The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The only time in the 20th century where the PM chose to resign was in 1924, after being defeated on the vote about the King's Speech at the opening of a new Parliament. The Labour leader of the opposition then formed the first Labour minority government.
There is a reading of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act no confidence/confidence provisions, which suggests that it codifies a slightly modified version of the previous conventions. It follows that the Prime Minister has the choice of resigning or waiting for the 14 days to expire and then holding a general election. If the PM does not resign, then there is no opportunity for another member of the House of Commons to obtain a motion of confidence in their government (unless the Queen dismisses the existing PM and appoints someone else).
These provisions of the 2011 Act are inadequately drafted. Experience is throwing up multiple practical problems, which the next Parliament may have to address.
Her Majesty normally acts on the advice of the PM, and on the advice of her Privy Council, one headed by one Rees-Mogg. How could Parliament even let her know they do not want a dissolution of Parliament but wishes to proceed with another PM?
The FTPA clearly envisages the possibility of another person being asked to lead a new government in that 14 day period, but does not specify how that can come about if the PM refuses to give way and instead seeks to wait out the 14 day period and call an election.
Suppose the PM, even if he chooses to resign, decides to nominate his favourite Minister, e.g. Dominic Raab, as the next PM even though he clearly doesn't have majority support in the House. Has the Queen got discretion in whom she appoints, and on whose advice must she rely? Index of Frank's Diaries
However, in this case the controversy would be much greater and more open. Limiting the Queen's advice to Ree-Smogg and two stooges, to the exclusion of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, would cause such a noise that the very position of the monarch would be called in question. Other advisors (they exist in the upper echelons of the Civil Service and at the Palace) might well suggest that the Queen think mightily carefully before doing the muppet's bidding. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
IMO a Conservative/Establishment stitch-up is perfectly believable.
The one upside is that British people - against all precedent and expectation - took to the streets to protest prorogation. I think that raised some eyebrows and made a stitch-up less likely.
But the one person who has embodied convention over the past 66 years is the Queen herself, to the point where, in the aftermath of Diana's death, her hidebound adherence to convention nearly destroyed the Monarchy itself. At the time her sycophantic admirer, one Tony Blair, had to take her firmly by her gloved hand and advise some concessions to popular sentiment where in her own interest, even if much to her discomfort.
What would happen if two former PM's, John Major and Tony Blair were to advise her, either privately or in public, that it was in her Majesty's interest to yield to the Will of Parliament and appoint an alternative PM? After all, she can only enter the House of Commons to deliver her Queen's Speech with the permission of the House of Commons, and it would not be unprecedented for her to be refused entry...
But the point stands: whose advice must she take if BoJo loses the confidence of the House of Commons? Index of Frank's Diaries
As to whose advice the Queen must take, the Privy Council is an obvious answer. But what form of the Privy Council? Who can influence this? Obviously, the PM, and the Lord High Snooty-Pants President of the Council. They would have to be prevented, by Parliamentary and public pressure, from pulling a fast one as at Balmoral. If Bozzer stayed on after a no-confidence vote, that would trigger an immense outcry. The Queen herself would have to understand that this was a deep constitutional crisis endangering the institution of the monarchy itself (which is said to be dear to her heart). She would have to tread carefully and consult more widely than with the quorum-of-3.
An article from The Guardian a month ago gives opposing expert views on her powers:
As the Queen's powers have been cited in the no-deal Brexit debate, constitutional experts are divided on whether she could intervene to dismiss Boris Johnson and invite a new prime minister to form a government should he lose a vote of no confidence
Doesn't offer much certainty. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
Unfortunately this does rather place need for fine discernment and huge responsibility on the shoulders of a 93-year-old.
Excellent argument in favour of a republic with an age ceiling for the president. That might help focus one's mind. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
I can't see Bliar or Thatcher angling for a job like that. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
My point would be that the Establishment has slid to the chaotic right.
Have I mentioned that if I regard Brexit as some sort of rebellion by the old aristocracy it makes more sense?
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore L. Cohen
Surely, historical precedent is that when a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, the Monarch consults the Leader of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Is this done exclusively on the advice of the repudiated PM? Or is it, rather, the automatic option?
Can John Thomas of Pfeff Hall simply refuse to do the decent thing?
Is he not only above the law, but above the Monarch? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The Queen would NOT be deciding the Brexit issue. She would, instead, be providing a way for the public and Parliament to chose. Likewise, a motion by Parliament to have the Queen send a letter on behalf of Parliament requesting an extension of the Article 50 deadline would probably be accepted by the EU. The very fact of such a letter would be irrefutable proof of profound change in the UK government from its current state and a way out of a stalemate for both the UK and the EU. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Democracy, she is slippery keep to the Fen Causeway
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 12 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 19 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 16 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 15 23 comments
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 282 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2312 comments
by Oui - Feb 2219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2016 comments
by Oui - Feb 2021 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 1777 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments
by Oui - Feb 1245 comments
by Oui - Feb 775 comments
by Oui - Feb 668 comments