The EU was supposed to have announced today its decision on a Brexit extension. However, that decision has been delayed, possibly until Tuesday, as France has decided there must be a way forward.
For weeks I have suggested this outcome, but mainstream media rejected it, as did many of my own readers.
However, the theory can no longer be rejected.
“There is one country standing in the way – France,” a diplomat said.
Pressure Must Be Maintained
Please consider EU Delays Brexit Extension Decision as France Piles Pressure on MPs.
During a meeting of EU diplomats, the French ambassador stood alone in arguing that it was not the right time to agree a three-month delay, in a move that will be welcomed in Downing Street.
Only after the vote on Monday should the EU decide to “go short, to push for ratification, or long to accommodate a general election”, the ambassador told the other member states, according to a diplomatic note.
Sources close to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, later claimed an extension was “not a given” and needed to be justified. “But we have nothing of the sort so far”, the source said. “Pressure must be maintained.”
The prevarication in Brussels, and Macron’s swing behind Johnson’s strategy for getting a deal passed, will leave the issue of an extension in doubt with as little as 48 hours to go before the UK is due to leave.
Johnson has said he will give MPs until 6 November for further scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement bill if Labour accedes to his request for a general election on 12 December.
The 26 other member states are understood to have argued that France was playing a dangerous game by “playing ping-pong with the UK and reacting to every twist and turn”. “Let’s take a step back,” one diplomat said.
The delay is politically difficult for Jeremy Corbyn, who had said Labour would only vote in favour of a general election if the EU confirmed it would grant an extension to 31 January, taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.
Key Details
“If the three-month extension to 31 January is offered, Johnson will have to agree to it. A different formulation would require parliament to pass a motion endorsing the extension request. Johnson would then need to formally agree to it with the EU by 30 October or within 48 hours, depending on which is earlier. “
It seems we have found another flaw, perhaps even the first one in the Benn Act.
Does a tiered extension quality as “different formulation”? I believe so.
Thus, the UK may have to do something within 48 hours, two days, not one, assuming the above statement is indeed accurate.
If Johnson can manage to delay until October 30, agreeing to the extension, it could be too late. And it will not be UK courts deciding. Rather it would be the EU.
Eurointelligence Take
What’s behind Johnson’s election gamble?
There is virtually no point in trying to make Brexit predictions. The single biggest factor to determine the outcome may well be a political miscalculation – by Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, the EU, or some combination thereof. What is clear to us is that we will not get out of this mess until and unless the EU starts to attach conditions to an extension.
Developments in Westminster and Brussels are interacting with each other. There is an element of a chicken-and-egg going on. The Labour Party does not want to declare its position on an early election until it knows the EU’s decision. Likewise, the EU wants to know whether Johnson’s idea of a December 12 election could fly. The Council may not make its decision until after Monday’s Commons vote.
The Times commentator Iain Martin, who normally supports the Tories, says that Number 10 may have completely missed the change in mood after it managed to secure a majority in the second reading of the withdrawal bill. Johnson should go through with it. We agree: this is now the best opportunity to deliver Brexit.
Strongly Disagree
Labour demand ruling out No Deal. Labour will also demand a no-WTO agreement following acceptance of the Withdrawal Agreement.
And who the hell knows what Labour will demand once they get going?
They may demand a referendum, although that would fail.
We would thus expect the House of Commons to reject Johnson’s December 12 election request, but to push for another date in the New Year instead. Johnson said in that case he would pull the withdrawal legislation, and would keep on reminding the electorate day-in and day-out that the Labour Party is running away from elections. The Commons, meanwhile, could in theory take control of the order papers once more and continue the legislative process regardless. They might dig up Theresa May’s deal, which the opposition parties like better. The problem remains the second referendum. None of the opposition can accept a Brexit withdrawal agreement without a second referendum, but there is no majority for a referendum unless a number of Tory MPs formally change their position. That is perhaps the biggest danger of Johnson’s high-stakes gamble. If he messes this up, and another 20 Tory MPs leave the party in order to support May’s old bill, a second referendum would then become possible. We think the odds of that happening are very low, especially since everybody expects elections to happen soon.
