Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 September 5

= September 5 =

Brexit delay legislation
What are the consequences of the following scenarios once the legislation has cleared the House of Lords:
 * 1) The government delays the appearance of the legislation on the queen's desk until after parliament has been prorogued
 * 2) The government advises the queen to withhold royal assent on the legislation.

Surely, this would create a genuine constitutional crisis by embroiling the monarch in political affairs, and could lead to the abolition of the monarchy? --Andrew 10:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note... This question asks us to analyze the situation and make predictions (which we don’t do). What we CAN do is point the OP to external sources (newspapers and the like) that analyze the situation and give opinions. Blueboar (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that the scenario 2 already happened, with no constitutional crisis. For instance, "Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a backbench bill making it necessary that Parliament must first consent before Tony Blair's government could launch air strikes against Saddam Hussein's Iraq...failed as it did not receive the Royal Assent." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prince-Charles-given-39-chances-veto-legislation-dont-want-law.html . As long as the Queen just follow the advice of her government/PM, things are constitutionally OK (However, the Monarchy could be damaged: as evidenced by the same ref, opponents resented this; or strengthened...). Gem fr (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, I don't know what you call genuine constitutional crisis, but looks to me the current situation is just that. Remember the UK Parliament


 * 1) engaged the Brexit, to be on 31 october 2019, deal or no deal
 * 2) rejected the last deal offered by EU, and kicked out the previous PM because of that, setting course to no deal Brexit
 * 3) now said he wants a deal at all cost (deal which, under such circumstances, obviously cannot be better than previous refused) -- that is, sabotaged ongoing negotiation (remember the PM DOES seek a deal, and tries to leverage on the no-deal damage to the UE to get that), and actually reduced the chance of a deal
 * 4) refused to settle the matter with new elections
 * Gem fr (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In French its L'Union européenne (UE) but in English it is the European Union (EU). Poveglia (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Parliament didn't "kick out" May; she resigned. Granted, this was because she felt unable to get a Brexit "deal" through Parliament. Also, Labour have said they will agree to new elections once the bill to assure another Brexit delay receives Royal Assent, because they don't trust Johnson and think he might try to let a "no-deal" Brexit happen while Parliament is dissolved. The core problem is that the major parties are split on Brexit, and really, this has always been the problem; you'll recall this all started because Cameron was too clever by half and decided to stage a referendum he expected to fail, in order to undermine the anti-EU wing of the Tories and UKIP. Only, that didn't go as planned. The Westminster system is based around party politics; unsurprisingly, when parties internally can't unite on something, the legislature tends to become paralyzed with regards to that issue. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, so what? If the current state of affair doesn't qualify as a constitutional crisis, what does? Gem fr (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the problem as even more fundamental that that. Anyone asked to find a way for the UK to shoot itself in the foot (exit a huge trading block right on their front step) in such a way that there's no pain, will be guaranteed to fail. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't, for a couple of reasons. The management of the thing was just utterly silly, from the very beginning: for instance, the PM who organized the referendum did no study and no plan regarding the possible outcome, even forbade such planning. OTOH a free trade agreement is not so silly a thing to imagine, especially when you just have to have to keep it going it, and you have 3 years to find a way to have it so (would be far too short to build from scratch, but to keep it running, that should be enough). They -- I leave it to you who "they" are-- failed, but this doesn't mean they were bound to fail. Going small because not even worth 2 cents Gem fr (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The EU has no incentive to grant the UK a generous exit agreement. The UK basically is asking for the benefits of EU membership, like free trade, with none of the responsibilities, like taking their fair portion of immigrants from Syria (the UK took 10k and Germany took 700k). If the EU were to allow such an arrangement, then many others would ask to leave under those same terms. