Zompist Bboard Again

Say one thing for our politicians: they can stay awake with the best of them. They may not start work until lunchtime, they may not work Fridays or weekends, they may take many long holidays throughout the year, and they may have six different bars in their place of work, but by golly they're not afraid to be in the office past midnight.

Parliament is now going to be prorogued. Yes, now. At gone 1AM. It's a good thing the Queen doesn't have to do this personally anymore (I think she's sent a letter). And it's not just turning the lights off, it's a whole ceremony and everything. And the PM was in the House half an hour ago debating.

But personally, I think I must prorogue my internet use now and seek some sleep... unlike the honourable members, I actually have to be up in the morning.

From the outside, it looks like the last few furious weeks have come down to a partial victory for Johnson.

He's had a bad week, to be sure. Losing six votes, and winning none, is pretty suboptimal. But assuming what he wants is a no deal Brexit, it sure seems that Parliament (though it did its best) didn't prevent that, and his maneuver to get them out of the way for five weeks will be an effective countermeasure.

So, yeah, they passed a law requiring him to ask for an extension. But that's after Oct. 19. Johnson can just stall for 12 days, and he gets Brexit.

Maybe Parliament moves to arrest him? But that will take time, and they didn't leave much of that. As the BBC notes, he can simply write one letter as dictated by the law, and another which says the opposite. There are surely even more clever ways to stall, and only a tiny bit of stalling is needed. It seems easy to get to a point where Parliament "wins"-- the law is upheld, Boris is properly imprisoned-- but it's Nov. 3 and whoops you Brexited.

Beyond all that, Parliament's writ doesn't extend to the EU27. They would probably grant a sincere request for an extension, but my impression is that they're tired of British politics, figure No Deal will hurt the UK more than them, and could easily refuse to grant the extension-- again, giving Johnson what he wants.

It's only a partial victory, though, because Parliament has denied him the ability to get a new election when he wants it. So he's not going to get a Parliamentary landslide before Brexit. What seems most likely is that Brexit happens, Parliament continues making it as hard as possible for Johnson, and finally agrees to an election when public opinion has turned on the (remaining) Tories.

Or wait, maybe Johnson comes up with a deal by Oct. 19! Hahaha.

(Maybe he could throw the DUP under the bus and get the EU to agree to Northern Ireland, but not Britain, remaining in the common market? But it would be an uphill battle to get that through Parliament.)

I'd be interested to know where I might be wrong here. I understand all of Sal's previous points about Parliamentary sovereignty, but they've played it very close to the line. They'd have to take some extraordinary actions very very quickly.

zompist wrote:Maybe he could throw the DUP under the bus and get the EU to agree to Northern Ireland, but not Britain, remaining in the common market?

That'd cause the economy of Northern Ireland to collapse and potentially reignite the Troubles, so I doubt the EU would agree to that either.

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:04 pm

zompist wrote:Maybe he could throw the DUP under the bus and get the EU to agree to Northern Ireland, but not Britain, remaining in the common market?

That'd cause the economy of Northern Ireland to collapse and potentially reignite the Troubles, so I doubt the EU would agree to that either.

Yeah, the EU objected to it so much that that was their original proposal. It was Theresa May who insisted on extending the backstop to the entire UK.

(Of course, she did so because the DUP objected to an NI-only backstop. I don't know that Johnson has the same constraint, because he doesn't have a majority anyway. To pass any deal at all, he'd need some of the opposition. Of course, they might say no because fuck Boris. But then everyone definitely gets No Deal Brexit, and that's going to be far worse for NI than an NI-only backstop.)

If only NI is part of the common market, that means a trade barrier between them and the GB. Which IMO would cause at least some unionists to take up arms.

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:13 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:09 pm I just had a completely absurd idea about something Boris Johnson might do to get around the no-hard-Brexit law. I am, however, worried about posting it here - I worry that if I post it here, some Leaver might read it and pass it on to someone else, and eventually it might reach Johnson's desk, and he might actually do it. So I won't post it for now. But if he should get the idea somewhere else and do it, or if someone better-known than me should bring it up and it should get publicly discussed, I might post here that it's the idea I meant when I wrote this post.

Is this the same idea I had? My idea offers no counter to the EU27 offering an unasked for extension.

Richard.

No, not that one.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:45 pm From the outside, it looks like the last few furious weeks have come down to a partial victory for Johnson.

Well, they haven't been a total loss, I'll go that far. I think the biggest benefit for him is that Parliament's defiance has helped draw the lines very clearly for the next election: the unelected, democratic Prime Minister, as the singular embodiment of the National Will, vs the undemocratic, elected representatives in Parliament ('the traitors', as they're widely called on the internet and in the daily newspapers).

