What options are left for British PM Johnson on Brexit?

[webfact]

What options are left for British PM Johnson on Brexit?

By William James and Kylie MacLellan

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson gestures as he meets Ireland's Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Leo Varadkar (not pictured) in Dublin, Ireland, September 9, 2019. REUTERS/Phil Noble/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Boris Johnson's options are narrowing to deliver on his promise to lead Britain out of the European Union on Oct. 31, with or without an exit deal to soften the impact of the split.

 

Seeking to avoid a no-deal exit, parliament has passed a law compelling Johnson to ask Brussels to postpone the departure until Jan. 31 if no deal has been reached by Oct. 19 or if parliament has not approved leaving without a deal by then.

 

Johnson, who took office in July, says he would rather be "dead in a ditch" than ask for what would be the country's third Brexit delay.

 

The prime minister has tried twice to call an early election in the hope of winning a majority that would allow him to leave without a deal if necessary, but the request has twice been rejected by parliament.

 

So, what may Johnson's next move be?

 

GET A NEW DEAL

Johnson's stated aim is to persuade the EU to give him a new deal at a summit on Oct. 17-18. If he is able to secure new terms and then win approval from parliament for the exit package, Britain can leave on Oct. 31 with a deal.

 

IGNORE THE LAW

Ministers have said they will respect the law that was passed by parliament, but also that they want to "test to the limit" exactly what it requires.

The law states Johnson should write to the EU asking for an extension to the negotiations unless he either strikes a new Brexit deal that parliament approves, or gets parliament's approval to leave without a deal.

 

Given Johnson has explicitly ruled out requesting a delay himself, his opponents in parliament are worried he might simply choose to ignore the law and refuse to send the letter.

 

This would likely move the Brexit battle to the courts and, with no real precedent for such a situation, the outcome and how long it might take to reach one are highly uncertain.

 

SEND TWO LETTERS

The law, which came into force on Monday, specifies the exact wording of the letter that Johnson has to send to the EU, but it does not exclude the possibility of sending a second letter setting out a different position.

 

The Daily Telegraph reported that this was one option under consideration by Johnson's team.

 

Any such move would also likely be challenged in the courts. Jonathan Sumption, a former senior judge, told BBC radio that such a letter would not be legal.

 

VETO THE EXTENSION

Any EU decision to grant a Brexit extension would require agreement from all members.

 

While other EU members are unhappy at the need for another delay, they are unlikely to veto any request and be held responsible for a no-deal exit that would damage their own economies as well as Britain's.

 

They are, however, likely to attach conditions to any delay to make sure that it does not cause several further months of wrangling without resolution in the British parliament. They could also propose a different length of delay.

 

Lawmakers in parliament's upper chamber have raised concerns that Britain could veto itself, by asking for the delay and then refusing to agree to it. There has been debate about whether this is possible, but the government has yet to respond directly to those concerns.

 

RESIGN

Johnson could choose to resign rather than send the letter requesting an extension. The Cabinet Manual, which sets out the laws, rules and conventions on the operation of government, says if the prime minister resigns on behalf of the government Queen Elizabeth will invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of lawmakers to serve as prime minister and form a government.

 

The resigning prime minister can recommend to the sovereign who this might be, so Johnson could recommend calling opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become prime minister, forcing him to be the one to request the delay to Brexit.

 

Johnson last week lost his working majority in parliament after one of his lawmakers defected to the pro-EU Liberal Democrats and he expelled 21 others from his Conservative Party's parliamentary group for voting against the government.

 

Corbyn's Labour Party has only 247 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons but could command a majority with the support of other opposition parties and independent lawmakers. Corbyn has previously floated the idea of leading a temporary "government of national unity" with the sole purpose of securing a delay to Brexit, before calling a national election.

 

Johnson would then hope to win that election to return to power with a majority in parliament large enough to approve a no-deal exit if necessary.

 

Alternatively, Johnson could be forced to resign by Labour calling, and winning, a vote of no confidence when parliament returns in mid-October. If no other party leader can command a majority within the following 14 days, an election would be triggered.

 

PASS EXISTING DEAL (OR A VARIANT OF IT)

Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, negotiated a deal with the EU, comprising a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement to cover the immediate post-Brexit transition and a political declaration to set out the aims for the longer-term relationship.

 

That deal has been rejected by parliament three times, and trashed by Johnson - largely because of a clause relating to arrangements on the Irish border after Brexit. The EU is adamant this so-called "backstop" must stay, and Johnson is adamant it must go.

 

But, since the last time the deal was rejected, several Labour Party members have changed their minds and said they would now vote for the agreement, raising the prospect that it could get enough votes to pass.

 

However, politically it would be almost impossible for Johnson to present May's deal again without changes to the backstop. There could be some leeway in altering the terms of the backstop.

 

It is also far from certain that there would be enough support because Johnson has lost his majority and many eurosceptics in his party oppose May's deal for other reasons.

