somehow? Legally, how do you maintain this? If the UK parliament passes laws that affect EU trade, as is the dream of the Brexiteers, do they have to carve out exceptions for NI each time? Likewise, does something have to happen when the EU changes its laws? If so, what happens if the British side refuses to keep things in sync? If not, how do judges decide what NI law is?

As I understand it, the idea is that NI producers will follow EU regulations. They'll be fixed to that by law, so yes, 'UK' laws in that area will no longer apply in northern ireland, and changes in eu regulations will be binding on northern ireland, unless NI politicians opt out in this ill-defined quadrennial consultation process.

The reasoning here is that if you make NI regulations the same as EU regulations, then you don't have to check everything at the border anymore - massively cutting down the need for product inspections, which in turn hopefully makes possible the idea of a customs border without actual customs checks at the border.

Also, apparently services are not covered. That makes some prima facie sense since you don't export services over the border in a truck. But... you can export services in a car: a web designer or a massage therapist or whatever drives over the border. Can you have a server in Dundalk and literally run a cable under the border to Newry, or vice versa, and run your bank or other services provider that way?

I think importing or exporting data in that way would be a customs issue, not a regulatory one, so no.

(There's a reason trade deals take years to negotiate...)

Indeed. These may have been interesting suggestions two years ago, but even if all parties are interested in them now, can they really be ironed out to a legally-binding level of exactitude in just a week or two?

[Salmoneus]

Well, let's see what the Daily Mail says! Their main headline is:

Brother of slain black accountant hugs sobbing cop who murdered him in his own apartment and tells her he LOVES HER in astonishing act of compassion— as she is sentenced to just TEN YEARS in prison

Dear gods, that's an atrocity of a sentence.

By the way, may I just say that this is the ugliest web page I've seen all year.

Is it still 50% pictures of attractive women in bikinis with misogynist captions about how sexually attractive and slutty they are?


FWIW, the BBC does a papers roundup. Tomorrow's headlines are:

Johnson plan unites Brexiteers but faces frosty reception in Brussels (FT)
Pressure on Dublin to back deal (Telegraph)
Brussels keeps Johnson guessing on Brexit deal (Times)
Dismay in Brussels as as Johnson finally reveals his Brexit plan (Guardian - "European negotiator is scathing and says the proposals are a trap" - doesn't sound like they're keeping anyone guessing, does it?)
Dear Jean, here's how I leave EU (Metro)
Brexit: is this the beginning of the end? (Express - "after barnstorming speech at Tory conference, PM reveals final masterplan to break EU deadlock and urges Brussels to accept 'reasonable compromise'")
Is that it? (Mirror - "Boris speech fails to unveil any new policy | EU leaders hint Brexit bid will not work | It's slated as 'even worse than May's" (Brexit teeters on a knife edge))
Yard faces new probe over VIP sex abuse blunders (Mail - "Boris' blonde breaks her silence to the Mail")
Rogue one (Sun - "Harry launched attack off his own bat | Charles and Wills given no warning")
I nearly quit Corrie over my slaphead (Star - "Hair loss torment of Street star Jack")

You're supposed to accept the customs union as a whole, not just the parts you like.

Indeed, and that is likely to be an issue. Basically this deal would let Northern Ireland export goods to Ireland, while being protected from competition from Irish workers in the service sector. Which is actually ironic, because what the UK as a whole would really like is to be able to export our services (particularly finance) while being protected from competition from foreign goods...

[Richard W]

Basically this deal would let Northern Ireland export goods to Ireland, while being protected from competition from Irish workers in the service sector.

Could you expand on this, please. Irish and British workers will continue to have free movement across the island.

[Salmoneus]

Basically this deal would let Northern Ireland export goods to Ireland, while being protected from competition from Irish workers in the service sector.

Could you expand on this, please. Irish and British workers will continue to have free movement across the island.

Sorry, by "Irish workers" in this case I meant "workers in Ireland" (of whatever nationality), rather than "workers from Ireland".

I haven't found out yet what sort of impediments there might be on the purchase of services from the south, although surely at a minimum there would be issues around data transport. But even if there were no border for services, the fact there won't be regulatory commonality would seem potentially fatal. The theoretical economic argument would be: "well then, Northern Ireland would be able to adopt laxer standards of regulation (longer working hours, fewer inspections, etc) to cut costs in the services sector, which by extension would help drive down wages and costs in other sectors (both because of the downward pressure on wages, and because of the decreased cost to employers of buying in services), enabling NI to undercut EU prices for industrial and agricultural goods.