However, he's been personally humiliated and put into a ghastly position. He's also lost his chance at an early election, which would have been a bonanza for him (even if it's now called before brexit, it won't happen until after brexit, assuming brexit is indeed on Halloween). He's also lost his majority in the process, so not having an election is no longer an option for him - he can't, for instance, back out of an election if brexit goes terribly, because he has absolutely zero ability to govern now. Opinions of him personally have plummeted - almost everyone, even those who support him, thinks he's done awfully (thinking a politician is a failure doesn't mean you won't vote for him - but it does typically mean that you're much more easily persuaded not to; Johnson's essentially burnt through years of political capital and loyalty with both the party and the people in only a week). And he's provoked an unnecessary civil war in his own party, which has spread the discontent beyond the relatively contained tumour of the remainer core, into not only the remainer-sympathising tissue, but even into some hard-brexit, ideological tory parts of the party (the, if you will, 'Old Bolshevik' Tories, who may back the policies but are inherently skeptical of authoritarian overreach (over them, of course - authoritarianism over the public they're fine with)). And in the creation of a 'One Nation Caucus', the opposition to him already has a name and an organisation - although it remains to be seen if that'll be the seed or something or quietly die. He's got his party into an attitude toward him that Thatcher and Blair took a decade to sink to, and that even May took years to develop. That doesn't bode well for his future.

I'd say it's been a defeat for him. It's not an unsalvagable defeat, because his long-term hand is probably very strong - we're going to have an election, he'll probably win it, it may well still be a historic triumph, and that'll be great for his reputation as well as bringing in younger (i.e. more extremist) MPs with personal gratitude toward him. But his position is much weaker than it was a week ago!

He's had a bad week, to be sure. Losing six votes, and winning none, is pretty suboptimal. But assuming what he wants is a no deal Brexit, it sure seems that Parliament (though it did its best) didn't prevent that, and his maneuver to get them out of the way for five weeks will be an effective countermeasure.

So, yeah, they passed a law requiring him to ask for an extension. But that's after Oct. 19. Johnson can just stall for 12 days, and he gets Brexit.

Maybe Parliament moves to arrest him? But that will take time, and they didn't leave much of that. As the BBC notes, he can simply write one letter as dictated by the law, and another which says the opposite. There are surely even more clever ways to stall, and only a tiny bit of stalling is needed. It seems easy to get to a point where Parliament "wins"-- the law is upheld, Boris is properly imprisoned-- but it's Nov. 3 and whoops you Brexited.

I don't disagree with this per se. But I think we should distinguish between "the cause of No Deal Brexit" and "the cause of Boris Johnson".

No Deal is still in my opinion by far the most likely option. I don't think Johnson can get a deal that Parliament will agree to, and I don't think the EU will agree to another extension without a deal. At least, not of the kind Parliament wants. If Johnson agrees the basis of a deal, the EU might give him a month to hammer out the details. Or the EU might give us another two years - punt it out of immediate mind, and give us the chance to have as many referendums and elections as we want. But the option Parliament wants - another three-month extension that is too short a time to meaningfully do anything in and just maintains the economic damage of uncertainty for longer - doesn't seem like something the EU would be interested in offering. Particularly when the person asking for it is obviously insincere.

[it should be said: there have been explicit though off-the-record briefings from senior EU officials that have said that they WOULD offer this extension. There have also, however, been explicit though off-the-record briefings from senior EU officials that have said that they would NOT offer the extension. Given that the offer has to be unanimous, the latter seems much more likely to me.]

So the cause of Brexit trundles on.

However, the cause of Boris Johnson is in a very, very painful position. The image that came to mind watching the debates was that Parliament has chained Johnson to the rock, and now we're just waiting for the vultures to come and peck out his internal organs. [Boris is a classicist, at least by affectation, so I think he'd appreciate the analogy...**]

Johnson has said repeatedly, and in graphic and evocative language, that he will not ask for any extension beyond Halloween. He was pretty clear on that in the leadership campaign - though to be sure, voters take campaign promises with a pinch of salt - and he has only become more and more clear on that as PM. He has, as it were, staked his reputation on it. For Boris to surrender now, and ask for an extension, would at the least be utterly humiliating in a way perhaps no previous Prime Minister has endured, and may also give rise to allegations of betrayal - which could be limited to hardline Brexit Party voters (itself a problem, since he hopes to win them back to the tories - the reason he's high in the polls, relatively speaking, is because he's persuaded those people to trust him, and losing their trust would be a big deal), or could even spread to Murdoch and his media baron friends, in which case the PM is fucked. Even if he manages to win everyone's sympathy and understanding - and to be fair, he's excellent at eliciting sympathy from people who would not show the same warmth to another politician in his position - it'll terribly undermine his future as PM. Power is built on the appearance of power. Grovelling to the EU because he's got the Labour Party's boot on his back and a leash round his throat is not how to make himself look like a credible and powerful politician. Particularly because a lot of his reputation is based on a sort of "he may be unorthodox, but he does what he says he'll do" impression, so watching him make promises he's then forced publically to break may earn him sympathy, but makes him a much less appealing political option.

