The Summer 2016 UK Political and Constitutional Crisis

[Crazy_Ivan80]

If this was the Sixties we could have had a new Prime-Minister by today, next week at the latest given the current crisis.

an alternative might be not having the party-leader and the pm be the same person. Though I'm not sure how common that is in the world

[Sheilbh]

Norway options means the UK keeps everything the Leavers hate with no of the power. Who is going to vote for that?

Liberal Leavers who were mainly annoyed about the customs union and want to negotiate trade deals. At least part of the sovereignty lot who wouldn't mind as Norway can (though rarely does) derogate from European regulations. And the 50% of Remainers.

As I say I think the Tories will go into the election proposing the Norway option. It'll do for most of the posher wing of the Leavers - the part who got exorcised about Europe in response to Maastricht not immigration. UKIP will scream bloody murder especially over immigration but that vote will, like the Leave vote, disproportionately hit Labour. The Tories win an election, we join the EEA and Labour is (still) in disarray.

I can't remember where but I saw polling on different options of 'what if the EU was like this'. If Cameron had come back and said his negotiated success was Norway he'd have won 60-40. You get similar levels of support for all European law related to the single market (including free movement) being made by the European Parliament with national Parliaments acting as a Senate (and needing a super-majority). For a chunk of the right it's about trade and 'sovereignty' and for a chunk of the left it's about democracy.

Not only does delaying absolutely hurt the UK on the economic side, but every day it is not triggered you're pissing off Brussels and Paris and Berlin and Rome and Madrid and and and.

I don't see how it hurts us economically. Activating article 50 increases uncertainty because we don't know what we want, we don't know what we'll get and there's a hard deadline at the end of it. It may piss everyone else off but I think the British government (of any stripe) would be mad to activate it without a very clear idea of how the negotiations will go. Until then we're full members.

Also in terms of practical things right now we don't know who'll be the next PM, there's probably going to be an election, the Labour party is imploding, there will possibly be a second indy ref. And in terms of informal talks I wouldn't expect the SNP to call for a second referendum until they've clarified Europe's view on them 'inheriting' the UK's EU membership (there is such a provision in Lisbon) in the case of winning indy ref and Article 50.

an alternative might be not having the party-leader and the pm be the same person. Though I'm not sure how common that is in the world

It was mentioned as an option by the Blairite ultras towards the end of his reign. I believe they called it the Aznar option.

[Zanza]

At least part of the sovereignty lot who wouldn't mind as Norway can (though rarely does) derogate from European regulations.

That's silly. Norway sometimes derogates on very technical minor details. That's what you consider #takecontrol and a restoration of sovereignity when contrasted with the massive corpus of law that Norway has to implement and has no say about it at all?

You get similar levels of support for all European law related to the single market (including free movement) being made by the European Parliament with national Parliaments acting as a Senate (and needing a super-majority).

That's basically abolishing any legislative power of the European Union. The EU and all its predecessors were always between the governments of the member states, not between the parliaments of the member states. And with good reason. It is hard enough to find a qualified majority among the governments when they all meet on the same day in Brussels. If you wait for each national parliament to ratify - and that's what it is - a new piece of legislation (let's just call it treaty), you'll never get anything done. Really silly proposal.

I don't see how it hurts us economically.

Have you not read the newspapers the last few days? Uncertainity adds risk to every investment decision that someone makes to invest in Britain. Which can make business cases unattractive and thus investment does not happen. That hurts not just the export sector, but also all domestic consumption aimed investment as Britain has a higher risk to face a recession now than it had before because of this reduction of investments.

Activating article 50 increases uncertainty because we don't know what we want, we don't know what we'll get and there's a hard deadline at the end of it. It may piss everyone else off but I think the British government (of any stripe) would be mad to activate it without a very clear idea of how the negotiations will go. Until then we're full members.

Pissing everybody else off is a surefire way NOT to know how negotiations will go as it decreases the willingness of the other parties to play nice with you. As Juncker said, this is not an amicable divorce. The other countries have interests and some might be interested in hurting your government.
And you are no longer considered full members, treaties and everything notwithstanding. David Cameron was specifically not invited to the summit of the 27 heads of government tomorrow.

[Sheilbh]

That's silly. Norway sometimes derogates on very technical minor details. That's what you consider #takecontrol and a restoration of sovereignity when contrasted with the massive corpus of law that Norway has to implement and has no say about it at all?

It hasn't ever used it properly - I think they tried on postal regulations. But they are out of all of the non-single market ex-pillars which again appeals to a specific type of Tory Leave voter.

That's basically abolishing any legislative power of the European Union. The EU and all its predecessors were always between the governments of the member states, not between the parliaments of the member states. And with good reason. It is hard enough to find a qualified majority among the governments when they all meet on the same day in Brussels. If you wait for each national parliament to ratify - and that's what it is - a new piece of legislation (let's just call it treaty), you'll never get anything done. Really silly proposal.

Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

Have you not read the newspapers the last few days? Uncertainity adds risk to every investment decision that someone makes to invest in Britain. Which can make business cases unattractive and thus investment does not happen. That hurts not just the export sector, but also all domestic consumption aimed investment as Britain has a higher risk to face a recession now than it had before because of this reduction of investments.