Once you allow one sector to opt out, you lose 'fair competition' in all the other sectors (as well as, obviously, directly disadvantaging countries who do better in the opt-out sectors).

[mèþru]

Welp, we now know what Stewart is up to: running fr Mayor of London. What a complete waste of his talents.

[Frislander]

Welp, we now know what Stewart is up to: running fr Mayor of London. What a complete waste of his talents.

Agreed, I honestly don't know why he thinks he can jump from nearly a decade serving a highly rural northern constituency with no settlements larger than 20,000 or so to being mayor of the largest city in the country?

[Raphael]

Random thought: suppose there's a hard Brexit. One of the many problems with that is that it might lead to serious shortages of various things in the UK because various goods could no longer be imported into the UK on the same terms as before. But couldn't the British government get around this by simply ordering that goods from the EU should still be allowed into Britain on the same terms as before Brexit? That is, by acting as if there was some kind of "one-sided customs union"? I mean, no one could force Britain to collect customs duties on things it doesn't want to collect customs duties on, or to stop the importation of things it wants to import, right?

[Salmoneus]

Random thought: suppose there's a hard Brexit. One of the many problems with that is that it might lead to serious shortages of various things in the UK because various goods could no longer be imported into the UK on the same terms as before. But couldn't the British government get around this by simply ordering that goods from the EU should still be allowed into Britain on the same terms as before Brexit? That is, by acting as if there was some kind of "one-sided customs union"? I mean, no one could force Britain to collect customs duties on things it doesn't want to collect customs duties on, or to stop the importation of things it wants to import, right?

We've discussed this before I think, but here's my summary impression:

- yes, we probably will wave everything through in the short term
- yes, this will help avoid the worst-case scenarios
- but problems will remain. I think there are four major areas here...

- in terms of the nitty-gritty of logistics, the freight network is already on the verge of (and at times over the verge of) collapse. It only takes small disruptions to cause havoc. At dover in particular, shipping relies on two systems: ferries, and the Shuttle (the vehicle-carrying train under the channel). Both of these systems are RORO - roll-on, roll-off - which means that the same transport vehicle moves back and forth, ferrying lorries in a maximally efficient way - lorries roll on in one port, and roll straight off in the other. This means that if lorries are delayed getting off the boat or train in Calais, then inbound lorries will be delayed getting ON the boat or train at Calais, because it's the same boat (and even the same door! you can't even start loading one end while the unloading's going on, because they load/unload through the same door), and because the system is so efficient that it has no leeway built into it. Furthermore, I know that at Dover, any queue in one direction logjams the town and causes queues in the opposite direction as well, and I suspect the same will be true of Calais as well, meaning that even if the lorries do get off the boat, their queue to get through customs will prevent lorries from getting on the boat. [for this reason, a priority for us in the negotiations was to try to get the French to move their customs away from Calais, to reduce this sort of logjam]

So, even if we have no checks at all, there will still be delays unless the French also waive all checks.

- in terms of politics and the law, waving through every vehicle that wants to come into the country is problematic. For a start, it's illegal under international law. It's also an obvious security risk, and it's not easy to sell "because you voted to take control of your own borders, we've had to let immigrants in freely without any checks". There are also issues here around through-transport - you'd have French goods leaving the EU, good from the rest of the EU leaving the EU via France, goods from outside the EU travelling through the EU to get to the UK, and goods from the EU going to the EU (Ireland) via the UK, not to mention goods coming from the rest of the world to the EU through the UK. It's hard to see politicians in the UK, let alone France, being happy with simply waving everything through without checking what it is or where it's going. Indeed, for certain goods there are legal obligations to prevent export, or to prevent import. Perhaps 'on the day' we'll just wave everything through to avoid catastrophe, but it doesn't seem like a sustainable idea.

