British Politics Guide

[Moose-tache]

But ousting a sitting PM who has the confidence of the house? No.

I'm talking about Theresa May.

I think by "has the confidence of the house" Sal means "hasn't been pushed out by Parliament in an actual vote of no confidence." Regardless of whether a Revenge of the Nerds cross-party coalition can sidestep her, or Parliament might treat her legislative agenda like a snake in church, she still cannot be kicked out because, like Sal said, nobody wants to see what's behind door number 2 17.

[Salmoneus]

Yeah, she can't do that. Only time that would happen would be if the prime minister had, say, launched a military coup d'etat.

Gough Whitlam. It is the nuclear option.

But Whitlam, crucially, did NOT have the confidence of the legislature, and couldn't pass supply. If May loses confidence and supply, then the situation would indeed be very different. Although I'd note that the Queen is generally both stronger (because less vulnerable - Whitlam told Kerr to his face that if necessary he'd sack him if Kerr didn't dismiss his government first, which the Queen is in no imminent danger of, and hence can be slower to act) and much weaker (because she has less legitimacy than a governor-general, and is less easily replaced - Kerr was disposable and could sacrifice himself, but it's not so easy for the monarchy) her governors general.

But ousting a sitting PM who has the confidence of the house? No.

I'm talking about Theresa May.

The House very recently officially promised that she did have indeed their utmost confidence, and it's not for mere mortals like you or me or the Queen to gainsay that...

[Richard W]

The House very recently officially promised that she did have indeed their utmost confidence, and it's not for mere mortals like you or me or the Queen to gainsay that...

I understood that they merely declined to formally declare that they had no confidence in her.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

The House very recently officially promised that she did have indeed their utmost confidence, and it's not for mere mortals like you or me or the Queen to gainsay that...

I understood that they merely declined to formally declare that they had no confidence in her.

In Westminster style politics, same difference.

[Salmoneus]

To recap:

JRM: we're ready to support the PM's deal, we just need to remove the backstop first
EU: we're not removing the backstop
Boris: the PM should have asked to not have the backstop. This time we need to "make clear that we really mean it".
EU: we're not removing the backstop
PM: Parliament should vote to remove the backstop. Once I can show Parliament doesn't actually WANT the backstop, obviously the EU will remove it
EU: we're not removing the backstop

Every announcement that it'll all be ok as soon as we remove the backstop is greeted breathlessly by the media, who are so excited that there's a general "agreement" between all parties (other than the EU), and that real "progress" is being made (in circles). The only question now is why Theresa May was so silly as to ask for the backstop in the first place! It seems so simple, we just get rid of the backstop and it's all OK.

[the EU is not removing the backstop]

[alice]

Aren't there Good Friday-related legal issues with removing the backstop anyway?

[mèþru]

Yes, and I think that Labour and the DUP should be opposed to any backstop removal for those exact reasons.

[chris_notts]

Aren't there Good Friday-related legal issues with removing the backstop anyway?

It's not obvious to me that the issues are any less with the backstop in place. They're issues with Brexit itself.

The spirit of the GFA was that both communities would be given just and equal treatment, which placing a border in the Irish sea does not do. It just shifts the balance in favour of the Republican community, who get no border on "their" side. I don't see an NI backstop as much more compatible with the spirit of the peace that was brokered than the dituation with no backstop.

Theresa May extended the backstop to the whole UK, but (a) with some restrictions that still mean NI will have a special status in the UK market, and (b) with the monstrous implication that the UK would have no right of withdrawal, regardless of what the people of Great Britain or NI might want or vote for, or what the EU might do post-exit. In the process she ensured that we'll either not be able to "take back control", which was apparently the whole point of Brexit, or we'll have to jettison NI and abandon the loyalist community for the rest to escape during the next phase of negotiations. No magic solution or technology exists to let us leave the backstop with NI.

The basic problem is that leaving the Single Market and respecting both sides in NI isn't possible. The entire UK leaving the Single Market and respecting the GFA is not possible. The choices are basically:

1. Stay in large parts of the Single Market, in which case Brexit is mostly pointless unless all you care about is EU immigration, and worse than pointless because we'd have no ability to protect our interests. Even the EFTA countries have some ability to push back, and the right to leavr.

2. Leave with no deal and repudiate the GFA

3. Jettison NI, which IMO violates the spirit if not the letter of the peace, to achieve a meaningful Brexit for the rest of the UK

The problem is that Theresa May is pretending she can avoid all three of these outcomes in the long term.

[Salmoneus]

Well, May's come up with a brilliant new plan that has caused the various rebel agreements (by Cooper, Grieves, etc) to fail. What we're going to do now is have another vote on her deal in another two weeks.