So he doesn't do it? Well, he literally faces the threat of prison if he doesn't. And while the public may not like Parliament betraying the country by weaseling out of their democratic obligation to abide by the result of the referendum, the British public is by and large also very keen on the rule of law. If the opposition want an escape ladder out of the 'people vs parliament' hole they've dug for themselves, then "this Prime Minister lied to the Queen, illegitimately suspended Parliament so he could rule by decree in order to serve the wills of the most extreme members of his party, and then declared himself above the law; this is a coup d'etat, and he needs to be taken down a peg or two" is the best one they could possibly be handed. Indeed, Brexit may help to screw Johnson further - once the issue is out of the way, the public will be at liberty to settle some scores, and yes, some of that will be directed at the opposition, but I suspect that "we approve of what Boris did because at the time it just needed to be done, but now we need to punish him for it to make sure he doesn't set a precedent" could be a powerful line of thought for some of the electorate once Brexit is out of the way.

and to be fair, the Tories are also the party of law and order. Younger Tories might see brexit as paramount, but older ones don't, and breaking the law is more of an issue for a Tory PM than it would be for a Labour one. To use an American analogy, the Tories are still primarily the party of John McCain and John Roberts and James Comey, not the party of Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio (although it is moving in that direction). Witness the calibre of Tory that was purged by Johnson - including two former Chancellors and a former Attorney General. Leaked Whatsapp messages show at least two younger Tory MPs have suggest the PM simply defy the law - and that they got slapped down by the current Attorney General for it.

the government has said it'll seek to test the limits of the law - that is, it'll try to avoid the law without breaking it. But that's a risky line to take. The 'two letters' scenario has been described by senior lawyers as blatently illegal, and while he might be able to find some loophole, it would be a political and legal risk. Plus, even if he succeeds in avoiding an extension, the more legally secure the loophole is, the more it will presumably involve at least the appearance of him surrendering and asking for an extension, which brings all the damage to his image that actually surrendering would, and also probably damage to his reputation with voters who are not famed for their grasp of nuance.

In the short term the PM is in a ghastly position and I don't know how he's going to get out of it. Which, to be honest, is probably the opposition's priority here - they've reoriented the brexit issue into a personal attack on Johnson.

Johnson, meanwhile, remember is/was personally a Remainer, and decided to become the leading Brexiteer only by flipping a coin, and only on the basis of his career ambitions. Nigel Farage would happily go to jail to ensure a No Deal Brexit; Johnson very much wouldn't (it's conceivable that, if it came to it, he might go to jail to preserve his ego and his popularity, but he would not see it as a win!).

It's only a partial victory, though, because Parliament has denied him the ability to get a new election when he wants it. So he's not going to get a Parliamentary landslide before Brexit. What seems most likely is that Brexit happens, Parliament continues making it as hard as possible for Johnson, and finally agrees to an election when public opinion has turned on the (remaining) Tories.

The one good thing for Johnson here is that the longer things go on, the harder it is for Labour to refuse an election. They've already probably damaged their party doing so - denying the people an election is never a good look, even when the people don't actually want an election - and that's even with a good excuse. They've basically accepted damaging their own party in order to put Johnson personally on the meathook. But if Johnson comes back in the new parliament and says he wants a new election, but parliament won't be dissolved until October 1st (by which time brexit will either already have happened or already been avoided), it'll be very hard indeed for Labour to say no. And, in particular, it'll be extremely hard for the SNP to say no. Johnson hasn't tried the route of altering or overruling the FTPA by simple majority, because he knows he doesn't even have a simple majority right now, so there's no point wasting the capital in doing something controversial (changing the rules is always controversial even if it's legal). But if Brexit is out of the way, and the Scots are willing to have an election - and they will be, particularly if Labour aren't, because the SNP are now poised to absolutely muller both the Tories and Labour in Scotland - then he'll have a simple majority and I think he'll get his election one way or another.

Or wait, maybe Johnson comes up with a deal by Oct. 19! Hahaha.

(Maybe he could throw the DUP under the bus and get the EU to agree to Northern Ireland, but not Britain, remaining in the common market? But it would be an uphill battle to get that through Parliament.)

This is indeed being considered. I think the EU would accept at least the general principle of it. It's much more technologically possible to encompass, because it only involves controlling what goes on boats, rather than controlling hundreds of checkpoints in a way that disrupts the daily lives of thousands of people. and it's more politically doable, because everybody hates the DUP anyway. In a way, Johnson losing his majority actually gives him more freedom - the DUP's support isn't enough anymore, so nothing is enough for him without getting a lot of other votes on board, and if he does that then he doesn'tt need the DUP anyway.

