Unity Laugh of the Day
Remainer MPs are plotting to bring down Boris Johnson’s government, install a “unity prime minister,” and delay Brexit – Business Insider : https://t.co/Mu4KdNXdTy
— JonWorcesterMan 3.5% #IAmAEuropean 🔶️♻️🏳️🌈 (@JonWorcesterMan) August 7, 2019
Unity Prime Minister Plot
- Remainer MPs are reportedly plotting to bring down Boris Johnson’s government, install a “unity prime minister” for a few days to delay Brexit, then call a general election.
- Remainer Members of Parliament are considering a plan to install a “unity prime minister” to replace Boris Johnson with the sole purpose of delaying Brexit before calling a general election, according to a report.
90% Chance Silliness
Business Insider also claims There is a 90% chance Boris Johnson will break his ‘no-deal’ Brexit promise, according to these numbers.
Here’s yet another one: We can collapse your government to prevent no-deal Brexit, senior Conservative MP warns Boris Johnson
March to the Queen
The most ridiculous all is the Remainer threat by John McDonnell who proposes Corbyn Should Tell Queen ‘We’re Taking Over’ if Johnson Loses Confidence Vote.
Useful Tip From Eurointelligence
We have a useful tip for readers who follow Brexit professionally. The easiest way to cut down on your daily Brexit readings without losing any information whatsoever is to exclude two overlapping categories of writers and commentators: anybody who has not read or understood Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and thus treats Brexit purely in the context of UK law and politics; and anybody who involves the Queen at some part in the process, like the extreme Leavers who call for the prorogation of parliament, and the extreme Remainers who want parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit. Some commentators fall into both categories simultaneously.
Today we would like to debunk the myth that the UK parliament can stop the no-deal Brexit. Under EU law – the law that matters in this specific discussion – there are only two technical possibilities for the UK parliament to frustrate an October 31st Brexit. The first and the only certain route is a majority in favour of unilateral revocation of Brexit. No such majority exists.
This leaves a less certain pathway: to seek a further Art. 50 extension. Since Boris Johnson refuses to do this, it would have to involve a new prime minister before October.
So what would happen if the House of Commons were to pass a vote of no-confidence in Johnson’s government? Under the fixed-term parliaments act, this would trigger a 14-day period in which parliament can seek an alternative candidate for the job of prime minister. Failing that, there would have to be elections.
An alternative prime minister would be tasked with doing two things only: to write a letter asking the European Council for an extension and to seek immediate elections. It would be what the Italians call a technical government. There was some discussion yesterday on whether Johnson would need to resign even if parliament were to succeed in finding such a candidate. We believe that to be the case. Others do not. But for now this is an idle discussion to which we will happily return if we get to that point. We will probably not, because the numbers are simply not there.
Technically Possible vs Politically Impossible
This notion of marching to the Queen is madness.
The Queen aside, it is technically possible for Parliament to oust Johnson and hold elections.
Repercussions
- Any Tory voting against the government would be outed from the Tory party and lose their seat in the next election. Perhaps a few would, but not the 17 that Business Insider requires to come up with their ridiculous 90% confidence level.
- The second thing that would happen is the Tories would form an alliance with the Brexit Party and Labour would get smashed in the elections.
It will not get to that point because the threat is political madness.
Politically Impossible
It would take nearly 100% of the opposition plus a handful of Tories to agree to a caretaker government. 17 Tories will not vote themselves out of office.
A handful might. Even then it would be iffy because there are a handful of Labour MPs who want Brexit.
Then, even if the Remainers managed to form a caretaker government until the next election, they would still have to win the election.
Let’s dive in further.
The Financial Times reports Lib Dems scotch idea of Corbyn-led caretaker government.
- “I can’t conceive of any circumstances under which we would put Jeremy Corbyn into No. 10,” said one senior Liberal Democrat MP. “He’s not only dangerous for our national security but for our economic security too.”
- “Corbyn’s Labour don’t want to work with other parties to stop Brexit, because the truth is they want to deliver Brexit,” said Jo Swinson, the recently elected Liberal Democrat leader.
While technically possible, the Liberal Democrats want nothing to do with Corbyn. Labour’s official policy is a customs union, not remaining in the EU.
