Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Corbyn's preferred successor would be as much, or more, opposed by the Lib Dems and dissident Conservatives than Corbyn himself. There would not be a parliamentary majority for him or her.

I would also like to comment on the suggestion of a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister personally rather than the government. Corbyn already tried this tactic, against Theresa May, but her government refused to allocate the motion any parliamentary time as it was not a Fixed Term Parliaments Act motion.

I suppose the opposition could try to take over the timetable to move a no confidence in Johnson motion, but even if they succeeded I suspect the Prime Minister would say that this is not a Fixed Term Parliaments Act motion of no confidence so I will ignore it.

by Gary J on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 07:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The point of such a motion is not to precipitate a general election but to effect a change of Prime Minister. In effect it is asking the Queen to sack Boris and appoint someone else without having to specify who that someone else might be.

Will the Queen ignore a Parliamentary motion, or will Boris refuse a request to resign from the Queen?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 11:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If the Opposition is strong enough to take over the timetable, why bother with a VONC against the person of the PM but not the government?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 01:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because a VNC in the government, per the required form in the FTPA, would, after a 14 day period with no new VOC,  trigger a new election in 25 days. So unless the existing government had sent a letter requesting an extension the UK could have crashed out before the election had occurred? It would seem safer to secure a VNC only against the existing PM, secure a VOC for a new leader and then ask the Queen to dismiss the current PM and recognize the new PM. Frank has suggested that it might be even safer just to vote no confidence in Boris and then just ask the Queen to appoint a new PM as that would avoid Parliament having to agree on a candidate.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 03:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Won't work. The Queen will appoint the leader of the party or coalition that can command a majority. It's not up to her to choose.

This government (not just this PM) does not have a majority in the House of Commons.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 03:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where is the justice in asking the Queen to sack Corbyn, who was elected leader of Labour under the standing party rules, and who is the formal leader of the opposition?
by asdf on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 05:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Boris Corbyn, or Jeremy Johnson?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 06:26:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, first sacking Johnson from his PM slot, and then sacking Corbyn from his PM-in-waiting slot.

I was originally thinking that the unwritten British constitution could be ok, because a problem in the US is that our constitution is too inflexible. But many of the current British problems about choosing leadership seem to go back to the haziness of the rules.

For example, if the queen is just a functionary of parliament, and required to do whatever the PM asks, as was claimed when she didn't push back on the proroguing thing, then how on Earth can she be in a position to sack anybody? "The queen must blindly and silently do whatever the PM says, up to the point where she decides fire him at will." That makes no sense.

by asdf on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 01:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The monarch is not a functionary of Parliament. The PM is a functionary of the Crown. That is the delightful fairy-tale principle.

The monarch is not obliged to do whatever the PM asks. Both monarch and PM operate (normally) as if they were decent, gentlemanly people. Absent that particular convention (behave like gentlemen for the common good) the whole house of cards may fall apart.

As we have just seen, the PM's advice may lead to an unlawful situation, (distending normal constitutional relations and threatening the house of cards, which of course is Johnson's intention). Arguably, had she understood all its implications, the Queen could have refused to assent to his request. After the Supreme Court ruling, we should expect anything plugged by Johnson and Rees-Mogg (President of the Privy Council therefore a chief adviser of the Queen) to be placed under rigorous scrutiny before receiving assent.

This is a situation of constitutional crisis, of which there have been several over the centuries, each one resolved by a new balance of power, up to now always in favour of increased power for the House of Commons. Johnson et al's goal is, roughly speaking, to reduce HOC power in favour of the executive (supposedly backed directly by the people).

This unprecedented situation may find an issue in a piece of statute law, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, that says a government defeated in Parliament by a VNC should be replaced by another which can command a majority within 14 days of the VNC. Unfortunately that law is vague on the obligation to resign of the disavowed government. The PM may remain in place and influence following events by the advice he gives the monarch.

To get over this hurdle, the Opposition could in this case 1. vote no confidence 2. immediately vote confidence in a new leader and government 3. address a humble petition to the Queen to call up the PM and request his resignation, then to call on the new leader to become PM.

If the Queen rejected the petition, she would be aligning herself with a Prime Minister that Parliament had just voted out, and refusing to call on the new Prime Minister that Parliament had just voted in. That would be a head-on clash between the monarch and Parliament, and the pre-eminence of Parliament is something that was settled centuries ago. Extremely unlikely to happen is an understatement.

So this could be a way of getting Johnson out, and bringing in a new PM (possibly Corbyn). I can't see any reason why the Queen should then ask Corbyn to resign?  

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 02:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
reduce HOC power in favour of the executive (supposedly backed directly by the people).

A main tenet of Fascism.  From the wikipedia article on Führerprinzip:

Hermann von Keyserling, an ethnically German philosopher from Estonia, was the first to use the term. One of Keyserling's central claims was that certain "gifted individuals" were "born to rule" on the basis of Social Darwinism.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 03:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What was Mussolini's vision version?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 04:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pretty much ditto


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 08:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Was it a group assignment?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 09:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series