The main purpose of Johnson’s manoeuvre yesterday is to put pressure on the EU not to grant an unconditional three-month extension. We would not rule out that Johnson is coordinating with one of the EU leaders, perhaps Emmanuel Macron. The French president was never going to veto an extension, as some people either hoped or feared. But Macron and Johnson have a joint interest in an extension having political conditions attached. Labour’s biggest problem might in the end turn out to be the EU.
Cannot Rule Out What Is Happening
We now have confirmation that Johnson is indeed coordinating with Macron, something many refused to believe could possibly happen.
Now France is saying “an extension is not a given” . That’s something even I rejected, perhaps incorrectly.
Why Might France Buck the EU?
I have made the case many times. Let’s recap.
- France is sick of this mess more than any other nation.
- France does not want the UK wrecking its policy in the European Parliament (EP). Perhaps Johnson even said that to Macron.
- France and Germany are at odds over many issues in the EP.
- France picks up EP seats once the UK leaves. Germany does not.
Bluff?
We do not know if France is buffing on No Deal. Nor does anyone else, except perhaps Johnson.
But if France withholds support until Tuesday, Labour is going to be damn well pressed to do something.
The Liberal Democrats and SNP will be even more pressed. After all, an election serves both SNP and Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats even more so.
How So?
Let’s answer that with a question I have asked many time previously: If this is resolved before an election, what happens to the Liberal Democrat’s Remain proposal?
Clearly it is dead in the water.
And what happens to the Brexit Party?
Same answer.
Finally, please note that Swinson cannot stand Corbyn. She has a second agenda of getting rid of him.
Election?
So, after seemingly everyone but me rejected the notion of an election announcement on Monday, it is now clearly in play.
It depends on whether Labour is will to call Macro’s bluff, assuming of course, Macron is bluffing.
The date might not be Dec 12.
An election on January 9 with an extension until January 31 is more likely.
Conclusion
If France delays until the 29th, and the offer is not precisely an extension until January 31, Johnson might be able to force No Deal, and blame it on Labour.
This puts elections in play.
Meanwhile, Thank You France!
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“The last thing Macron wants is the UK remaining and blocking his eurofederalist agenda. France would survive a no-deal far better than Germany, and Germany is effectively leaderless at present – an ideal time for Macron to galvanize the EU with his vision of a true political, economic and military union, a United States of Europe.”
Bingo!
Not a matter of trusting Macron. It is a matter of trusting Macron’s agenda!
If Brexit is successful, then the independent UK will become an alternative economic and political model for the European heartland. The EU federation of Macron’s agenda cannot allow that.
Of course, one can say that the current withdrawal agreement is not a successful Brexit. It will likely lead to the break-up of the UK in a decade. If that is combined with further EU integration, then the new English state will see French, German and Dutch troops of the shining new EU army not just in Ireland but also in Scotland. That is an English nightmare since ancient times. Macron might be willing to accept this.
However, I still think that this is not the endgame. His aim is to give a short extension that can bring down the Johnson government. A short extension now would eliminate the extension request of Johnson and the “no deal” danger would reappear with all of the corresponding tactical maneuvers (VoNC, interim PM, etc.).
Whatever endgame ‘they’ have in mind, these past 3 years have taken a toll and divided the people into two insane camps. Instead of simply breaking out of an economic union, it’s been made into a Project Fear, with extreme partypolitics and demonizing of millions of people. That won’t simply disappear. I really hope the U.K. prospers and fares well. Because just imagine, being free of the shackles of a failing union but remaining close allies and tradepartners. It worked post WWII for 50 years as the EC.
Take a look at Iceland, which is a member of the EEA.
It just shows, you can recover from a massive financial crisis, without being in the EU. I just hope, they’ll refrain from ever thinking about joining the EU.
And perhaps, we also could take a lesson from Iceland, the only country that let banks fail and put bankers in jail.
‘also in Scotland’ … I doubt it. Scotland must be the singular least attractive opportunity facing the EU of all time. Have you seen the country’s economic figures? The nation is perpetually bankrupt, no obvious prospect for wealth generation, a diabolical climate, and a social system that couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. Utterly moribund. Is and always has been. If I were Ms Von der Leyen I wouldn’t want to touch Scotland with a barge pole; that is unless the EU actually has designs on invading England which in this day and age I very much doubt. This from someone who lived in Scotland for 12 years and got a tertiary education there, I hasten to add.