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is another point entirely. My point was, Brexit was a serious project even when considering the UK side alone, requiring planning and adaptation: rules for EU citizens un UK, ways to cope with UK citizen in EU, customs handling, thousand of regulations currently incorporated in the European Communities Act 1972 (UK) or adopted to conform to EU decisions to decide about (keep them as is? dump them altogether? amend them? use them as bargaining tool, to be offered to the EU in exchange for something else?) etc., and few of it was done. Moreover, EU made it clear, from the beginning, that it was ready to hurt member states to hurt UK even more (Brussels official just don't care), to show its power over them and to make an example. Said otherwise, EU made it clear it was war, short of bullets. Fair enough, this is the game. But did UK plan accordingly, did it set a battle plan to leverage some state members against the EU, to use its power in the EU to sabotage it unless the EU cave in in one point or another, did it mobilize its citizen with proper propaganda ("EU is Napoleon, is Hitler, we will fight them off and prevail and save Europe now as we did before") etc.? Doesn't seems to me it did. Meanwhile EU negotiated CETA, all about free trade and nothing about "fair portion of immigrants" (-- and, BTW, such language imply they are a burden, which the very same person usually deny) Gem fr (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * SinisterLefty -- the issue of non-EU refugees and asylum-seekers is pretty much separate from Brexit. Under the Dublin Convention, the burden falls almost entirely onto the southern border states of Spain, Italy, and Greece (with Greece bearing an especially disproportionate burden due to being a small-population state in a deep economic depression for almost a decade now).  There has never been any agreement on superseding the Dublin Convention, but Germany relaxed some of its own restrictions for a time in 2015.  Angela Merkel floated the idea of some kind of allocation of refugee numbers between EU states, but that was a non-starter for many national governments (not just the UK)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Have a look at . This guy makes excellent flowcharts with assigned probabilities, setting out all the possible scenarios for what might happen. --Viennese Waltz 07:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * She resigned but I wouldn't say it was just because she couldn't get her deal pass parliament. It was also clear her party had turned against her and were likely going to kick her out, modifying their own rules which were supposed to prevent if after they tried and failed earlier, to do so. This isn't parliament although at that stage AFAIK it was their MPs (and only them) who had any direct ability to do so. And of course, this is backed up by their ability to vote against her in a motion of confidence or no confidence if she refused to follow what they said. (Or in other words, she resigned but it was very likely she would have ultimately been kicked out by parliament if she didn't.) BTW, while I think you also recognise this, for the benefit of others we should also remember that there were likely alternatives to the situation the UK is in now. In particular, instead of trying to force Johnson to do something which he says he hates so much he'd rather die in a ditch, it seems there was a fair chance even before the Conservatives kicked out their rebels that a motion of no confidence against Boris Johnson's government may have passed.  A new interim government could have been formed. This would have allowed someone who actually wants a extension to ask for it, and also allay concerns that an election would have been called for too late a date. They would also likely have been able to avoid parliament being prorogued. This would likely have also helped with EU concerns about WTF the UK is doing since they're potentially asking for an extension despite there being no actual definite plan in place. (We're probably going to have an election, but probably won't have called it when asking for the extension.) But such plans were scuppered because everyone else seems to hate the idea of Corbyn being PM and/or doesn't trust him either. And Corbyn and Labour seem unwilling to accept anyone else even for a role primary intended to ask for an extension and call an election.  Practically of course there's surely a lot of politics. The others especially the Liberal Democrats do not want to give air to the idea that Labour is the only alternative or that a vote for them is a vote for either Corbyn or Johnson (due to a split) as PM; and they also don't want Corbyn to have the opportunity to shown himself as PM. And Labour the opposite; they do want to be seen as the only and rightful choice to Johnson, the Conservatives and a no-deal Brexit and want do their best to present Corbyn as a PM/allay fears. Well except for those in Labour who hate him as well..... Frankly I suspect they're all going to have to come up with someone as an alternative PM anyway albeit maybe only after parliament returns. But who knows? Another common suggestion is that Johnson is going to throw the DUP under a bus and get a deal with an Ireland only backstop and may be able to win enough votes from pro-Brexit MPs fearful of the alternative to pass it.  Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking what may or may not sound like a dumb question, but how is a new election supposed to help? Even if Labour wins, aren't they inevitably going to choke on the very same conundrum to which Sinisterlefty refers? Theresa May failed; Boris Johnson may fail too; what cards does Jeremy Corbyn have to play if he comes to power which his two predecessors didn't? Eliyohub (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps Labour because it means they have a chance of getting into power, which is obviously the main purpose of any opposition party, Brexit or no Brexit. Plus, Corbyn has said that Labour will include a manifesto commitment to a second referendum, which may possibly give a way out of this mess. As for the Government, they need an election because they haven't got a working Commons majority anymore, so they can't pass any legislation. --Viennese Waltz 09:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The card is having a second referendum, but this time with the deal option killed, so that deal-brexiters split and enough of them turn to remain. This card can only be played by Labour or Lib-Dem. If they win election, they have serious hope to succeed. If not, Brexit happens.