 

In addition, there is unlikely to be much time to pass the deal. Johnson has suspended parliament until Oct. 14 and is required by law to ask for a delay by Oct. 19th. The days between those dates are currently largely taken up by an EU summit at which he hopes to agree a new deal, and a debate on his new legislative programme.

 

(Reporting by William James and Kylie MacLellan; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-11

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Rookiescot]

Why are they so adamant about getting out of the EU on the 31st of October?

Because in January an EU law comes into effect that would force them to reveal and declare their finances and where they are hiding it.

They would have to pay tax on those earnings. Even if it comes from abroad.

Tax is only for poor people. Rich elites believe they should not have to pay tax.

[Thailand]

Seppuku?

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Seppuku?

So long as he does it in a ditch.

He needs to keep at least one promise in his life.

[AGareth2]

bring a vote of confidence in his own govt?

still does not have the numbers

Challenge the law in the courts?

[darksidedog]

He knew the chalice was poisoned, yet still hungered for it, a decision he is probably already regretting. This mess gets worse by the day. I just wish they could agree to any bloody deal, just to get this disaster behind us, so we can all move on, with the Pound and Euro hopefully making some form of recovery.

[Orac]

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

bring a vote of confidence in his own govt?

still does not have the numbers

Challenge the law in the courts?

 

He could but, since he prorogued parliament, he has to wait until after oct 14th before anyone  can vote again. Earliest election date would be 21st Nov ish and at his current rate of failure he would probably even struggle to vote for himself by then.

[Moonlover]

In my opinion, it is time to bring on the 'unmentionable'.

 

I know that a second referendum is tantamount to heresy for many people, but I believe that the British public at all levels of society are far better informed as to  the ramifications of Brexit now, than they where back in 2016.

 

Personally, I cannot see a single argument in favour of Brexit. I couldn't back then and I my opinion has been reinforced by the revelations since the referendum. And I'm sure there are many thousands of others are now also having second thoughts.

 

It's time that the British public had their say.

 

 

[ballpoint]

Johnson, and his cabinet, could resign on mass and emigrate to the US on October 31st, thus making good on their promise to leave the EU on that date.

[JonnyF]

3 most likely options are...

 

1. Challenge/test the law in the courts. Exit the EU while it's going through the process.

2. Let Britain veto it's own request for an extension. 

3. Convince one of the other member states to veto the request by threatening to become a menace in the European Parliament (veto everything, regularly demonstrate and ignore protocol etc.). The Brexit party can help with this.

 

Quite a few other options as well. This is far from over but the government are keeping quiet on which option they will take to avoid Parliament plotting against it. Good Luck Boris, together, the people and the government can overcome this colluding, traitorous Parliament,

 

[Basil B]

19 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

He knew the chalice was poisoned, yet still hungered for it, a decision he is probably already regretting. This mess gets worse by the day. I just wish they could agree to any bloody deal, just to get this disaster behind us, so we can all move on, with the Pound and Euro hopefully making some form of recovery.

He has put a lot of the poison in it himself.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

In my opinion, it is time to bring on the 'unmentionable'.

 

I know that a second referendum is tantamount to heresy for many people, but I believe that the British public at all levels of society are far better informed as to  the ramifications of Brexit now, than they where back in 2016.

 

Personally, I cannot see a single argument in favour of Brexit. I couldn't back then and I my opinion has been reinforced by the revelations since the referendum. And I'm sure there are many thousands of others are now also having second thoughts.

 

It's time that the British public had their say.

 

 

Wouldn't solve anything. The Lib Dem leader said she would continue to vote against Brexit in Parliament even if Leave won again. It would just delay things another year and we'd be back where we are now.

 

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

In my opinion, it is time to bring on the 'unmentionable'.

 

I know that a second referendum is tantamount to heresy for many people, but I believe that the British public at all levels of society are far better informed as to  the ramifications of Brexit now, than they where back in 2016.

 

Personally, I cannot see a single argument in favour of Brexit. I couldn't back then and I my opinion has been reinforced by the revelations since the referendum. And I'm sure there are many thousands of others are now also having second thoughts.

 

It's time that the British public had their say.

 

 

The British people have had their say, they voted leave. And to keep bringing up the idea of another referendum is an insult to most peoples intelligence. MPs have already stated publicly that if and when leave won again that they would not honour that referendum, so surely most people would have to agree the sheer futility of having another referendum when only the result of 'remain' would be accepted. Democracy remain style?

[david555]

25 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

He knew the chalice was poisoned, yet still hungered for it, a decision he is probably already regretting. This mess gets worse by the day. I just wish they could agree to any bloody deal, just to get this disaster behind us, so we can all move on, with the Pound and Euro hopefully making some form of recovery.

just put a border in the Irish sea ….just same as with any oversea U.K. territory …. same same ….and the backstop is solved !….. Up to the next hot dispute as there are more to solve ,besides no need of DUP to save majority ...as is scattered to pieces anyway ….one trouble party less...!!