The French can perhaps be described as ‘grandes gastronomiques.’ Barnier had worked very hard with Johnson and the Taoiseach to serve up a sophisticated, delicious feast which all parties could tuck into heartily.
And then those damned enmerdant British Parliamentarian Cochons turned the whole thing into yet another Do-Nothing Blame-The-Other-Side effing food fight!
Naturally, he was not pleased. (Sacré Bleu! Mon potage magnifique est encore une fois jeté sans aucun pudeur dans la Grande Poubelle Britannique!)
But I think you might be right: he also might realise that the chance of imprisoning the UK in a labyrinth of Red Tape for years to come was made far less likely. Let us hope so!
I think one thing was perhaps very telling once the withdrawal act passed its second reading and the timetable was then kicked into the long stuff by parliament … did anyone notice Barnier’s immediate reaction? They guy was incandescent with rage and stormed past reporters refusing to speak. Maybe he knows the consequences of this better than any of us at this point in time and from his perspective they are not too favourable. Maybe I’m reading too much into this.
Johnson knows how the Frenchies think, what they want and will have arranged things well in advance to progress the end game to his need and their wants.
After we’re out, they can bugger up the EU as fast as they like, the quicker the better. The not so long game is that we’ll be watching ready to pick up the pieces when it all implodes.
I’d recommend reading “1000 Years of Annoying the French” by Steven Clark. it nicely sums up our relationship with them and our completely different world view. He’s also written “How the French Won Waterloo – Or Think They Did”, a view recently promulgated by a French PM, no less. They’re not just across the channel, they’re on a different planet.
I’ve been a voice in the wilderness all week saying 31st October is still on, with or without. It won’t be an error though, it will be deliberate, facilitated by Corbyn who will cop the blame. At this point, Johnson is having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
“I’ve been a voice in the wilderness all week saying 31st October is still on, with or without. It won’t be an error though, it will be deliberate, facilitated by Corbyn who will cop the blame. At this point, Johnson is having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
I keep feeling/hoping that too. Frankly, I can’t see any other way through this mess AT ALL, and if you accept that No Deal isn’t nearly as big a deal as it is hyped to be, it will all work out fine. Indeed, if UK wants (which they shouldn’t) they could even start Nov 1st negotiating from the exact same position as that laid out in the current ‘Deal’ but they won’t have to get it through Parliament with endless wrecking amendments (meaning it won’t go through), or fighting an election over Leave vs Remain again (BORING BORING BORING!) and so on.
The Archbishop of Canterbury should be leading nationally televised round-the-clock services, along with his equivalent on the ravaged floor of Notre Dame, on bended knees, praying fervently for this unlikely but most welcome resolution!
Evidence in favour:
BJ’s ongoing insistence in speeches in Parliament up until his last one two days ago that ‘we are leaving on the 31st.’ Sajid saying the same. JRM saying the same. The Benn Act letter not being signed by Her Majesty’s Prime Minister. Gove’s announcement that Operation Yellowhammer is back on full steam ahead.
They have offered the other side – as common law and honour demand – a way out: accept an election date. If the other side refuse, then Macron could pull the trigger by exercising his veto and this will all be over 11pm Thursday night. And if the other side come up with some sort of fancy blocking move Mon-Tues, same thing: Macron vetoes. It really could be check-mate already but they don’t know it yet. So, again, I hope you are right.
Macron’s ‘proposed’ veto all smacks of a conspiracy cooked up between him and Johnson. And moreover working directly against the interests of the vast majority of the EU who are in an existential crisis, need to keep tapping the UK for cash and at the same time make an example of us. I somehow just don’t buy it. Frankly I would rather trust a rattlesnake than Monsieur.
“Frankly I would rather trust a rattlesnake than Monsieur.”
The choice is a real one, Monsieur or a House of Rattlesnakes.
Hmm – Got a point there, pal!
“ We do not know if France is buffing on No Deal. Nor does anyone else, except perhaps Johnson.”
You honestly believe that Macron will be on the level with Johnson?! 😳🤣
The last thing Macron wants is the UK remaining and blocking his eurofederalist agenda. France would survive a no-deal far better than Germany, and Germany is effectively leaderless at present – an ideal time for Macron to galvanize the EU with his vision of a true political, economic and military union, a United States of Europe.