Technically, I suppose Corbyn could resign as Labour party leader to make an alliance possible but the Liberal Democrats want to be the senior party, not the junior party.
Yeah, right.
UK General Election Polls
Political Reality
- On June 6 (not shown), the Brexit Party had a 26% share. Conservatives fell to 17%.
- Since then, conservative support has soared along with Boris Johnson’s pledge to deliver Brexit.
- Those in favor of Brexit have united.
- The Remainer vote is split between Labour which wants a customs union and the Liberal Democrats who want to stay in the EU totally.
- The Liberal Democrats do not want anything to do with Corbyn for many reasons.
- An alliance between the Brexit Party and the Tories is likely. An alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats isn’t, unless Corbyn steps down, and most likely not even then unless Labour changes its political stance to Remain.
Political Math
The above math can change. But how likely is that?
Note that it’s not just the Liberal Democrats who refuse to deal with Corbyn. The reverse is true as well.
Eurointelligence comments “For now, the Labour frontbench team has firmly ruled out the idea of supporting a government of national unity. Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Labour frontbencher who is close to Corbyn, yesterday categorically ruled out supporting a government of national unity to deal with Brexit. We can see why. It does not make sense for them.“
In the UK’s voting system even small percentage difference can result in massive parliamentary majorities.
The above math would be a devastating election for Labour and the Liberal Democrats as well. Politically, it could be worth it for Jo Swinson just to do away with Corbyn. Alternatively, Corbyn might stand down or be forced out.
Either way, Corbyn will never be UK Prime Minister and the Tories are highly likely to remain in power, having delivered Brexit.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Meanwhile, the EU could actually do something positive and engage with BJ on a constructive basis. There are serious people on the EU side, unfortunately, they don’t hold sway…yet! I read this the other day…
Gabriel Felbermayr, president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, says the strategy of forcing Britain to jump through divorce hoops before trade talks could begin was a serious error and has led to a dead-end.
“The EU must finally start to think strategically. This means giving up the dogma of the inviolable four freedoms and offering the UK, and likewise Switzerland, the maximum possible economic integration that is possible without political union,” he said.
Hey I have found this picture on the relation UK-UE link to mega.nz
I think you’re against this picture but that is the reality
“The plan would be for Boris to call an election before the Oct 31st Deadline. If he did that then I am pretty sure he would be stitching up the UK. “
Does not work!
There are mandatory election schedules. An election would not be in time except in one scenario: a caretaker government – but there is no coalition math for that.
The British indoctrinati is just demonstrating they too believe just as mindlessly and uncritically in whatever nonsense their massas are spouting, as their American cousins did and do wrt Trump: Acting as if anything meaningful has changed at all as a result of the petty court intrigue, resulting in watching Trump spew nonsense on TeeVee, instead of Obama doing the same.
This article link to moneymaven.io
take me another question. Is the blogger a good economist ?
I take this question because I find that yen (japanese currency) and yuan (chinese currency) look like for the author the same things. In fact they used yen to describe chinese currency. It’s weird.
Sadly, there is a way in which Remain can still happen. If Boris is acting under false pretences.
The plan would be for Boris to call an election before the Oct 31st Deadline. If he did that then I am pretty sure he would be stitching up the UK. Many would believe that he was going to hard Brexit and vote for him. With a secure majority that would result, he could then ask for an extension and ensure that Brexit never happens.
So unless Brexit has happened, I wont vote for him.
Did everyone catch Boris Johnson’s recent ‘fireside chat to the nation’ regarding easing immigration rules? It’s not what you think, folks: he wants qualified scientists, not “refugees”. Clever, clever man.
Also note the background props: a British flag; a red double-decker London bus; and the red leather dispatch box. Very, very clever man.
But in fact, it isn’t just because I want something, doesn’t mean I’ll get it.
For example, me I want discuss with owner of the blog. But I think it’s too obstinate to make discuss.
It’s the same , BoJo wants qualified scientists, but they doesn’t want to go to the UK, because the reserch in UK is subventionned mainly by UE, and when UK quit UE, research will no longer be subsidised.
It might be more laughable if it didn’t get at least 10 minutes of serious discussion and analysis on BBC, Sky, and ITV every evening. The latest take would be that HM QEII would have no choice but to accept the remainers’ representatives’ request to fire Boris and appoint a new PM. They fail to realise that the monarch has historically, since the time of Queen Anne, pretty much rubber stamped whatever the government has recommended she give assent (and even the last legislation that did not receive Queen Anne’s assent did not get it because the Government changed its mind and recommended against assent).