The last few days is because the market got it wrong for the last four weeks. I think and hope that we're now out of the knee-jerk phase and things will settle down. But short-term volatility is to be expected.

As I say, at this point the bigger uncertainty and the bigger risk is activating Article 50 without a clear plan. Hell there are a few writers who don't think it'll ever be activated - though I think that's wishful thinking on their part.

Pissing everybody else off is a surefire way NOT to know how negotiations will go as it decreases the willingness of the other parties to play nice with you. As Juncker said, this is not an amicable divorce. The other countries have interests and some might be interested in hurting your government.

As I say there are a lot of very good reasons we're not going to and can't start the leaving process. But there are other EU member states who have different interests than a hostile divorce pour encourage les autres or pushing the inevitable European solution of 'more Europe' for everyone.

And you are no longer considered full members, treaties and everything notwithstanding. David Cameron was specifically not invited to the summit of the 27 heads of government tomorrow.

Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

[Zanza]

Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

75% of national governments would be more than the Council now needs for qualified majority. Adding in the national parliaments just creates a massive time lag and less certainity that a regulation will ever be ratified by enough parliaments. That would be an exercise in making the EU unworkable. 

As I say, at this point the bigger uncertainty and the bigger risk is activating Article 50 without a clear plan. Hell there are a few writers who don't think it'll ever be activated - though I think that's wishful thinking on their part.

What was the whole fucking point then? 

As I say there are a lot of very good reasons we're not going to and can't start the leaving process. But there are other EU member states who have different interests than a hostile divorce pour encourage les autres or pushing the inevitable European solution of 'more Europe' for everyone.

Yes, but Britain needs unanimous consent of every single of the 27 governments. Having just some that have different interests is not enough. You need to convince every single country.

[Valmy]

Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

Those majorities are not all lockstep. Weird alliances seem to be all the rage these days.

But I like how you are thinking but...hey wait now why is a super majority something you are in favor of now?

[The Larch]

Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

I wouldn't count on that presidency...

[Sheilbh]

75% of national governments would be more than the Council now needs for qualified majority. Adding in the national parliaments just creates a massive time lag and less certainity that a regulation will ever be ratified by enough parliaments. That would be an exercise in making the EU unworkable. 

Maybe. But it does go to at least a small portion of the UK electorate mainly caring about democratic legitimacy.

What was the whole fucking point then? 

Well I don't buy those arguments. But we've got an answer to the yes or no question. Now we need to work out what that means.

Yes, but Britain needs unanimous consent of every single of the 27 governments. Having just some that have different interests is not enough. You need to convince every single country.

Yep. And we should have patience in achieving that. There should be desire to rush into anything. Everyone would do well to remember their MacMillan (a great would-be European), quiet, calm deliberation untangles ever knot.

But I like how you are thinking but...hey wait now why is a super majority something you are in favor of now?

I've always supported super majorities in Europe. But I don't support that idea it was just something that got a 60-40 showing in a poll.

I wouldn't count on that presidency...

You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

[Valmy]

I've always supported super majorities in Europe. But I don't support that idea it was just something that got a 60-40 showing in a poll.

Ah I see.

[Zanza]

You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

You could also have an unelected prime minister by then. #takecontrol

[Agelastus]

Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

At the moment the language from Europe is that we still have all the responsibilities but none of the rights, despite legally being a full member until the end of article 50's two year period (and with article 50 not even invoked yet.)

I wouldn't even count on the new Commissioner being accepted; even if he is he won't be given a real job. The Presidency's almost certainly going to be stripped from us as well, although I don't know what technicality they'll come up with.

Incidentally, do you agree with me that our Commissioner was an idiot to resign given the timescale of "Brexit" and the importance of his portfolio?

[mongers]

Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

At the moment the language from Europe is that we still have all the responsibilities but none of the rights, despite legally being a full member until the end of article 50's two year period (and with article 50 not even invoked yet.)

I wouldn't even count on the new Commissioner being accepted; even if he is he won't be given a real job. The Presidency's almost certainly going to be stripped from us as well, although I don't know what technicality they'll come up with.

Incidentally, do you agree with me that our Commissioner was an idiot to resign given the timescale of "Brexit" and the importance of his portfolio?

Yes he was an idiot.

[Agelastus]

You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

You could also have an unelected prime minister by then. #takecontrol

Are you referring to a revolution? Because this current fad in Britain to demand an election whenever the PM changes is utterly ahistorical for our political system; I'm not even convinced a new election to gain a mandate is required given the explicit language of the Tory Manifesto used in the 2015 election -

It will be a fundamental principle of a future Conservative
Government that membership of the European Union
depends on the consent of the British people – and in
recent years that consent has worn wafer-thin. That's why,
after the election, we will negotiate a new settlement for
Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether
they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave.
David Cameron has committed that he will only lead a
government that offers an in-out referendum. We will hold
that in-out referendum before the end of 2017 and respect
the outcome.

and -

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament
for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain's
membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will
negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then
we will ask the British people whether they want to stay
in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the
referendum, whatever the outcome.

[Sheilbh]

Sure but all the outcome was was leave. Now we need to have the debate on how we leave.

[mongers]

Sure but all the outcome was was leave. Now we need to have the debate on how we leave.

I favour a flounce and slamming of doors.