Brexit intensifies

[andrewducker]

So, today the only government ever to be found in contempt of parliament lost a vote by the largest margin ever suffered by a British government, losing by 230 votes (previous "winner" was Ramsay Macdonald's minority Labour government, losing by 166 votes).

Immediately afterwards, Corbyn lodged a vote of no confidence in the government. The DUP have said they will back the Conservatives, which almost certainly means that the vote will fail*.

The EU wants us to make our mind up, and has now repeatedly said that the withdrawal deal is not open for renegotiation. Which greatly reduces the options we have remaining. So once we the no confidence fails I can't see what else Labour can do but move towards a second referendum.

Which is, according to all recent polls, what the people want. (46% to 28% last I checked).

*It's _possible_ that a few Conservatives will rebel. But incredibly unlikely.

Comments

[danieldwilliam]

It would be a rare and special and probably one time only event. Depends a bit on how much she has to step in and how visibly.

Generally her role in Prime Ministerial succession is to confirm the outcome of some other process where that process has concluded, has a clear outcome and where the legitimacy of the process is not contended. And mostly people don't push things. (For example whilst it is constitutionally possible for someone to be Prime Minister but not Party Leader I don't know of anyone who has lost their party leadership and not resigned as PM before losing a VONC instigated by their own party.

What we have here is the potential (unlikely but possible) for May's Prime Ministership to fail and either a clash of mandates exists between her potential successors or for a process of removing May to start, but not to have finished before some other crisis interposes itself. If both happen at the same time, then the Queen moves from being the signatory to a decision maker.

A scenario such as 1) May loses a VONC on 24th March 2) she shapes to take the whole two period trying to prop up her ministry or run down the clock for a general election 3) 48 hours later its clear that neither May nor Corbyn will be able to able to win the confidence of the House - meanwhile there are already food riots - does the queen allow the clock to run down for a General Election or does she boot May, by-pass Corbyn and appoint e.g. Keir Starmer?

The Queen might be able to send a functionary to tell May that she has until noon on the 27th to resign or the Queen will sack her and keep that quiet but if May calls her bluff then the Queen might have to do something in public.

As I say, it would be a unique event in the UK Constitution. We won't have seen the like since Victoria and Melbourne. But the risk of this sort of nonsense happening is driven by the poor quality of our constitution.

[mountainkiss]

I still find it impossible to imagine a woman of ninety-two taking this action. What would precipitate it? Who would be the adviser telling her that she should step into the political arena, who is not the Prime Minister?

[danieldwilliam]

Prince Charles would be my top bet.

[mountainkiss]

I would not have guessed that she listens very seriously to his advice but could well be wrong. Not a specialist in this.

[danieldwilliam]

I don't know if she listens to him either. I know I don't.

He does have a right of access to HMQ and government ministers, he does take an interest, and he is an activist monarch. So he'd be top of my list to bowl up in front of her telling her she needs to sort things out.

I think he's also (just to unpack the third nested constitional crisis that is looming) the most likely Regent in the event that the Queen is rendered incapax.

[mountainkiss]

I don't know a lot about this so my view should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt, but I find it hard to imagine. The discourse has so strongly been that she is right not to interfere and he wrong to do so that I think it would be hard for him to convince her even if (perhaps especially if) he was fully convinced. But I could well be wrong.

[danieldwilliam]

This is the very thing that makes it a crisis. I am contemplating an extreme and unlikely set of circumstances.

HMQ is very much in the dis-active reigning not ruling mode. I think she's watched how her uncle was dealt with and decided to mostly keep herself as the symbolic Mother of the Motherland.

But she is, as I am given to undertand, a sharp minded woman and has taken an interest. She's not been above offering a bit of advice or a sharp rebuke to her Prime Ministers in the past.

So I completely agree that her habit will be to continue to not play an activist role.

Even if Charles is in her ear giving her yap about his (ahem, I mean her, definately her) constitutional rights and duties.

I'm not sure how that survives a situation where May, Corbyn, Blackwood, Dodds, Cable and company turn up at Buckingham Palace claiming that the rule book is broken and none of them can agree who chairs the meeting that re-writes the rules and meanwhile London is on fire and people are actually starving to death.

And whilst she is seen as being correct for not being an activist monarch in the ordinary day to day events (which for this context include contested Prime Ministerial successions like 2010 and whatever was going on with Callaghan - before my time) she does have one job in the UK Constitution which is picking who gets first go at being Prime Minister in the event of an off piste crisis.

That would be uncontroversial in the event of a Brighton Bombing type event which killed half the Cabinet including the PM. A bit more controversial where the current government's majority was on 6 and amongst the dead were a dozen MP's with marginal seats. Yet more controversial where the difficulty is founding a two-fold clash between Party constitutions and the UK Constitution (as we have now, perhaps).

So, we might get to a situation where HMQ might be right to take a more activist position and pick a PM where it is unclear who that ought to be. We might get to a situation where it would be much, much better for HMQ to do the actual picking a week earlier than strictly necessary in order to allow their first pick to fail and still have time for their second pick to at leat manage a functioning government. She, herself, is reluctant. Charles is in one ear. A more conservative councillor is in another. All the likely Prime Minsters and king makers are in front of her. What is a 92 year old woman whose husband has just been in a car crash to do?

(About the only thing that could make Brexit more fun is if the Queen has a stroke or Prince Philip dies and she is devastated with grief.)

[andrewducker]

"HMQ is very much in the dis-active reigning not ruling mode. I think she's watched how her uncle was dealt with and decided to mostly keep herself as the symbolic Mother of the Motherland."

Have you seen The Crown? If not, I really highly recommend it.

[danieldwilliam]

I have - I am eagerly awaiting Olivia Colman although I'm not sure anyone could top Matt Smith's Prince Philip.