That Euro-federalist agenda will also continue with the U.K. on board. Don’t forget, up to this very minute that you read this, the U.K. is STILL a member of the EU, and up to this very minute the U.K. has not managed to even place the smallest of dents in the EUSSR dreams of the Politburo in Brussels.
I think the UK has always been a brake on the EU-superstate project. We have sought to prevent political union by championing the entry of new members, thereby hoping to dilute the eurofederalist core ; we have refused to support the single currency scheme, and consistently opposed EU budget increases.
We owe it to our EU friends to stop being the dog in the manger, and let them get on with it ; we now need to work together to ease the pain of separation.
But Jean-Claude told us he didn’t want a United States of Europe?!
“The last thing Macron wants is the UK remaining and blocking his eurofederalist agenda.”
Bingo!
And about this No Deal business: there is no such thing, not really. Either there are negotiations before the initial Withdrawal Act followed by negotiations after, or there are just negotiations after No Deal. If the latter is the case, the negotiations can be much simpler for all involved. But the whole Project Fear notion of No Deal is a total psy-op which far too many have bought into lock, stock and Two Barrels.
“The last thing Macron wants is the UK remaining and blocking his eurofederalist agenda. France would survive a no-deal far better than Germany, and Germany is effectively leaderless at present – an ideal time for Macron to galvanize the EU with his vision of a true political, economic and military union, a United States of Europe.”
Bingo!
Not a matter of trusting Macron. It is a matter of trusting Macron’s agenda!
I agree. They are not trying to become family or sweethearts. But if they find convergence of interests that create a win-win situation (the essence of any really good deal), then pourquoi pas? Only if it is in Macron’s interest to hasten the end of this purgatory will he help to do so. With Merkel shrinking like an old witch almost daily, it’s time to summon the strategic boldness of Napoleon along with glorious Majesty of the Sun King. Maybe he can become so dazzling as to awe the Gilets Jaunes into contrite submission!
Anyway, we’ll soon find out. This thing has been one long, dreary – but surprising – disappointment after another, so that is what am expecting, though hope springs eternal that maybe this drama can end just in time to switch channels and watch the Battles Of Towering Trump, Season Three, over on the other side of the pond.
Same language, same sort of People vs the Establishment themery, different food… and far less sense of humour!
“ For weeks I have suggested this outcome, but mainstream media rejected it, as did many of my own readers.”
That’s because you don’t understand the Frenchies.
The French are only in it for ONE thing: themselves. They used to play the same trick ~20 years ago when it came to EUSSR subsidies for French farmers: block all progress until THEY get what they want. Then the EUSSR game can continue, and the Politburo in Brussels definitely wants the U.K. inside the EU. This is the final target and once the French have blackmailed Zee Germans into getting what THEY want (fuck know what, more moneee, Lagarde as head of ECB, more subsidies, more French people at key EUSSR politburo positions) THEN they will screw the British just as hard as Merkel and Verhofstadt.
Why shouldn’t the French screw the Brits? The Brits are leaving and have frankly always had a foot out of the UE. Seriously, fuck Britain and its sense of entitlement. Go read the Leave Campaign website and learn about British sense of entitlement. Leavers are and were delusional since the inception of the Leave campaign.
There are 27 countries who are staying in the EU. They are all in it for themselves. Grow up.
Mish, I think this passage from the Ben bill (it’s a bill because it costs )
2)If the European Council decides to agree an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019, but to a date other than 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must, within a period of two days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.
(3)But subsection (2) does not apply if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”
In other words 2) PM must agree in the timeframe given (and without pre-condition) to whatever is offered unless 3) the commons has DECIDED not to pass a motion IF placed by a minister agreeing to that offer.
It is assumed that ministerial choice is one and the same as the PMs will, that is to say that the PM or a minister would introduce the motion if they wished to share or redirect responsibility for the decision to accept a different date, instead of simply agreeing.
However it is quite clear that agreeing trumps the ability of the legislature to be able to pass or reject the motion.
As such it is clear that the PM might be forced to accept the offer based only on the Ben bill. This is known by EU negotiators.
It is also possible that the PM agrees, but that by some means a minister introduces a motion in opposition.
It also would appear to give the PM a free hand to accept any date, as long as he accepts a date offered.
This in turn allows the EU to offer any date it chooses, as long as it thinks the commons would pass it if offered as motion by a minister.