- there are particular legal issues around medications, as well as nuclear fuel and a few other things. These things, it is illegal for the EU to export, under both its own laws and international law, to any country that does not have a recognised responsible regulatory body for such a purpose. In other words, the French aren't allowed to just put heroin on a boat and wash their hands of it - they need to make sure it's being monitored by a regulatory body, and that that regulatory body knows where it's going. That is, if you want to buy heroin from the French, you need to be able to produce a letter from the UK's drug trading regulators saying "it's OK for this guy to buy heroin, we vouch for him". Likewise, if you want to buy plutonium, you need a chit from the UK atomic energy regulators. The problem is... there aren't any. These regulatory bodies are EU-wide organisations, and by law we can't have our own until we've left the EU (you can't have two rival regulators!). Once we've left the EU, therefore, we won't have any regulators. Even if we were super-organised, and the body was in place to hit the ground running on the day (ha!), they'll have to get all their paperwork signed off in London, and Brussels, and elsewhere (I don't know about the medications, but I know the atomic regulation thing goes all the way up to the UN).

So, unless we're ultra-organised, it just won't be legal for the French to ship drugs to us in the immediate aftermath of brexit.


- economically, it's widely expected that the pound will plummet further after (or immediately before) brexit day. The cost of medications from abroad has soared, and is likely to soar further. This means that, even if there is no freight friction at all, there will probably be shortages. Indeed, both because of the pound and because of the slow intentional destruction of public services in general, most pharmacies ALREADY have shortages of many common medications.

[Raphael]

We've discussed this before I think,

Oh, I must have missed that. Sorry.

At dover in particular, shipping relies on two systems: ferries, and the Shuttle (the vehicle-carrying train under the channel). Both of these systems are RORO - roll-on, roll-off - which means that the same transport vehicle moves back and forth, ferrying lorries in a maximally efficient way - lorries roll on in one port, and roll straight off in the other. This means that if lorries are delayed getting off the boat or train in Calais, then inbound lorries will be delayed getting ON the boat or train at Calais, because it's the same boat (and even the same door! you can't even start loading one end while the unloading's going on, because they load/unload through the same door), and because the system is so efficient that it has no leeway built into it. Furthermore, I know that at Dover, any queue in one direction logjams the town and causes queues in the opposite direction as well, and I suspect the same will be true of Calais as well, meaning that even if the lorries do get off the boat, their queue to get through customs will prevent lorries from getting on the boat.

Arrgh! I didn't know about that.Thank you!

- there are particular legal issues around medications, as well as nuclear fuel and a few other things. These things, it is illegal for the EU to export, under both its own laws and international law, to any country that does not have a recognised responsible regulatory body for such a purpose. In other words, the French aren't allowed to just put heroin on a boat and wash their hands of it - they need to make sure it's being monitored by a regulatory body, and that that regulatory body knows where it's going. That is, if you want to buy heroin from the French, you need to be able to produce a letter from the UK's drug trading regulators saying "it's OK for this guy to buy heroin, we vouch for him". Likewise, if you want to buy plutonium, you need a chit from the UK atomic energy regulators. The problem is... there aren't any. These regulatory bodies are EU-wide organisations, and by law we can't have our own until we've left the EU (you can't have two rival regulators!). Once we've left the EU, therefore, we won't have any regulators. Even if we were super-organised, and the body was in place to hit the ground running on the day (ha!), they'll have to get all their paperwork signed off in London, and Brussels, and elsewhere (I don't know about the medications, but I know the atomic regulation thing goes all the way up to the UN).

So, unless we're ultra-organised, it just won't be legal for the French to ship drugs to us in the immediate aftermath of brexit.


- economically, it's widely expected that the pound will plummet further after (or immediately before) brexit day. The cost of medications from abroad has soared, and is likely to soar further. This means that, even if there is no freight friction at all, there will probably be shortages. Indeed, both because of the pound and because of the slow intentional destruction of public services in general, most pharmacies ALREADY have shortages of many common medications.

Thank you, good to know.

[sangi39]

I've heard it reported that Boris Johnson will seek an extension from the EU... What are the chances this will actually happen (the asking), and the EU agreeing (if the asking occurs), do you think?

[Moose-tache]

~50%+/-50, and 100.00%, respectively.

[alice]

If you want a more detailed analysis...

[Salmoneus]

Just to keep people updated: Heidi Allen's been converted again.