 * The campaign already began along this line, the Sun is at it for instance https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9874598/labour-admit-its-brexit-policy-is-to-negotiate-new-deal-then-reject
 * Gem fr (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Eliyohub -- Theresa May refused to rule out "no-deal Brexit" as part of her convoluted negotiating strategies and ultimatums, and Boris Johnson even seems to prefer a "no-deal Brexit" (though it's a little hard to tell sometimes), but a coalition where Labour had the most votes would rule out "no-deal Brexit", so that its problems and opportunities wouldn't be exactly the same... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To rule out no-deal Brexit is to rule out Brexit, or at least to forfait the choice and give it to the EU, that is, to guarantee the deal is better for the EU (worse for the UK) than the brexit. Labour understand that, and so do lots of their Brexiters constituant and MPs, so, it cannot be made clear https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45640548 Gem fr (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The EU holds all the cards either way, based on the relative sizes of the economies. Imagine if Wales wanted full independence from the UK. Do you think Wales or the UK would have more leverage in setting the terms ? SinisterLefty (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See our article about the last time that happened. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulation, you just explained why decolonization did not happened. Oh wait... NVM. Besides, even if it were true, it is just irrelevant: you just don't engage in negotiation by stating your opponent will win because he has all cards; all the more so when this is actually true. Gem fr (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't state that a split can't happen, just that if it does, the EU will dictate the terms. When in a weak negotiating position, threats won't work, so the UK should try to appeal to the EU's sense of fairness and desire to maintain a good public image. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * then again, the former colonizing power did NOT dictate the term of the split. There is no such thing as a weak negotiating position, if there were, negotiation wouldn't make sense; all positions have strength and weakness (fi, even Japan surrender in 1945 was not really unconditional). Now, just read Negotiation and try to figure out where "appeal to the EU's sense of fairness" and "desire to maintain a good public image" would apply? (supposing these actually even exist at all, since the EU made very clear from the very beginning it aimed to inflict maximum damage to UK, regardless of sustained damage to itself, so as to deter any other exit!) Gem fr (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SinisterLefty -- Wales is perhaps unlikely to withdraw due to Brexit (it's been under the English crown for over 700 years, and voted "Leave" in the referendum), but Scotland was restive even before the Brexit issue came up, and voted for "Remain" with 62%. A "no-deal Brexit" is in fact very likely to lead to Scotland exiting from the UK.  As for negotiating leverage, Margaret Thatcher famously negotiated the UK Rebate of almost a billion pounds a year... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A viable campaign for Welsh independence is not completely inconceivable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some in the EU certainly have talked about making it difficult but as far as I can see that has never been the actual case, more just a story put around in Britain like all the other stories they have about how bad the EU is with bent bananas etc. The main sticking point the backstop should have been negotiated properly from the beginning and not just ignored till the last moment when there isn't time to investigate the implementation options and requirements for closure properly. From the very beginning this has been a sore point with Ireland, the way it was just ignored in Britain and now Britain wants out with just some waffly assurance it will do something about it but refusing any commitment. One would have thought that something like 3500 deaths would have given the issue at least some weight.