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

The British people have had their say, they voted leave. And to keep bringing up the idea of another referendum is an insult to most peoples intelligence. MPs have already stated publicly that if and when leave won again that they would not honour that referendum, so surely most people would have to agree the sheer futility of having another referendum when only the result of 'remain' would be accepted. Democracy remain style?

"The people have spoken and should never be allowed to speak again "

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

to keep bringing up the idea of another referendum is an insult to most peoples intelligence.

You’re insulting people who voted to leave without a deal by leaving with a deal, and you’re insulting people who voted to leave with a deal by leaving without a deal. 

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Stop with that.
It is obvious that the parliament should pass a law making the second referendum binding, definitive and immediately applicable with a pre-defined agenda.

You mean like the law stating we'd leave at the end of October, deal or no deal.

 

Yeah, no way Parliament would change their minds and revise/append that legislation, right? ????????         ????

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

You’re insulting people who voted to leave without a deal by leaving with a deal, and you’re insulting people who voted to leave with a deal by leaving without a deal. 

 

 

Nobody voted to Leave with a deal or without a deal.

 

There were only 2 options, Leave or Remain. Leaving with no deal is leaving, is it not? If it is not leaving, please tell me what it is.

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Why are they so adamant about getting out of the EU on the 31st of October?

Because in January an EU law comes into effect that would force them to reveal and declare their finances and where they are hiding it.

They would have to pay tax on those earnings. Even if it comes from abroad.

Tax is only for poor people. Rich elites believe they should not have to pay tax.

More to the point I would not think there are many actual MP's in that boat but many may well have friends and contributors of election funds who are, funny how a party contributor will donate more to a political party than they avoid in paying in tax...

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Nobody voted to Leave with a deal or without a deal.

That’s not true, otherwise the ERG wouldn’t block leaving with a deal, and others wouldn’t block leaving without a deal. Those people, quote obviously, voted to leave without a deal or with a deal, respectively. 

 

Quote

 

There were only 2 options, Leave or Remain. Leaving with no deal is leaving, is it not? If it is not leaving, please tell me what it is.

You should tell that the voters who are blocking to leave, aka the ERG and other MPs. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[tebee]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Nobody voted to Leave with a deal or without a deal.

 

There were only 2 options, Leave or Remain. Leaving with no deal is leaving, is it not? If it is not leaving, please tell me what it is.

But so is leaving and joining EFTA and so is leaving and accepting the WA - which one does the referendum give a mandate for ?

[vogie]

17 minutes ago, tebee said:

"The people have spoken and should never be allowed to speak again "

Not if it's going to be ignored, seriously what is the point of voting if it's going to be ignored, no point.

[vogie]

20 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

You’re insulting people who voted to leave without a deal by leaving with a deal, and you’re insulting people who voted to leave with a deal by leaving without a deal. 

 

 

Making things up and trying to pass them of as credible is not going to work this time either.

[Rookiescot]

31 minutes ago, vogie said:

The British people have had their say, they voted leave. And to keep bringing up the idea of another referendum is an insult to most peoples intelligence. MPs have already stated publicly that if and when leave won again that they would not honour that referendum, so surely most people would have to agree the sheer futility of having another referendum when only the result of 'remain' would be accepted. Democracy remain style?

BRINO is a form of leave so would that be acceptable?

[Basil B]

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Wouldn't solve anything. The Lib Dem leader said she would continue to vote against Brexit in Parliament even if Leave won again. It would just delay things another year and we'd be back where we are now.

 

I am sure the Lib/Dem MP's will follow the mandate of their party conference, and Revoke A50 will be the option of choice, but I doubt they will rule out a second referendum as they believe that it will call for revoking A50 anyway.

[vogie]

21 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Stop with that.
It is obvious that the parliament should pass a law making the second referendum binding, definitive and immediately applicable with a pre-defined agenda.

It would only take an act of parliament to repeal that law.

[Basil B]

27 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Stop with that.
It is obvious that the parliament should pass a law making the second referendum binding, definitive and immediately applicable with a pre-defined agenda.

If a referendum is binding then it should only be if it has a clear majority, and 2% is no way a clear majority.

[david555]

Something is in the making ….

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/10/mps-look-to-bring-back-mays-brexit-deal-with-vote-on-referendum

MPs look to bring back May's Brexit deal with vote on referendum 
Cross-party majority moving closer as more current and ex-Tories open to idea, source says

 

more...

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

BRINO is a form of leave so would that be acceptable?

Brino is a form of remain. There is only one form of leave.

 

"depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate"

 

Nowhere there does it say leave one foot in the door.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

If a referendum is binding then it should only be if it has a clear majority, and 2% is no way a clear majority.

According to the rules of the referendum it was more than enough.