Brexit: What next?

[andrewducker]

So, the vote is off. Which means it can't be amended.

When does May bring forward the vote - which needs to be passed for the deal to take hold?

If I was in her shoes, and I _really_ wanted the vote to pass, I'd schedule it in for March 28th, the day before Brexit day. Basically saying "You either vote this through or it's No Deal".

But if she does that, how long until enough of the DUP and her own party decide that this is so self-destructive that it's worth a vote of confidence?

(I'm not sure what she thinks she's going to get from the EU which will make people happier about the backstop.)

Comments

[rangifer]

Unfortunately for fans of high drama everywhere, May's vote probably can't be March 28th because the whole stack of paper still needs to be cleared by the European parliament, and it takes a bit of time to go through those motions.

[jack]

I *think* that if parliament get nervous enough, they can raise an article 50 extension/revocation bill without needing the government's connivance, or so civil-service-y friends made it sound. I don't know how long that takes, e.g. seeing the procedural farce going on with this vote, I think there's a lot of manoeuvring around what's brought to the vote, but if enough MPs want it, I think it can get voted on somehow. But I'm really confused about what's possible and what isn't.

[drplokta]

A Bill passed by Parliament isn’t enough to extend the deadline. The UK has to ask the EU to agree to it, and realistically it can only be the government that does that. Parliament’s best option is to ditch the extremist members of the main parties and vote for no confidence in Theresa May, with a new Prime Minister agreed in advance by a majority of MPs to lead a government of national unity, who would not be the leader of either the Conservative or Labour parties and thus would not be selected by the party extremists. This would be on the understanding that there would be a new election and return to party politics as soon as Brexit has either happened with a withdrawal agreement or been cancelled, which might well end up being put to the people in a referendum with those two choices. I would suggest Dominic Grieve as the emergency holographic Prime Minister.

[calimac]

Well, a non-party leader national unity PM is an interesting notion. Some parliamentary countries do that pretty often; last time the UK did was in 1940. Will this situation be enough to focus the attention like that, and is there an obvious enough candidate?

[skington]

This is basically as productive as fans’ casting threads, but Kenneth Clarke might be a decent side-bet, as a Tory with no personal ambition who's respected by moderates on both sides of the House?

[jack]

Damn it, I keep thinking I start to get a handle on this and then it gets away from me.

[redbird]

Who is/isn't eligible for the job, or is this another "nodody's sure" aspect of the unwritten British constitution?

[andrewducker]

You need to be a member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords and command. "the confidence of the House". (ie 50% of MPs will support you).

Not had one from the Lords in over a century, but theoretically still possible.

[nojay]

They don't need to be a member of the House or the Lords, strictly speaking but it's a given that to get 50% or more of MPs to follow your lead you have to be one of "the boys and girls", they have to know you and have worked with you.

There's nothing written down anywhere about how things like this are done, it's just done the way things have always been done until a change is needed and other things can be done then. Yay for an unwritten Constitution!

[doug]

I dunno, I think the principle that the Prime Minister needs to appear in the chamber of the House to make statements and answer questions is strongly established enough that it amounts to a requirement for them to be a member. And while our constitution can be classed as unwritten that doesn't mean there aren't documents where it's written down. So, for instance, the Cabinet Manual says "Members of the Government are normally Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords", which does leave an abnormal appointment to Government as a possibility, but later it makes it clear this doesn't apply to a Prime Minster: "By modern convention, the Prime Minister always sits in the House of Commons", with a footnote that the Marquess of Salisbury was PM in the late C19th/early C20th.

But, as you say, if it was expedient and widely agreed that a new convention should be established then we could do that. Many things are up in the air at the moment, but I am confident that changing this principle is not one of them.

[drplokta]

Any MP can be Prime Minister. Members of the House of Lords used to be eligible, but 20th century practice is that they aren’t any more — Alec Douglas-Home renounced his peerage and stood for election as an MP when he because Prime Minister in 1963

[supergee]

I keep remembering that after Boaty McBoatface, but before Votey McVoteface, you said, "Never open a poll to the general public if the results are going to be used for anything." Well done, sir.

[mair_in_grenderich]

I think it has now been confirmed that she has to bring it to vote by 21st January. Which is quite late enough to cause problems for alternatives.