Silly Headlines
- Financial Times: The week parliament takes back control of Brexit
- BBC: MPs voting on plan to take control of process
- Wall Street Journal: U.K. Parliament Seeks to Seize Control of Brexit Agenda
- CNN: Brexit deadlock as MPs take control of process from Theresa May
- Washington Post: Parliament to exert control over Brexit with “indicative votes”
- AP News: UK government defiant as Parliament takes control of Brexit
- New York Magazine: What Happens Now That Parliament Has Seized Control
Every one of those titles is flawed. Parliament has no means of “taking control” other that outing May and putting in a PM who would bow to the wishes of Parliament.
This was the subjected of at times heated debate yesterday on my website where I posted Brexit Groundhog Day # 402 (Or Whatever): MPs Attempt Brexit Process Takeover.
That title could have been a bit better, but my lead-in image accurately stated the position. The vote was not legally binding.
I may have run out of characters (The Maven allows 80). I did spend the entire article mocking the idea. My opening lead-in was “Brexit silliness has been ongoing for at least a year. I made up a number. MPs voted to take control of Brexit. So What? “
So What?
Yes that is the correct idea. Now let’s flash forward to my bottom line.
Here’s the bottom line that few seem to realize. MPs can instruct the Prime Minister to do something but they cannot force the PM to do it. The EU deals with heads of states, not MPs.
One person, I believe from the UK responded that I was wrong. I repeatedly asked how the MPs could force May to do anything. I got nonsense for a response, including this silliness: “Nick Boles a Tory rebel MP was asked by Emily Maitlis on BBC2 would happen if Theresa May ignored the result of the indicative vote, he replied that We would enact legislation to force her to go back to Brussels.”
What a laughable joke. They would pass legislation. So what? Parliament cannot force Theresa May to go to Brussels.
Not Legally Binding
- The Guardian in yesterday’s Live blog: Theresa May stated “The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea – staying in a customs union with the EU.”
- The Financial Times: “The so-called indicative votes, tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, would not be legally binding on the government but could be the strongest indication yet of what kind of Brexit deal could pass the Commons.”
Both of those idea state the situation accurately. Eurointelligence is even more emphatic.
No, the UK parliament has not taken control
At 3:00 AM this morning, Eurointelligence posted this headline: No, the UK parliament has not taken control
Be wary of blather. Nothing has been taken off the table. Nobody is in control. The UK press hails last night’s passing of the so-called Letwin amendment as the House of Commons finally taking control of Brexit. It certainly demonstrates that the UK government has lost its majority and that elections will probably happen very soon. But the impact on Brexit itself is far less clear. And nobody seems to be in control.
Most of the UK’s political class, including MPs, do not understand the legal status of last week’s resolution by the European Council. It constitutes an official adjunct to EU law. It sets out two clear pathways to avoid a no-deal Brexit – either pass the deal this week, and leave on May 22; or agree to hold European elections and leave later, which would also require a political process.
Yesterday May explicitly ruled out support for a no-deal, but beware: this is merely her saying that this is not her first choice. She said parliament can stop it. This is true but also misleading. Parliament can stop it by revoking Art 50, or replacing her another leader within the next 14 days. Neither is very likely.
Accidental Brexit
This Paragraph is key.
It is not hard to see how an accidental no-deal Brexit can still happen: Theresa May loses the meaningful vote; indicative votes produce a narrow victory for one of the alternative options; May refuses to honour the vote; May refuses European elections; she goes to Brussels on April 12 with nothing to say; Emmanuel Macron says Non.
Wresting Control
That’s it. No one can force May to do anything. But they can remove her.
Radical Idea
Tories fear a general election. They could easily lose although they are slightly ahead in the polls.
Rules state that Tories can only hold a leadership challenge once every 365 days.
Why Not Change the Rules?!
I believe there is still a small window of opportunity, thanks to the EU-granted extension, not for parliament to wrest control, but for Tories to do so by changes the rules.
I am unclear of the process in which Tories can do this. But there are 15 days before the April 12 cutoff. If the Tories can quickly change the rules then vote Theresa May out, say within the next 5 days, the Tories do have a chance to wrest control.
Bottom Line
The UK parliament cannot wrest control of Brexit against May’s will.
The Tories may have a small window of opportunity if they agree to change the rules, then quickly act on it. I believe this takes a minimum of 10 days, so the window of opportunity for this is 4-5 days.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
No Mish you’re wrong. Parliament can bring forward a bill, pass an Act of parliament, that will require the government to reflect parliament’s wishes. They have not done so yet. Note the previous Cooper amendment would to taken that route.
The votes today are indicative, designed to flesh out what the House thinks about various other alternatives. But the plan is to narrow them down over a series of votes. No-one expects anything binding to come out of today, nor is that the intention.
Two points: Parliament passes a ‘Bill’, not an ‘Act’. It only becomes the latter with Royal Assent. On Royal Assent, and also Royal Consent which is required if the matter to be discussed touches on the Crown or its Prerogative, both these functions are entirely under the control of the executive, namely the Crown and the Privy Council. If Parliament passes a Bill Mrs May hates she can use those powers to refuse it Assent. This power might not have been used since 1708 but it is alive and kicking just as Bercow’s 1604 rule. And there is no power on earth that can challenge that.
If I understand correctly you are referencing Queen Anne and the Scottish Militia bill of 1708? How is that relevant? And I’m not sure why you compare this to a reasonable decision taken by the Speaker? Of course we are in unprecedented times.