Two days, two years, the choice is yours and the answer is yes by PM or yes by commons, or even no by PM but yes by commons. Commons will only vote no if the offer is as good as no already.
So to me it looks like
1 No election decision, long extension offered because it is “impossible to keep adding bit by bit”, PM resigns/refuses, courts/commons sign.
2 Election decided, short extension offered so new gov passes agreement.
That means that the opposition will vote no election if they are working with EU. This means don’t trust the french or eu, the Ben bill puts the future of UK, via leverage over leavers for need for route out or complicity with remainers, into foreign hands.
Look what Johson was doing in the context of Benn’s bill:
Krage – like you I hope beyond hope that there is a way around this nightmare but I have all but given up hope. The letter he sent unsigned as part of the surrender act was printed at the bottom as Prime Minister of the UK, or words to that extent, and I suspect is interpreted by the EU and everyone else as having his reluctant compliance. I am not sure we will be allowed to fall out as a result of his non signature, but for absolute sure he will be in contempt of something having acted (in their eyes) in a disingenuous and duplicitous manner. I am also not sure what the penalty could be for this action or even if its possible to retroactively impose a penalty. Cherry tried to get the matter clarified a few days back, but the courts as I understand it adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Let’s not forget that Boris is first and foremost a Tory and he is not a drongo; he knows that the Tory faithful will worship him as a hero if he takes Britain out even without a deal at the 11th hour. And rest assured they will never ever ever EVER forgive him if he fails to get something through pretty damn quick. So, maybe. But if he does reject an extension on this ground as someone said a few days ago its going to be an almighty clusterfuck and with only doubtful chance of success.
Ok, but my point was that he took steps to make dispute POSSIBLE rather just surrender to it
Yes, I agree the dispute is possible. But its chances of success …??? The best hope imho is that he would go down a martyr to the cause.
Agree with all your caveats, but unless things have greatly changed, a written signature is required for any agreement to be valid. It leaves him another optional card to play. But not signing almost certainly is legally significant and for sure was no merely petulant sulk move.
I agree – don’t sign the deeds to your house, its NOT your house! Maybe that Blackford fella did his cause no service by dismissing this move as a mere childish prank. We will have to wait and see.
Should be Tusk on the right not Juncker
There will be new rules for majority voting instead of unanimous voting, and other changes to EU procedures under the Lisbon Treaty.
Exactly when are these rules going to be implemented? Some Brexiteers have claimed that they could go into effect as early as January 1, 2020. Other sources dispute these claims.
I have not seen any trustworthy, nonpartisan summary of what is going to change and how this might affect Brexit if things drag on into a fourth year of bickering.
Is it possible that the EU wants to extend this circus into next year and thereby change the rules for voting and other procedures, to the detriment of the UK?
Is the Lisbon Treaty yet another obscure legalism that can be used to delay Brexit?
This is an angle that nobody has yet mentioned here.
It is not the EU that is the cause of all this. Qualified majority vote is already in place.
France is able to exercise a unilateral veto over the extension of the Brexit deadline. That’s not majority voting, a unanimous vote is required.
Is it possible that this could change during 2020 if they continue to “extend and pretend” Brexit? Would such a change make it impossible for France or any other EU member to unilaterally veto further extensions?
It depends. Modifying a treaty requires a unanimous vote, not only from the 28 current member but also several regional parliaments. Remember that the CETA was held up by Wallonia, who refused to vote for the Canadian FTA until their requirements were met. Qualified majority voting was introduced for lesser matters.
It is stunning how far and how stupidly Leavers will search and blunder for ways to blame the EU for Brexit. Grow up, whiners! Brits chose Brexit under questionnable circumstances (lies, falsehood, misrepresentations and misunderstandings) and are now too stupid, too proud or too ignorant to rethink the decision.
If the UK sucks somehow, it’s purely a British problem. Blaming bad plumbing, NHS underfunding, poor railways, and immigrants on the EU is easy and cheap for politicians and citizens alike, but those are all purely UK problems. The Irish Problem and Backstop? If Brits had not spent 500 years raping and
murdering Irish Catholics, this might not be an issue.
Brexit is a disaster that no one wants. No Deal Brexit is the cherry on the cake that no one ever contemplated or believed would happen. But Brits have managed to fuck themselves quite royally in the end. Blame France, blame the EU, blame Lisbon, but it’s all on the UK.