I don't know if it's actually possible, because it's ideologically an outrage, and the DUP will be joined in that outrage by a lot of Tories. So it comes down to whether the other parties would help him out. It is genuinely possible, because averting No Deal is something a LOT of MPs in all parties want. But it's also not easy. Because the Lib Dems' priority, though they'd never permit it, is to prevent Brexit (which this wouldn't do) or, failing that, prove that Brexit is a bad idea retrospectively, and so they've no incentive to let the Brexiteers off the hook by giving them a less damaging version. And the SNP's priority is Scottish independence, which is best accomplished by a horrible brexit - they don't dare be seen to be the ones to cause it, but again, letting the english off the hook is not a priority for them. And Labour's priority is making Corbyn prime minister, which they further by saying that the prime minister is wrong on every issue that ever arises, so riding to the prime minister's rescue by agreeing with him on a key issue, proving that he was the right man for the job after all, is not appealing to them. So this deal - which has always really been the only deal ever on table, in terms of what both sides might plausibly agree to - can only get through if enough MPs put country before party. Which... well, in this atmosphere it is, unusually, possible, but I really wouldn't advise putting money on it.

It's also true that this might inspire unionist violence. This, however, is much less scary than republican violence. Both because unionist violence can't really do anything and mostly involves killing other unionists, whereas repulican violence involves killing english people, and because the violent unionists are little more than street gangs, whereas the violent republicans were an actual paramilitary army***.



*I could have sworn I had a first footnote but I can't think what it was

**the taoiseach has compared boris to hercules (after murdering his family) and offered to be 'his Athena'. The English papers have of course taken offence at the implications of homo stuff and the intolerable suggestion that an englishman might EVER need help in doing ANYTHING.

***one grimly amusing thing about the new ira has been their credibility gap to the old ira. After the McKee murder, the IRA made a few hints that the 'new IRA' should be careful what they wished for, and that if they really wanted 'the IRA' to return, perhaps it would. As the old IRA were a scary paramilitary that operated almost like a government, and mostly killed people who challenged its authority, and the 'new IRA' are a bunch of daylight-deprived 4chan incels who make blustery speeches, I think a lot of people will secretly have thought "I don't want the IRA to return, but you know, maybe if they could just pop back for a week or two to deal with these kids, would that be all bad!?"

Question: most people who aren't Leavers seem to agree that a no-deal Brexit would have all kinds of bad consequences, but - how long would it probably take until those bad consequences would kick in? Sure, some of the bad consequences have almost certainly already kicked in - the British economy is probably already in a worse shape than it would be if the Remain side had won the referendum. But how bad are things likely to get how quickly? This seems kind of relevant for the question of how hypothetical elections at which points in time would probably turn out.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:18 am Question: most people who aren't Leavers seem to agree that a no-deal Brexit would have all kinds of bad consequences, but - how long would it probably take until those bad consequences would kick in? Sure, some of the bad consequences have almost certainly already kicked in - the British economy is probably already in a worse shape than it would be if the Remain side had won the referendum. But how bad are things likely to get how quickly? This seems kind of relevant for the question of how hypothetical elections at which points in time would probably turn out.

Opinions differ.

One side says that we'll all have starved to death within the first week. Society will completely collapse.

The other side says that we'll immediately enter some sort of utopia, a rapture, if you will, in which all manner of thing will be well and everyone will be happy and sated.

The first side say the second side are delusional, and that any suggestion of non-starvation is a dangerous concession to the manipulations of the demagogues who are trying to delude us into thinking we won't all be dead by December.

The second side say the first side are demons sent from hell, manipulating the people as part of an evil world conspiracy called "Project Fear", probably orchestrated by the CIA and the EU's secret CIA, and any suggestion that we won't all have a pet unicorn by December is essentially an act of treason that should be punished by public execution.

It remains to be seen which side are correct.

[personally, I suspect they both are, and we'll all be eating our pet unicorns come mid-November, but we shall see!]

Current constitutional situation:

<insert meme of woman from Poltergeist screaming "what's happening!?">


So the Court of Session, the highest court in Scotland, has ruled that the Prime Minister misled the Queen and improperly and illegally advised her to prorogue Parliament.