 * As to the original question about stupid tricks in parliament. Is this really the way to do business? Plus it isn't just Labour that wants a referendum, the rest do too even though they say they are for remaining. The only way to overturn the referendum without real trouble in the streets is have another one which pits remain against the favorite leave option in parliament - which currently seems to be no deal. Just being elected would not be enough to avoid trouble. Either deal or no deal would be straightforward to do and would have to be implemented pretty much immediately if that's what people decided instead of remain. Dmcq (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wondering whether to mention this or it is too soap boxy, decided to go ahead. TLDR, split votes are never good in FPTP and at the moment it looks like it's far more split for anti Brexit mostly represented by Labour and the Lib-Dems (who look unlikely to do a pre election deal) than the Conservatives given that it looks like the Brexit Party challenge may have been held off although you never know so an election is risky for all. Furthering what I said above, politically I think everyone realises an election is a risky strategy at the moment but probably even more so for those opposed to Brexit. The UK still uses FPTP and it seems Johnson maybe helped even more by his hard-line on the 'rebels' has potentially dealt a major blow to the Brexit party and solidified the Conservatives as the pro Brexit choice. Meanwhile maybe not helped by Corbyn's unpopularity to many and the perception him and Labour have been wiffle waffling on Brexit, those opposed to Brexit or at least a hard or no deal Brexit have less clear choices. To be fair the anti Brexit group do have a probable advantage in Scotland where the SNP seem to have things in the bag and are likely to win far more seats than they have support. But in England and I think Wales, the lack of proportionality of FPTP looks more likely to head in the opposite direction with the Conservatives possibly winning a majority of seats or something close to it despite being far from the choice of a majority. The Liberal Democrats and Labour look unlikely to do a pre election deal and could easily significantly split the anti Brexit and anti no deal Brexit vote between them. Not helped in someways by the situation in Ireland where those more opposed to Brexit or a no deal Brexit won't take their seats. Although if Johnson does throw DUP under the bus he's seriously running out of partners if the Conservatives don't get an effective majority. Of course people aren't all going to be voting on Brexit lines anyway. Frankly the best choice for those opposed to Brexit is probably a second referendum and not a general election but it doesn't seem likely they can get the former without doing the latter first. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a final comment, Johnson getting a deal through parliament even one which screws the DUP, seems likely to place him and therefore the Conservatives at an extreme advantage come an election and so probably something Labour and the Lib-Dems and maybe the SNP want to avoid at all costs for political reasons e.g. having an election before it happens. While it may rally the anti Brexit crowd to support them, probably less so if it is too late as it is likely to be i.e. the UK has left the EU, it will also likely win over many of those in the fence or who don't care and are just sick of Brexit dominating UK politics. Especially since if it is too late, it will probably come before any negative effects are strongly felt. And even if it is before the deal comes into effect but after it passes parliament i.e. it's presented as a vote for me and we are guaranteed this deal/Brexit/and end to the chaos, I think Johnson still believes possibly correctly he will win given the uncertainty of the alternative. While it may seem a deal which he says is what they'll pass if they wins is the same, my feeling is it could actually be seen and have a very different effect than a done deal which has to be reversed. Of course this also means that Boris Johnson has an incentive to do just that no matter who it angers e.g. DUP or hard-line Brexiteers. A no deal Brexit before an election is somewhat more complicated although I get the feeling Johnson thinks he can win at least in the very early days as he feels he can downplay any chaos. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading sources to check if I'd missed anything I was reminded that I believe there is also a heavy concentration of remain voters in certain constituencies while leave tend to be more spread out. Another problem for Labour etc given FPTP. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)