Now, to recap: in February, a bunch of Labour MPs left Labour to form The Independent Group. Two days later, Heidi Allen was converted from a Tory MP to a TIG MP. In March, The Independent Group changed its name to Change UK - The Independent Group, and adopted a new logo, and appointed Allen as "Interim Leader" (but, significantly, not "Convenor" or "Spokesperson"). In April, it was forced to change its logo. Still in April, it then chose to change its logo again. In May, in the run up to the european elections, Allen suggested that her party might not survive the year (while one of their leading candidates described them as 'a sinking ship').

In June, Allen discovered her true political destiny, when she lead the majority of her party out of her party, Change UK - The Independent Group, to sit as independents, having decided that it was wrong for her to belong to any political grouping of MPs. In response, Change UK - The Independent Group changed its name to The Independent Group for Change, and changed its logo again. In July, however, Allen was converted to a new approach: it was wrong for her not to belong to a political grouping, and so she formed a new grouping of independents, called The Independents, totally different from her old grouping of independents, The Independent Group for Change. The Independents, however, while a formal grouping, were not a party, as it was very important to remain independent of parties.

Well, now it's October, and it turns out that Allen's been converted again. It now IS important to be part of a party and NOT be an independent - having sat as an independent, and in a non-party Independent group, and in a party called the Independent Group, all because it was clear that no existing party was fit for purpose, she's now joined an existing party, the Lib Dems.

I can actually sympathise with the difficulty a member of one party can sometimes have with switching allegiances, but belonging to three different political parties and one non-party group AND no group at all, all in 9 months, must surely be some sort of record!

[Salmoneus]

Quite a lot's been going on with Boris, btw.

There are two major court cases going on in Scotland. In one, the court is asked to issue an 'interdict' demanding that the PM not break the law, specifically the Benn Act (which requires him to request an extension). If the PM still broke the law, he could be jailed for contempt of court.

So far, the PM is winning. The court ruled in his favour, because he has promised - and in writing to the court - to request an extension. The court has essentially ruled that his public statements (dead in a ditch, never ever do it, etc), were only political positions (i.e. lies) and that his statements to the court (of course he'll do it!) are the truth. However, this will go to appeal in Scotland later in the week.

The other case is much more serious. It petitions the Scottish court to use a special Scottish legal power, 'nobile officium', which loosely translates as 'fuck off we're in charge'. Traditionally this power (which doesn't exist in the English legal system) is used when the law is silent as to how to resolve a pressing issue, or the legal resolutions cannot in practice be carried out, yet some resolution is required. It would be quite startling if the court agreed to use it now, but the whole 'emergency' and 'constitutional crisis' aspects may be serious enough to lead the court to take desperate acts. And nobile officium is basically the nuclear option.

Specifically, the court is being asked to do two things: a) send the Prime Minister to prison; and b) negotiate directly with the EU, bypassing all the politicians.

Now, it's not quite as drastic as that bald summary makes it sound. Basically, because the law says the PM has to send a letter (with specified wording) to the EU, the argument is that if the PM refuses to do so, the court can simply write the letter itself, have its clerk sign it "on behalf of" the PM, and then have it sent to the EU. And if the PM obstructs this process or refuses to let the letter be sent, or tries to undermine it by denying its legitimacy, he goes to gaol.

I don't think the court will go for it, but I wouldn't totally rule it out...

Needless to say, a court overruling the government, elections, a referendum and so on and conducting foreign policy independently, let alone jailing a prime minister, would provoke a (further) constitutional crisis. Particularly as it would be a Scottish court using Scottish law, to bind the entire UK (the government has already strongly suggested off the record that it considers Scottish courts illegitimate in any case).


----

Oh, but that's just the beginning.

Parliament is considering replacing the PM. The problem is of course the same: the Independent Conservatives and the Independent Group for Change both want to stop No Deal, but they see their priority as stopping Corbyn from being PM - they'll more or less vote for anyone but Corbyn. Corbyn's priority, meanwhile, is ensuring that Corbyn is PM - so Labour will vote for nobody but Corbyn. So it's hard to see how any new PM could be agreed upon.

Notwithstanding that, they may well have a VONC against Johnson, reasoning that, with the PM gone, dissenters will be forced to come to agreement to replace him, because the alternative is being forced into No Deal because Parliament's been dissolved in pursuit of a general election, and that would be a fucking disaster in every way imaginable. Nobody wants to have to campaign in a general election that you brought about even though it guaranteed No Deal - the only people who'd approve of you would be hardline Leavers, and they won't approve of you doing so by mounting a coup against the hardline Leaver PM.