However, the result may be different, because during these two weeks, May will completely renegotiate her deal. The final deal two weeks from now will, we're given to understand, not include any backstop, but instead will just give us everything we want, and nothing we don't want.

[chris_notts]

Well, May's come up with a brilliant new plan that has caused the various rebel agreements (by Cooper, Grieves, etc) to fail. What we're going to do now is have another vote on her deal in another two weeks.

However, the result may be different, because during these two weeks, May will completely renegotiate her deal. The final deal two weeks from now will, we're given to understand, not include any backstop, but instead will just give us everything we want, and nothing we don't want.

To May, keeping the Conservative party together seems to be more important than the national interest, honesty, or maintaining an appearance of sanity. It seems like she'll happily march us all off a cliff to keep her band of loons marching together in the same direction. She must know by now the promise of Brexit is undeliverable.

The big Conservative grassroots project has proved impossible to deliver and stuck us with impossible choices. For the good of the country, the Conservative party must be put out of its misery.

Unfortunately its collective insanity seems to include a belief that they'll ultimately be rewarded at the ballot box for creating a new Great Depression, declaring martial law, and putting us in the position of choosing between importing medicine or food, and by the time that hypothesis has been tested it'll be too late.

[Moose-tache]

To May, keeping the Conservative party together seems to be more important than the national interest...

Of course she is concerned primarily with the success of her party. That's her job. You might as well complain about CEOs who don't see the future well-being of all mankind as their primary duty. If you want the Prime Minister to give a shit about the national interest, you'll have to wait until the national interest gains the ability to come to life and fire her.

[chris_notts]

To May, keeping the Conservative party together seems to be more important than the national interest...

Of course she is concerned primarily with the success of her party. That's her job. You might as well complain about CEOs who don't see the future well-being of all mankind as their primary duty. If you want the Prime Minister to give a shit about the national interest, you'll have to wait until the national interest gains the ability to come to life and fire her.

That's not her job, or at least it shouldn't be.

Firstly, that kind of thinking is ultimately self defeating. Holding you party together short-term is pointless if you then f*** up things to such an extent that electoral oblivion beckons, so good PMs have to do a relatively good job for the country not just for their party membership. May is in danger of maintaining the unity of a bunch of lemmings who really fancy seeing what's on the other side of that cliff over there.

Secondly, there is a general expectation that prime ministers look after the interest of the nation in times of crisis. A prime minister who waged an irrational, unjust or unsuccessful war for short-term party political reasons would be judged very harshly, and that's the kind of situation we're in with brexit. It's fundamentally reshaping our most important economic and security relationships. Prime ministers shouldn't play childish games with that kind of issue.

If your objective is just to occupy the seat a little bit longer then placating the loons on the big issue of the day might be personally a sensible strategy. But it's morally and ethically unacceptable, and I don't think I'm in a minority in thinking so.

[mèþru]

I think we're far beyond the point where it makes sense to talk about morality and ethics in the same sentence as one about Theresa May.

[Frislander]

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH how many fucking time does the EU need to say "the Irish backstop is necessary to keep peace in Ireland everyone agrees to this we will not move" before these fucking airheads in our parliament actually get it into their thick fucking skulls GGRRRRRRRRAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KathTheDragon]

Too many

[Moose-tache]

If someone else is pointing out that your plan is self-contradictory, you can just frame it as a contest of wills between two parties, rather than facts vs feelings. That cruel person over there wants to make two and two equal four! How could they do this to us?

Chris Notts: I wasn't referring to what May should morally do. If you work for the conservative Party, then the Conservative Party is your chief subject of concern, not all the little children's hopes and dreams. Little children's hopes and dreams don't participate in no confidence votes, do they?

[Salmoneus]

I think we're far beyond the point where it makes sense to talk about morality and ethics in the same sentence as one about Theresa May.

Frankly, I think it's easy for people who don't understand politics very well to simply write people off as immoral. But of course those people have to make decisions within a constrained context. May has no good options.

It's true that No Deal may well destroy her party electorally, at least in the short term (though it may not, if they're able to blame the EU rather than themselves). But refusing to abide by the result of a referendum will ALSO destroy her party electorally. Calling a new referendum will also destroy her party electorally, and lead to riots in the streets. Calling an election will also probably destroy her party electorally, but that's irrelevent, because she can't do that even if she wants to.

It's not clear that there's anything she can do that would actually be good for the country right now. Even resigning at this point is hard to spin as a positive way forward.