Some issues:
- the court found that the advice therefore was 'null and has no effect'. The opposition are calling for Parliament to be recalled immediately as a result. However, Parliament was prorogued, so presumably even if it was done on bad advice it was still done. Does that mean that the Queen violated the constitution by proroguing Parliament without advice (given that the advice she had was 'null and has no effect')? More importantly, does that mean the PM is now obliged to give new advice to un-prorogue Parliament? On the one hand, that would seem to place an undue onus on him - after all, while the courts can surely find the PM's actual actions illegal, I think there have to be questions about the propriety of the courts trying to directly force the PM to take actions that are not actually necessary to avoid illegality (Parliament being prorogued was and is legal, it's just his advice to do so was illegal, so not reconvening it doesn't seem to break any laws, so why is it the court's business to dictate policy to an elected political legal?) - on the other hand, if the PM can give illegal advice and face no consequences, not even having to reverse the advice, then what's the incentive for him not to? Moreover, CAN Parliament be unprorogued!? The prorogation contains the summons to convene Parliament - MPs have basically been told "be back here for Parliament on the 14th" - so having given that legal order, does the Queen even have the authority to overrule herself and order them back immediately!? Also, the court order appears to say that the prorogation didn't actually happen, because the process that led to it was faulty - however, while that might be the normal procedure for annulling bureaucratic decisions, it seems constitutionally rather questionable because, as I say, constitutionally the advice to the Queen is only advice, and the prorogation is part of the Royal Prerogative (basically in practice reserved powers of the electorate). We all saw the prorogation, it had Black Rod and everything, so claiming it never happened seems a little questionable... and this seems to impact on whether Parliament needs to be reconvened immediately. If the prorogation never happened, then the PM is illegally preventing the representatives of the people from sitting in parliament, and that would seem to be grossly offensive to democracy and the constitution; even if he has appealed the decision, he must surely allow Parliament to sit until his position is confirmed by the courts. Alternatively, if the prorogation DID happen, then taking the drastic and possibly unconstitutional action to resummon the prorogued parliament (and then potentially have to re-prorogue it after the appeal) would surely be something best left until the courts have conclusively found it necessary. And what happens to any laws passed by Parliament if its reconvened now because it was never prorogued, but then is reprorogued because it's found that it was prorogued all along... did those laws get passed or not!?

- are those questions legal questions, or political questions? Courts don't normally like getting into politics, but they made an exception this time. Does that mean they've taken control of the process? Because the problem is, if these are political questions, they can't be answered, because the people who are meant to answer political questions, Parliament, have been prorogued!

- if Boris lied to the Queen in stating his reasons for prorogation, then does that not imply that he lied to the House when he stated the same reasons to it? Now of course, it's no secret that the PM lied to the House, literally everybody knows it, and PMs do it all the time. But if it's stated in black and white by a high court of appeal, that would seem to make it sort of official... and the penalty for any minister lying to the house is immediate resignation. Yet somehow I don't think the PM will be resigning. And the body that's meant to hold him to account on that issue, Parliament, has been prorogued, so...

- this ruling not only overturns the finding in a lower court in Scotland, but it also conflicts with a contrary ruling in the parallel case in England. Both cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court. However, an additional wrinkle here will be that Scottish law is theoretically distinct from English (and all other common) law. So what law does the Supreme Court use here? Even if in practice the two legal systems may not disagree on issues like this, we're still likely, in my view, to have an English court using English law overrule the highest court in Scotland on an issue of paramount importance to Scotland. I suspect it will be viewed as illegitimate by Scottish voters and be seen as further evidence of the need for independence.

-aaaagh!



Anyway, belated apologies to whomever it was here a few years ago who asked about prorogation, back when most people had never heard of it, and I handwaved away the possibility of a Canada-style prorogation crisis, because it had never happened before, nobody knew what it was, and it would serve no purpose. Apparently Brexit helps us all to explore new ways of living together!

imagine not having judicial review

If this stands, would that mean that Parliament is prorogued in England and not prorogued in Scotland?

dhok wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:40 am imagine not having judicial review

What's currently happening IS judicial review.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:55 am Anyway, belated apologies to whomever it was here a few years ago who asked about prorogation, back when most people had never heard of it, and I handwaved away the possibility of a Canada-style prorogation crisis, because it had never happened before, nobody knew what it was, and it would serve no purpose. Apparently Brexit helps us all to explore new ways of living together!

(waves hello) Wasn't that long ago, actually! (Guess I'm psychotic psychic or something.)

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:22 pm

vampireshark wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:02 pmThough, if everything's about to become a SNAFU, couldn't Parliament simply be prorogued on the advice of the prime minister (like with the case of Stephen Harper in Canada in 2008), or would that just create a bigger problem?

Prorogation isn't a thing here - it happens every year, but it's only a ceremonial thing, since the next session of parliament begins within a couple of days. The idea of the PM having parliament prorogued so that there was a substantial period of time during which parliament was not in session seems... bizarre to me. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but it doesn't seem like something that would naturally happen in this country. We went through this sort of thing with James II, and it didn't end well for him.

Besides, it doesn't seem like it would end well for anybody - it just postpones a reckoning, and prevents any business from being done. Admittedly it wouldn't be much worse than the current stasis, but...

But it's definitely a new WTF a day with the current situation. No idea what the way forward is, and, as the prorogation has happened, albeit on the basis of improper advice... this just opens a new Pandora's box of fun. Could the prorogation stand, though, on the basis that, while Her Majesty properly acts on her ministers' advice, the prorogation decision is ultimately hers and could have, in principle, been made without the advice?

Alternately, could another option be to accelerate the timetable and have the Speech from the Throne as soon as possible? (How much time would be needed to arrange/set up the event? I can imagine it would be... er, tight timing.)

vampireshark wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:58 am (Guess I'm psychic or something.)

Well done! You suggested that six months before Jacob Rees Mogg did, and when he suggested it everyone thought the idea was insane. Now here we are...