But there's a problem: what happens if there's a VONC, and Johnson is voted out of office, exactly? Well, 'senior sources' at number 10 say he has a plan: fuck 'em. Johnson is intended to simply not leave. First of all, if he doesn't resign, then the Queen would have to remove him - and he thinks that the Queen won't dare make such an incredibly divisive move. Second, 'senior sources' say, who cares what the Queen says? He is, after all, the Chosen Leader of the People, and she's just some old bat. Why should he leave office just because Parliament, the Queen and the Constitution say he has to? What would they actually do about it? Specifically, sources have all said (and No 10 has refused to deny that he has said) that he will not leave number 10 until "dragged out by the police".

Needless to say, "constitutional crisis" doesn't even begin to cover that eventuality.


-----

As for the letter, he has now repeatedly said he will 'obey the law'. But his officials say they will 'test the limits' of the law. Specifically, one official explained that the law doesn't prevent him from saying other things as well as sending the letter. Now, legal experts have said that if he does this - say, by sending one letter asking for an extension, and another asking for the first letter to be ignored - he'll be in breach of the Act. But he can 'test' this in court, and of course he can gamble on the fact that Brexit is a fixed date that Parliament can't unilaterally alter, so at this point any stalling on his end may well get him the No Deal he wants (the EU is, as predicted, pretty scathing of his new suggestions - not only for their objectionable contents, but also for their vacuity - the smallprint doesn't specify how the no-border customs checks would be carried out and says this would be mutually agreed between the UK and the EU at some later date, with no provision for what might be done if agreement is not possible (perish the thought!)).

Specifically, the PM's people have been briefing pretty hard that if the EU does grant an extension, Boris will personally fuck all their shit up (paraphrasing slightly) - he will "sabotage" as much of the EU as he can, including scuppering any attempts to agree a new EU budget, effectively holding the EU hostage until UK is 'allowed' to have its 'clean' Brexit (i.e. No Deal).

It may well be that these briefings ARE the plan, and that he's reckoning that if he briefs hard enough, but off the record, what he would do if an extension were granted, he won't actually have to put any potentially-legally-incriminating threats on paper, and will be able to rely on the EU rejecting the letter he's forced to send.


Exciting times!

----

Oh, and the scandal about the "dancer" he funnelled money to, despite her companies' ineligibility and dubious reality, continues. It turns out he also wrote her a glowing letter of recommendation to be head of a UK quango on technology - despite having no experience heading any body, no experience of government work, no experience in the technology sector, and not living in the UK. The job came with a £100,000-a-year salary. Leaked emails from the woman in question show that even she was laughing with her friends about how "ridiculous" it was that she'd been able to make him recommend her for the job.

[Raphael]

But there's a problem: what happens if there's a VONC, and Johnson is voted out of office, exactly? Well, 'senior sources' at number 10 say he has a plan: fuck 'em. Johnson is intended to simply not leave. First of all, if he doesn't resign, then the Queen would have to remove him - and he thinks that the Queen won't dare make such an incredibly divisive move. Second, 'senior sources' say, who cares what the Queen says? He is, after all, the Chosen Leader of the People, and she's just some old bat. Why should he leave office just because Parliament, the Queen and the Constitution say he has to? What would they actually do about it? Specifically, sources have all said (and No 10 has refused to deny that he has said) that he will not leave number 10 until "dragged out by the police".

Needless to say, "constitutional crisis" doesn't even begin to cover that eventuality.

Wow.

[alynnidalar]

If it is any comfort, and I am certain it is not, at least this is distracting us Americans from our own ongoing dumpster fire.

[Richard W]

What would they actually do about it? Specifically, sources have all said (and No 10 has refused to deny that he has said) that he will not leave number 10 until "dragged out by the police".

The BBC would broadcast an emergency prime ministerial broadcast by the new prime minister. I'm not sure if the Queen would also need to broadcast to the nation. Are there not alternative command centres in case No. 10 is destroyed?

The new Home Secretary might choose not to be satisfied that Boris had truly renounced US citizenship, strip him of British citizenship, and then have him summarily removed from the prime ministerial flat as a US citizen without leave to remain (Immigration Act 2014, I believe). Otherwise, it might be trickier to remove him from the flat.