May thinks, correctly, that the best she can get out of this is her deal, ideally sweetened by some sort of legal promises from the EU. The only way her deal gets through - with or without sweeteners - is if parliament (and ideally the eu) caves at the last minute. Which, we should say, may well happen - Parliament just voted (non-bindingly) to rule out no deal, so it may well be that on the 28th march they go for the deal rather than no deal. It's not insane or immoral for her to pursue what she thinks is the only non-catastrophic way out of this mess.

Now, it's true that she shouldn't be here anyway. She should have resigned ages ago to let a new leader hold fresh elections. But it's too late for that now.


-----------


To recap some other alternatives she has open to her:

- fuck over northern ireland with a hard border. Arithmetically impossible.
- fuck over northern ireland by giving it away to the EU. Arithmetically impossible.
- hold a new referendum. Will cause 1/3rd of the population to riot on the streets, will destroy conservative party for a generation. Probably arithmetically impossible anyway.
- hold fresh elections. Will create an even more badly hung parliament. Will resolve little, as both major parties will lack a coherent manifesto position on brexit. Will mean a new government takes over with only about 2 weeks to renegotiate brexit. Will be bad for conservative party. Also, arithmetically impossible.
- cancel Brexit. Will cause 1/2 of the population to riot in the streets, will destroy conservative party permanently. Has the advantage of being possible; has disadvantage of probably leading to her own literal assassination.

[alice]

Alright, Sal: What would *you* do if you were our PM? For that matter, what would anyone do?

[mèþru]

I would ask the Supreme Court of the UK if Article 50 can be unilaterally canceled. If so, I'd do that and then hold a second referendum; I think that in the last several months there's been enough evidence of illegal campaign activity to invalidate the original. If Article 50 can't be unilaterally cancelled from the point of UK law, I'd negotiate with Europe for a bilateral withdrawal. If they refuse, then I'd try to get leaders of the SNP and Remainer and Brexit factions of both major parties into a room and refuse to let them out of it until they have a plan that Europe can accept or until a medical emergency among one of them. Also, my cabinet would consist of politicians from all over the political spectrum except because this is a crisis that requires a national unity government.

[Salmoneus]

I would ask the Supreme Court of the UK if Article 50 can be unilaterally canceled.

It can be, in the sense that we don't need EU permission. It can't be in the sense that the PM can't do it - Parliament gave its consent to trigger article 50, which means parliament needs to give its consent to cancel that. Parliament will not do that.

Also, asking the Supreme Court is futile, because it would take months for a court case to work its way up to the supreme court and be settled there, and we don't have months.

If so, I'd do that and then hold a second referendum

You'd cancel Brexit BEFORE asking the opinion of the public? Wow, you'd piss off both sides of the debate! Also, you will physically be lynched.

I think that in the last several months there's been enough evidence of illegal campaign activity to invalidate the original.

Most people will disagree with you. A few minor questions about the original source of some donations to the non-official leave campaign is a very flimsy basis on which to discard the will of the people! There will be riots, and you'll make the far right into martyrs (innocent until proven guilty, and all that...).
In any case, the PM can't actually call a referendum without the consent of the House, and the House won't grant it.

If Article 50 can't be unilaterally cancelled from the point of UK law, I'd negotiate with Europe for a bilateral withdrawal. If they refuse, then I'd try to get leaders of the SNP and Remainer and Brexit factions of both major parties into a room and refuse to let them out of it until they have a plan

The Prime Minister can't do that. We have a thing in the UK called "habeus corpus", which means that politicians don't have the power to lock people up indefinitely without charge. And if you did try to settle brexit through the suspension of the rule of law in this way, you'd succeed in uniting all parties into defiance of your tyranny!

Also, my cabinet would consist of politicians from all over the political spectrum except because this is a crisis that requires a national unity government.

Will you force them to serve in your cabinet? If not, then no, it won't. Absent a formal coalition agreement, ministers serving in your government by definition will not be members of other parties. Even if they wanted to join you, which they won't, it would be political suicide for them. And a formal coalition agreement would take major concessions on a wide range of policies, while gaining you nothing at all (because you can formally ally with all the parties you want, it won't get the actual MPs to vote for you).

The Tories can stand around shouting "all opposition parties must stop opposing us and obey our commands, because we need national unity!" as much as they want, but it will avail them nothing, because the opposition parties disagree with them.


These things are not within the power of the PM to accomplish.


alice: what would I do in May's position? Run around screaming? I would have either resigned or called fresh elections long ago. But having not done that, and having reached this point, I guess I'd do... more or less the same? Unless there's actually some other deal to be done with the EU, and if there is I don't know what it could be, I don't see that she has much choice anymore.