It’s going to happen. All this whining about one month or two month delays is meaningless against the backdrop of the time frame and the magnitude of the decision. I suspect the debate here is being pushed by Mish who has been wrong about every aspect of Brexit so far and is trying to make at least one correct prediction.
“Brits chose Brexit under questionnable circumstances (lies, falsehood, misrepresentations and misunderstandings) and are now too stupid, too proud or too ignorant to rethink the decision.”
I’ll put you down as anti democracy.
I remember our president, Obama went there to meddle in the Brexit referendum. I remember Jamie Dimon went there to meddle in the Brexit referendum.
The EU is a lie, falsehood and misrepresentation, but ii notice you didn’t mention that.
“France” is not keeping pressure on the UK. Most of France cannot tolerate the corruption and arrogance that is Paris.
Paris, and more specifically a cabal of French politicians are trying to convince themselves that they are still important, even though the world has realized Paris no longer matters.
I thought you’d left in a huff.
Thank you for speaking on behalf of all Frenchmen. If that is allowed, I will take the same privilege and say you are wrong. Most French do tolerate the corruption and arrogance of their rulers, much the same as every nation. This childish notion that Paris or, indeed Brussels, is more corrupt and less competent than Westminster, Washington or Berlin is naive and unproductive.
France and Paris are still important in the world and in the EU. Being bitter about Brexit and whining does not make your opinion right.
Yes, I do speak for every French citizen outside of Paris. And every US citizen outside of Washington. And every British citizen outside of London.
No matter how badly you try to change what I actually wrote, the vast vast vast majority of western citizens do not spend our days worrying about what the crooks in political office do or think or say.
“France” did not say to keep pressure on the UK. Macron did. One man. That is all. Some other idiots in Macron’s cabinet may or may not agree with him, or maybe they want to keep their job and not upset the boss, or maybe they don’t give a sh!t and realized they could go home earlier if they didn’t argue. Its not like Macron’s opinion really matters — at best, he may be king of a sinking EU. More likely, he is a guy holding a job most Frenchmen don’t want.
Go ahead and tell us how Trump speaks for all US citizens, including the Trump derangement syndrome commenters here… yeah, I thought so.
The Benn Act is clear on procedure if extension is not to 31st Jan. The default is that Prime Minister must accept revised date within 2 days but not later than 30th October. This requirement does not apply if Parliament has passed a motion to not accept it. Macron delaying doesn’t get round Benn Act – unless he delays until 31st! The delay still suits Boris since it distracts Parliament from introducing further wrecking tactics and puts pressure on Corbyn
Would Johnson risk being in contempt?
Would the courts rule it was legally accepted?
The second question is more interesting because it would be the ECJ deciding.
Not sure about contempt. Benn Act says Boris must accept any extension before end of 30th October. If he has nothing to accept then I expect he can’t be in contempt. If offer arrives on 31st then ball in Boris’s court.
Offer on 31 is too late. That won’t happen.
Needs to be accepted by Midnight 31 (or perhaps 11:00 on the 30th.)
11:00 PM seems correct but unsure.
He can offer a challenge to the Act. He has consistently said in public and in Parliament that he disagrees with it in principle and intends to advise EU partners and peers against its thrust; and he didn’t provide tacit consent to it because he submitted an unsigned letter. So rather than wait to be found in contempt, he can go in as Plaintiff arguing the Benn Act is unlawful; and just as the prorogation was found to be unlawful and then retro-actively made to have never occurred, similarly, the Benn Act could be retroactively made to have never occurred.
Further, since Boris never signed the letter, no bona fide offer to request extension was made, and thus UK is not obliged to accept any offer of extension from EU since a valid offer requires request from UK PM, Parliament not having powers to negotiate Treaties with Foreign Entities.
Not saying it will happen, but it’s definitely a lawful play that avoids any possibility of contempt charges and most of what he has said about this in public accords with these principles in law, so….
arguing the Benn Act is unlawful … I really like this and most of what you have said stacks up. However, I remain concerned that NOT having taken this action immediately the surrender act was passed, or at the very latest after he was obliged to send the three surrender act letters last Saturday would maybe lend weight to the argument that he had tacitly accepted it. At the very least he will be branded as not having acted in good faith.
Any idea why the PM didn’t mount a legal challenge to the Benn Act?