You said that Parliament can pass an Act to compel the Government to act: it can’t. Yes, it can pass a Bill to do that but the Prime Minister can and should advise Her Majesty to refuse any such Bill Assent. That kills it stone dead. I do not approve of what the Speaker has facilitated, that is to say to allow Backbenchers to take over the Order Paper. It is the convention that the Government of the day controls the Order Paper save on very specific occassions. This is setting a terrible precedent which future Governments will rue the day.
Only if they are Rogue governments like this one. Mrs May is not an absolute monarch and has abused her office in the most contempt.
You made the point “This power might not have been used since 1708 but it is alive and kicking just as Bercow’s 1604 rule” … I don’t see the comparable nature of the two: Bercow maintained the precedent from 1604, but you equate that to the 1708 Scottish Militia bill which would involve breaking precedent? You go on to say: “It is the convention that the Government of the day controls the Order Paper save on very specific occassions.” What, then, of private members bills? These happen all the time in the UK so describing this as only ‘on very specific occasions’ is fairly misleading.
The substantive point is that merely because a power has not been exercised since Queen Anne in 1708 does not mean that that power no longer exists – it does and it can be used and should be used. Further remember that any proposition that touches on the Prerogative, as for example Cooper’s ideas would do, cannot be discussed (at third reading I think) without the express consent of the Sovereign. This has been withheld frequently.
By ‘specific occasions’ I was alluding to opposition days where the opposition takes control of the Order paper. However, it is the convention that the Government controls the business and this is how it should be. Like many people you miss the simple point that Parliament is not the Government, it does not rule. “The UK parliament has long been a predominantly policy-influencing legislature. The USA system, by contrast, has a predominantly policy-making legislature coupled with an executive veto. This is a further reason why the moves by backbench MPs to propose and pass bills should perhaps cause us to raise a constitutional eyebrow.”
Just to be clear, Parliament is the two Houses acting in concert with the Crown, i.e. The Crown in Parliament passes Acts of Parliament. The Crown will generally give assent to those Bills the Government advises should receive assent. Since Mrs. May is essentially the head of the Government, she is unlikely to give advice to assent to Bills of which she does not approve, and QE-II has pretty much gone along with everything thrown in front of her with the advice to give assent.
However, the best thing QE-II could do at this point is to prorogue Parliament and put this shite-show mercifully to death by letting the standing Act of Parliament triggering Brexit do its thing.
You are right that Parliament is not just the Commons: the High Court of Parliament is the Crown, the Lords and Commons. The Crown will indeed usually Assent Bills, but I can see that Assent would be refused if the Commons sought to do something contrary to the Constitution, like grant itself perpetual life. But it is essential that the power to refuse is maintained, as it is in the USA for example.
I think that it would have been better for the Law to have taken its course and we left on Friday with no agreement. The Commons has gone mad and I partly blame the poor quality of MPs (far too many PPE and ‘professional politicians’) and also the Fixed Term Parliament Act which has caused a lot of problems.
The decline of the British Empire seems to have coincided with enactment of the Parliament Act 1911, which diminished the role of Lords in the running of government; but given the whack-job peers who have been created since then, I guess my point is moot.
I think the Parliament Act of 1911 has unbalanced things. I think the Commons has become arrogant and over mighty. Ironically a good example of that was the creation of the NHS in 1948 where private property was appropriated without compensation.
Mish, she either obeys an act of Parliament or she goes, resigns whatever. Mrs May has flouted all Parliamentary norms. She has carried on when she lost votes in Parliament as if either they didn’t matter or she had won or they didn’t matter. May was asked to publish her legal advice. She refused. She lost a vote on this, the vote had no force attached to it. She refused to follow the will of Parliament. Another motion was laid in Parliament. This stated she was in contempt of Parliament. She lost the vote and became the first Prime Minister to be found in contempt of Parliament ever. She then published her legal advice on the withdrawal agreement. If that is not forcing her to do something she didn’t want to do then I don’t know what is.
May has been forced to withdraw the centre piece of her Government policy because she knew she would lose. When she did put her policy to the vote she lost by the first and fourth largest majorities in our history. Her third attempt to bring her W/A was refused permission by the Speaker. How many times do you think this has happened in our history?
Parliament has lost trust in this rogue Prime Minister. If Parliament passes legislation instructing her to renegotiate a deal with the EU she obeys or leaves office.
You continue to miss the point- the point is that to take control, Parliament has to actually remove her and replace her with someone who will do what Parliament demands. Parliament can remove her tomorrow or could have done it yesterday, but until that is actually done, May will continue to do what May wants to do.
I’m sorry. Parliament has taken control. The Guardian, which Mish will quote when it his favour, has a nickname for her which everyone uses. It is Lino. Lino is British slang for linoleum. In her case it means Leader in name only. May has 14 government jobs empty-even her own party will not work with her.
An elaborate an in my opinion well reasoned analysis regarding the exit date is found here:
“There is now a letter — reported in the Guardian — from several Conservative MPs who are attorneys proposing that May acted unlawfully in attempting to negotiate for an extension from March 29.”
I will look into that. One thing I do expect Eurointelligenct to get correct is on matters like these. Will know tomorrow at the latest.
There is now a letter — reported in the Guardian — from several Conservative MPs who are attorneys proposing that May acted unlawfully in attempting to negotiate for an extension from March 29.
Mish The Guardian says that there will be a vote in the House of Lords before the end of the week,it does not make any mention of Royal Assent.I also understand thzt a Statutory Instrument goes to Committee before it goes to th e Lords.This is all arcane stuff perhaps but to inv olve hm queen so directly is serious imho