I'm actually a bit surprised, given that the PM went for a prorogation of five weeks instead of five days, that he didn't just go for five months, or five years...

But it's definitely a new WTF a day with the current situation. No idea what the way forward is, and, as the prorogation has happened, albeit on the basis of improper advice... this just opens a new Pandora's box of fun. Could the prorogation stand, though, on the basis that, while Her Majesty properly acts on her ministers' advice, the prorogation decision is ultimately hers and could have, in principle, been made without the advice?

Well, in my view, as a not-a-lawyer, speaking both in terms of the constitution as generally understood AND, you know, sanity and common sense, that's clearly the appropriate way to see this. Rightly or wrongly, the prorogation has happened; and if there was impropriety leading up to it, then that's only relevant in terms of punishing the person who acted improperly.

After all, we didn't cancel the referendum because one side was found to have fiddled its finances!

On the other hand, a lot of people felt we should cancel the referendum because Leave cheated, and a lot of people think we should cancel the prorogation because the PM cheated. It's sort of what we might call the 'gamification' of politics - of course if "the other player" has "cheated", you should "replay"...

And there does seem to have been a thing with judges in recent years where they simply decree that various historical events they don't like just never actually happened - specifically, that government actions that are the result of improper procedures should not just be cancelled, but retroactively nullified. [which is obviously based on an old principle - ultra vires - but there seem to be a lot more high-profile cases involving it these days. But then again, maybe that's just a recency bias in my memory...] Anyway I guess the argument would be that the improper advice was ultra vires and hence didn't exist, and constitutionally the queen prorogues parliament on the advice of the PM, and if he didn't advice her then the prorogation itself was also ultra vires, ergo parliament has not been prorogued...

...the problem with that is that while it might be pleasing to the minds of judges, with their notions of 'fairness' and 'justice' and whathaveyou, these notions are famously difficult to reconcile with the demands of politics, in which concepts like democracy and sovereignty and basic clarity and not having wars and the rest are given priority, and therefore some concept of the fait accompli ultimately has to be employed...

Alternately, could another option be to accelerate the timetable and have the Speech from the Throne as soon as possible? (How much time would be needed to arrange/set up the event? I can imagine it would be... er, tight timing.)

I won't pretend to know. I mean, usually it only takes days, but usually with more informal warning beforehand. And as i say, an issue here is that the prorogation included legally specifying when the next parliament begins, which might be an issue. I suppose the Queen could overrule herself...

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:58 pm Who's likely to be the next Speaker?

Bump.

And it’s a trivial question to be asking in the midst of so much political chaos, but whither Bercow? (I rather like the idea of him being given his own panel show myself.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:22 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:58 pm Who's likely to be the next Speaker?

Bump.

Who knows? An alien? A leopard? Will there even BE another Speaker!?

But seriously: it's normally very difficult to predict, and this time may be even worse. Because it's a job that few people want, and that only comes on the market very rarely, and is usually advertised at very short notice, it's not something that people can really plan toward or campaign for that much. In that sense, it's very unlike the 'leadership' positions in the US Congress. It's also a non-partisan job, which means that the favour of party establishment can actually make a candidate less appealing. And because it is a job that comes on the market so rarely, it's hard to have much meaningful precedent in terms of what sort of candidates win - there have only been 4 elections for Speaker in the last 40 years. What's more, before 2000 there was rarely a meaningful election per se - the preferred candidate was arranged in private negotiations and then elected generally unopposed, and the current electoral system has only been used once. [actually, three times, because there's a speaker election every time there's a general election. However, a sitting speaker hasn't failed to be re-elected, or even meaningfully opposed, within memory].

And this time, there's Brexit.

To give a quick summary of the election:

- you need to be nominated by 12 MPs, including at least 3 not from your party
- there's a secret ballot
- if you get under 5% of the vote and/or come last, you're eliminated
- if you get over 50% you win
- if nobody wins the first secret ballot, there's a second, and so on.

Traditionally, the speakership alternated between the two parties. However, Labour broke that norm in 2000 by electing one of their own members. However, they let the Tories elect a speaker in 2009.

What sort of person wins?

Last time the winner was a certain John Bercow. Bercow had been an MP for ten years. He never had any senior committee posts; he was for several years in the Shadow Cabinet, but resigned from that (twice) six years before becoming speaker. Originally on the far right of the party, he moved steadily to the left (hence his resignation from the shad cab, spurred by issues such as gay adoption and immigration). At one point it was thought he might even defect to Labou, but he didn't. He did take an advisory role for the Labour government, producing a policy report for them, but he did so with the support of the Conservatives. He was once awarded an 'Opposition MP of the Year' award. He was very involved in charity, and in non-partisan special issue stuff in Parliament, with particular interests in human rights (particularly in Burma), LGBT rights, mental health, brain tumours, and autism.

So, Bercow was an MP with appeal to both sides, an active political history, but no recent strong partisan involvement, and not particularly experienced or distinguished.