At the very least he will be branded as not having acted in good faith … Yeah, I know! Boo hoo hoo!!
If elections are agreed upon, I believe Johnson can (and if so, would) prorogue Parliament until they happen.
AvidRemainer, is that correct?
Election vote on Monday can only be “provisional” since they probably won’t know extension details. Prorogation wouldn’t happen until dates firmed up and usually 3 or 4 days before Dissolution of Parliament. Dissolution happens approx 5 weeks before election. That was why Boris offered Dec 12th to allow Deal to pass before 6th Nov before Dissolution. One suggestion is to pull the Deal Bill and go straight for election on 5th Dec. Personally, I don’t think Corbyn will accept an election this year in any form.
I’m lost. I just can’t keep up with all these scenario’s…Am I assuming correctly, no deal is off the table then?
Parliament is dissolved, by the Queen, at 1 minute past midnight 25 days before the election. Nothing useful can be done during the interim except making sure that there is sufficient money to cover public spending during the election. The Civil Service goes into purdah which means they must maintain a strict neutrality. There are strict spending limits for each constituency of 10,000£ each. The national party spending has no limit. Radio and TV must give time to each party in equal measure in a ratio to their last GE performance. God knows what they will do with the Brexit Party. In 2017 May went into the election 20% ahead of Corbyn in the polls. We all know what happened. 5 weeks is a long time in politics. Since 1992 the Tories have won 1 election with a majority that was in 2015 and was the grand total of 15. Unless you are very rich do not put any money on the outcome.
Johnson is required to immediately accept a straight-up Jan 31 offer, but allegedly nothing else. So the Benn bill is clearly flawed now isn’t it?
In case of anything but a straight-up offer, it turns out that Johnson would not accept but present it to parliament.
But another flaw turns up. Benn does not require Johnson to submit the the offer the same day. Say the EU comes back on the 29th.
On the 30th, Johnson does not submit it but rather gives Parliament one more shot at elections.
Possible Scenario AvidRemainer?
He’s not strong enough in Parliament to do it. The EU would probably waive the rules in this sort of scenario. Our PM is one of the most hated men in Brussels and there is a visceral hatred of him on the opposition benches. I sometimes think that there is a conspiracy afoot to physically and mentally destroy the man. He is already all over the place at PMQs when he defends his deal. Not at all on top of the details.
Let me summarize it like this:
While all of them wants it, all wants to avoid blame for hard brexit. So, the ideal solution would be orchestrated accidental Brexit where circumstances would be arranged in such a way that no one party could be obviously blamed!
Specifically:
Too late.. we have got the brexit…
AvidRemainer, what is your take on 48 hours? Is that actually worded correctly or did the Guardian mess up?
I think it means that if the EU get their timing wrong, thus not giving parliament enough time to agree a flextention for instance then it is no deal, so now the EU has a time limit to make their offer. If they cock it up then it is no deal Benn Act notwithstanding.
Makes perfect sense now.
Commons would approve automatically. But what if Johnson held off by a day presenting the motion?
Is House of Lords involved at all?
No, From my point of view lets hope Tusk can count.
A No-WTO deal can easily be circumvented if Johnson wins, but a referendum would be more messier.
If France hold firm, there are only two dates that make any sense.
Dec 12, Jan 9
Jan 9 allows enough time for UK and EU parliaments to finish the job. It would be one of those dates. I would prefer Dec 12, but Labour would probably prefer Jan 9.
Jeremy C hinted he prefers Dec 5th, which would indeed be better. Maybe best solution is to forego trying to pass the WA and just go for an election. Find it hard to believe that will happen given the nature of this Parliament, but if Corbyn pushed for it, there would be enough votes.
Avid Remainer – I left off a a “no”
corrected.
Why do you say Labour will demand a WTO agreement? I can’t see a Jan 9th GE. The Tory MPs will have to leave the ski slopes early and they won’t like that.
Wow. Who would’ve thought. I actually find the French explanation quite refreshing. Rather than forcing themselves into British politics, they’re forcing the U.K. to stop the ‘fictional politics’ and finally take responsibility. Meanwhile, Corbyn is weakened by this move and unless I’ve got it all wrong, it’s either an election or the WDA gets passed. I’d be very surprised if the No Deal next Thursday would be allowed to happen.