What they fail to give proper weight to in the equation is that HM QEII is a wild card: The Royal prerogative to give or withhold assent or to appoint a new PM and government is wholly in the Queen’s hands; while she is generally not considered to be one to rock the boat by going against the wishes of a majority of the Parliament, she would still have a valid Act of Parliament in place with no advice from a sitting government to change it, and she could also read the tea leaves of the popular will and, especially if privately inclined to be for Brexit, and simply let things continue on autopilot.
The Queen dismissing an elected government is not without recent historical precedent.
In Australia in 1975 an elected Labor Federal Government was sacked by the Queens representative. The government was in disarray, there was a financial crisis, plus ministerial scandals.
The Conservative party leader went to the Queens representative (Governer General).
The Governer General made a decision, consulted with the Queen and then sacked the labor government. Elections were duly held.
This caused a constitutional crisis. The leftist MSM were outraged.
It will never happen again – there would be violence.
The Queen is still Australia’s head of state.
In the current U.K.’s case, if the queen somehow dismissed B.J’s government then the resulting uproar would be nearly as bad as the consequences of Brexit.
With respect the two cases are not comparable. You have a written Constitution and what the GG did was entirely within that Constitution – I doubt myself that the Queen would have acted that way, but that’s another matter.
In the UK we have what is called the Fixed Term Parliament Act, another of Cameron/Clegg’s dreadful ideas. The clause Mish is referring to is I think Section 2. If the Leader of the Opposition (can only be he I believe) introduced a Motion of No Confidence and he won it up to the FTP Act the Prime Minister would have resigned and Parliament (in the absence of another other person being able to command a majority) would be dissolved.
Section 2 introduces this 14 day ‘cooling off period’ – it is basically the ‘Nick Clegg blackmail clause’ during which the House may pass another motion of Confidence, thus restoring the Government. At the end of 14 days if there has been no Confidence Motion the dissolution system comes in to play. Nowhere in the Act does it say that the Prime Minster, on losing a Confidence Motion, has to resign. The Act is silent on what has to happen.
Further it is the Queen’s Government so if Boris were to resign, as the idiots like Grieve are demanding, he has to be able to advise Her Majesty to summon x, y or z. But as Mish points out no one will work with anyone else, so who can the Queen summon whom she thinks has a sporting chance of commanding a majority ? Mish or me I suppose. So actually Boris is correct when his aid said he will just sit tight, because actually he can’t do anything else.
For people of UK that here, I am a french people, and for me UK is an neighbour, an important neighbour, our common history have most of thousand years. Between the conqueror Guillaume (you said William) duke of Normandy conquer for the last time England in 1066 with the Hastings battle.
Between our hystory we are often in war more than 20 times I think, but we have allies to, often this last centurie.
You want to quit UE, I understand.
But now it’s like you are in very good car, you can see a giant wall in front of you, and you don’t slow down. The more serious you get, you accelerate towards the wall.
For UE, it’s incredible that a great country like you, UK, want to finish with life.
But we are spectator and we can’t operate. you driven and accelerate on this wall.
t’s probably going to be a carnage. We don’t want this, but you want. It’s a tragedy.
I have find this result of the last major UK election the european election, in 2019.
European elections projected vote share (UK)
Brexit Party: 32% (+32%)
Lib Dems: 20% (+13%)
Labour: 14% (-11%)
Green: 12% (+4%)
Conservatives: 9% (-15%)
SNP: 4% (+2%)
UKIP: 3% (-24%)
Change UK: 3%
Brexit Party make 32% of vote, but Lib Dem make 20% (second) and the green party wants to remain in UE. And they make 12% of vote.
Union is possibly between the party opposite to the brexit, the partial election in Wales prove it : link to nytimes.com
You can talk of this part of politics in UK.
But it’s not conform to your ideas and I understood they don’t want to talk.
I think that’s comment was censorship to, it’s a possibility.
You say “The Financial Times reports Lib Dems scotch idea of Corbyn-led caretaker government.”
It would hurt you, a socialist who would run your future 51st state
Your conclusion is politic fiction