He won 54-45 over Sir George Young (now Baron Young). Young had been an MP for around 35 years. More than a decade earlier, he'd reached the heights of Transport Secretary. He ran for Speaker in 2000, but lost, partly because he'd too recently been in government; he then stayed on the backbenches for nine years in order to run again. He lost to Bercow, but as a consolation returned to Cabinet as Leader of the House. During his backbench years, he was Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, an important but unsexy committee position relevant to being speaker.

[Young's greatest moment in oratory was when, as Minister for Housing, he described homeless people as 'the people you step over when leaving the opera'. Peak Tory. To be fair to the man, though, he also pushed forward the legislation to allow rape victims to remain anonymous.]

In 2000, the winner, albeit through a different process, was Michael Martin. Martin had been an MP for around 20 years, and was from the right of the party (being one of the few Labour MPs to vote against gay rights). He was First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means at the time - which is to say, the senior Labour MP in the 'hierarchy' of the Speakership. [the deputy Speaker is the Chairman of Ways and Means (even though the Ways and Means committee was abolished decades ago), and he in turn has two deputies - the Speaker and First Deputy are of the same party, while the Chairman and Second Deputy are of the opposite party).]

Ways and Means is clearly a major way to become Speaker. 6 of the last 10, 5 of the last 7 and 4 of the last 5 Speakers have come from one of these three deputy positions, and Bercow was the first NOT to have held such a post since 1976. On the other hand, in Bercow's election the man who 'should' have replaced him, Sir Alan Hollinghurst, the Chairman, only came 4th, so it's not exactly a surefire path to victory.

What factors might be relevant?

By tradition, it's Labour's 'turn', but since they stole the Tory's turn not long ago, the Tories might want to steal one back. The move away from negotiations and toward the exhaustive ballot also probably helps break down party discipline.

It's hard to see a strong Brexiteer winning - they're the minority. Similarly, there are probably only a few Tories who have the cross-party support to win. However, because an absolute majority is required, unless the Opposition can coalesce around a single candidate it's possible that a candidate less favoured by the Opposition might win with Tory and Brexiteer votes. This may be a problem for a strong Remainer candidate, if Leavers are willing to unite behind a 'moderate' to block them.

More generally, given the context I suspect there'll be a drive to elect a strong defender of Parliamentary rights. On the other hand, there will also be some who worry that the position is becoming too politicised, and who will want to take a little bit of the heat out of the issue.

There's also the other issue: bullying. Before Brexit dominated everything, there was quite a bit of consternation around the issue of harassment in Westminster, and about Bercow's behaviour personally.

Who is running?

Already 9 candidates have officially declared. There may well still be a few yet to come. However, it looks like the favourites are clear.

#4: Charles Walker

Chairman of the Procedures Committee; Vice Chairman and Acting Chair of the 1922 Committee. A backbench Tory leader, who also once gained a standing ovation from Labour MPs for opposing a previous attempt to undermine Bercow. He might be the Tories' best bet to keep the position. He's an ally of Bercow, which will gain him trust and goodwill, though he's not put himself forward as an ardent Remainer. He won't be Labour's first (or second, or third, or...) choice... but if the Opposition can't coalesce around a candidate, Walker might put together enough votes on the Tory side, together with some Opposition MPs who want to minimise politicisation by appointing a Tory-who-non-Tories-like, to take the position. He's a dark horse, but worth watching. He's won several awards for his oratory, and won acclaim for openly discussing his struggle against Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. [another option here is Dame Eleanor Laing, Second Deputy Chairman, but I think she may have too many skeletons]

#3: Chris Bryant

Might be an appealing, unconventional candidate. He comes across as a little odd; he's a gay ex-vicar. He will definitely interest the more radical Remainers - he was the won who put forward a motion pointing out that the same bill couldn't be debated twice - and in general he's passionate, committed to Remain and to Parliamentary supremacy, and apparently quite excited by procedural technicalities. On the other hand, he'll also appeal to those who want to project a softer, friendlier Parliament than Bercow did - he's a congenial chap, fairly soft-spoken, has a sense of humour. His downside may be that he's TOO passionate, however - do MPs really want a Speaker who has called for Donald Trump to be arrested for inciting hatred? Certainly the Leavers will HATE the idea of Bryant, so it would require the Remainers to all unite around him. He also has some controversies in his past around the Expenses Scandal - it's a decade ago so no longer a burning issue, and he wasn't one of the worst offenders, but MPs concerned about the image of Parliament might be a bit uneasy giving ammunition to skeptics.

#2: Harriet Harman

Not long ago, people were suggesting her as caretaker PM, so she clearly has support. Her two main selling points are her experience - she's Mother of the House - and being a woman. She wants to eliminate the word 'lady', and build a cross-party coalition of women. She's unusually high-profile for a Speaker candidate, having been Deputy Leader and Chairman of the Labour Party, as well as (temporary) Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. However, she says it's important that the Speaker now be someone of 'national standing' (i.e. herself), and that she will be a 'champion' for Parliament and the resistance. She'd certainly be a strong option for Remainers, because she's not been shy about her views, and she does have experience. She'd also be an obvious choice to deal with issues of bullying and sexual harrassment, being a woman, and a bunch of moderate women may vote for her because she's a woman. I think her problem might be that although she'll have a lot of backers, she'll also probably have quite a lot of opposition - her very strong not just Remainer but Labour identity, and a certain... forcefulness of manner... will get a lot of backs up, and risks looking TOO political (not just because she's political, but because she's famous enough to be known to be political - someone like Bryant, by contrast, is only known to obsessives). I suspect it may come down to the order in which other candidates are eliminated. If it's her against a Tory in the final vote, she'll probably win. If it's her against a Labour rival, she'll probably lose. And that Labour rival would probably be:

#3: Sir Lindsey Hoyle.

The current Chairman (i.e. Deputy Speaker). As Deputy Speaker, he has experience chairing debates, and is well-liked for doing so. He's strong-willed, but he's less abrasive than Bercow - less shouting, more jokes. He's got a great Lancastrian accent, which is always a plus. He's not a prominent Remainer, he's not 'campaigning' to be a 'champion'. He doesn't look like a political appointment, because he's completely unknown to the public, and he's next in the chain of succession, so it looks like a normal bureaucratic promotion. But he's been close to Bercow and, while not being as radical as Bryant or Harman, will be seen as a secure vote for Parliamentary rights. He has more cross-party support than Harmon, and is the clear frontrunner... but as I say, he could still end up screwed by the way the ballots fall out. I think if the last three are Laing/Walker, Harman and Hoyle, it may be hard for Hoyle; he probably needs Harman eliminated earlier in the process.

Thank you, Salmoneus.




------------------------------------------------------------





Just got off the phone with my local bookstore. A lot of the books I order there are English-language, and perhaps some of those get ordered from abroad, so after I placed the order for the next book I plan to buy, I asked them whether there is any risk of supply problems because of Brexit in the future. They told me they usually order books, including English-language ones, from their wholesaler, and they don't know yet whether their wholesaler has any worries about Brexit. Ok. Hm.

Thanks for the breakdown, Sal. I watched a few clips of Hoyle last night and I can definitely see the appeal of his avuncular Northern charm. (Not to speak of the ample opportunity it would provide for "according to Hoyle" quips.)

I wonder if anyone has asked the current occupant of the White House how many Brexit refugees he plans to let in.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:39 am Thanks for the breakdown, Sal. I watched a few clips of Hoyle last night

Good gods! Is American politics so dull that you have to resort to watching clips of British speakership candidates!?

Looking briefly on youtube, the clips seem, unfortunately but probably inevitably, to skew toward the confrontational; he's usually (from what I've seen) a bit more sedate than that...

and I can definitely see the appeal of his avuncular Northern charm.

And it would give a great chance for us to show off our regional linguistic diversities. Bercow had his positives, but I fear he did rather reinforce American stereotypes of us a tad, and a Lancastrian might help redress that...

[come to think of it, watching the House of Commons would be great training for anyone learning English, who wanted exposure to accents. You get most of the UK's accents there (although I assume there's no Teessiders, or that they adopt some other accent...). One of the top clips for Hoyle's name is a little clip of a misunderstanding, where you get a Lancastrian, a Scot, a Kiwi and a Welshman...]

To be (a bit more) serious though, it probably would be good to have a northerner. Pedantry for the rules comes better from a northerner, and it would help defuse a little of the resentment from what you might call the proto-Trumpista crowd (not the ones like Trump (Farage etc) but the ones like Trump voters - hard Leavers from postindustrial areas particularly outside the south). It should be trivial what accent someone has, but it's so inflammatory for some people here, and I think people would be at least 50% less pissed off by a "no-nonsense northerner" enforcing rules than they would be by a "pretentious toff".

[I am, admittedly, biased. I used to have some relatives with Lancastrian accents, and I find it just wonderful. Yorkshire's beautiful, of course, but Lancashire is like Yorkshire that's a little less highly strung and doesn't take itself so seriously...]

(Not to speak of the ample opportunity it would provide for "according to Hoyle" quips.)

Is that still a phrase for you? In my experience, it was a phrase for my Irish family, but the English side, while understanding the reference, attached nothing to it, and these days I doubt many people under 50 would recognise it.

Card games, unfortunately, have almost vanished except among the elderly (I mean, beyond top trumps or snap). It's strange, really, given that boardgames are finally starting to be accepted again, that there's no interest in card games, (other than the collectable sort).

(I grew up with old maid and beggar my neighbour, before graduating to rummy and fives.)

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:04 pmwhere you get a Lancastrian, a Scot, a Kiwi and a Welshman...

A Lancastrian, a Scot, and a Welshman walk into the House of Commons...