The story so far...
Let's suspend Parliament to concentrate minds
It was five weeks after Boris Johnson's first trip to the Palace to become prime minister (with Parliament at work for just two days of that time) that Jacob Rees Mogg took a flight north to Balmoral, accompanied by Commons chief whip Mark Spencer and Natalie Evans, the leader of the House of Lords. They went to advise the Queen (that is, to instruct her) to suspend Parliament - or prorogue, in the jargon - for five weeks. There was to be a Queen's speech, they said.This is hardly a big deal for a new prime minister - you'd expect a Queen's speech earlier than this - but Conservative Campaign HQ and the executive committee (a select group) of the "1922 Committee" (all the Tory MPs) had engineered the election to leave no time before the summer break.
It was just for a Queen's speech wasn't it?
Of course it wasn't - first, the complicated stuff.Of the two cases which ended up at the Supreme Court for prorogation to be judged unlawful, the one in the Inner Court of Session in Scotland had acquired detailed evidence, as set out in pages 7 to 9 of Lady Hale's summary of the Supreme Court judgment. The three important aspects of the evidence for me are:
- The proposed prorogation was carefully crafted to occupy as many days as possible, but still not fall foul of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was in turn designed to require reports from government ministers and prevent the long prorogation-for-No-Deal which had been feared.
- "The dates proposed sought to provide reassurance by ensuring that Parliament would sit for three weeks before exit and that a maximum of seven days were lost apart from the time usually set aside for the conference recess." No conference recess had been approved, and there were strong moves not to do so.
- "Politically, it was essential that Parliament was sitting before and after the EU Council meeting (which is scheduled for 17th-18th October). If the Queen’s Speech were on 14th October, the usual six-day debate would culminate in key votes on 21st and 22nd October. Parliament would have the opportunity to debate the Government’s overall approach to Brexit in the run up to the EU Council and then vote on it once the outcome of the Council was known." That "opportunity" never arose. Johnson's "ample time for debate" was pathetically and dishonestly kept so short as to be useless.
So that Queen's speech...?
It's easy really, as Jacob Rees-Mogg discovered a little later, when the plan changed so that there really would be a Queen's speech. An innocent-looking Leader of the House told Cardiff West MP Kevin Brennan, that "Prorogation will meet the judgment of the Court and, therefore, will be
the time necessary to move to a Queen’s Speech, and no more".
It's worth noting that the two and a half weeks of prorogation before it was declared unlawful didn't produce a Queen's speech or, apparently, any part of one. It's as if they didn't do any work on it, as if that hadn't been the reason at all.
It's worth noting that the two and a half weeks of prorogation before it was declared unlawful didn't produce a Queen's speech or, apparently, any part of one. It's as if they didn't do any work on it, as if that hadn't been the reason at all.
But even when there was a Queen's speech Parliament blocked it
No they didn't.The speech was delivered on 14 October and the final decision - which went through by 16 votes - came ten days later, having eaten up a lot of that "ample time" Johnson had promised for debating Brexit.
And then they tried to block Brexit by forcing another extension
No they didn't.The Benn Act prevented No Deal on 31 October, which was a serious risk, with all that "ample time" having gone. If Johnson wasn't lying about wanting a deal (now why would we even think that?) he really needed that extra time.
The EU Council meeting would be too late to achieve Brexit on 31 October, and the way Johnson actually achieved his deal - wasting two months after appointment, then frantically negotiating amendments to ten percent of the previous deal and eventually adopting parts of the deal before that, which he'd dismissed as unacceptable in September, and by abandoning the DUP he'd assured would never see that choice made by a British Conservative prime minister - lost him any hope of a majority in time. But MPs did not block Brexit, they temporarily blocked No Deal
(The ERG, of course, were right behind Arlene Foster and her crew. Until dumping them became the best way to achieve the higher prize - Brexit whatever.)
And then Parliament blocked the Withdrawal Agreement Bill
No they didn't.With No Deal out of the way for the moment many of the Conservative rebels were happy to support the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, and enough Labour MPs joined them to give the bill a second reading (agreement in principle that the bill should go through the process of becoming law) by 30 votes.
What Johnson couldn't get through was the timetable for debate. Three days for all stages in the Commons was rightly seen as ridiculous, and trying to force the Lords to ignore the fact - for example - that the Bill presented no useful detail of how the new Northern Ireland "solution" would be implemented seemed likely to produce a battle, and quite possibly No Deal, if the 31 October deadline had to be observed.
So it wasn't. Thank you Mr Benn, Ms Cooper, Mr Letwin, and all who helped develop the legal manoeuvres to stop government doing maximum damage to the country, but not - I must stress - to stop Brexit.
So now what? No idea
The manifesto gives little detail, and who could expect to believe it anyway?The Brexit timetable is still ridiculous - just three days again for the Withdrawal Agreement Bill - and the bill is even more unacceptable than before - among other things, parliamentary scrutiny over future negotiations has been removed. But a sizeable Conservative majority, who have all apparently signed in blood to support whatever deals Johnson manages to contrive, means he doesn't have to bother about that. The Lords will amend it, but they'll be forced to accept rejection of those amendments under pressure of time and No Deal on 31 January (it's always there).
One thing we can be sure of is that Johnson will avoid proper scrutiny whenever he can.
But whatever happens, No Deal must be on the table
Nope. As anybody who's ever bought a secondhand car knows (this is their favourite analogy, and I've been through that transaction myself a few times), walking away means you're no worse off, apart from the loss of some time. The terms of Article 50 mean you lose your membership at the deadline even if you have walked away. If you're going to do this Brexit thing, that seems like a really bad way to do it.
Because the EU only ever negotiates when they're close to a deadline
A lot of people parrot this line, but what past negotiations are they talking about? What other negotiations with the EU have had fixed deadlines?Recent trade agreements with Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, etc which we've negotiated together while this Brexit thing was going on were finished when they were finished. Leaving the EU has a two-year timetable - it's different. May then negotiated a transition period of 21 months, extendable to 45 months, to negotiate (optimistically) a future UK-EU relationship. After a few Article 50 extensions and Johnson's master negotiation technique that's now eleven months, extendable to 35, and he's nailing us to the eleven.
Which will actually be about nine. The 27 would talk longer if we asked. They're not stupid. But if Johnson insists on his Christmas 2020 deadline he'll be faced with demands to commit to continuing full alignment of regulations in several fields. Here's a description of the data adequacy area which - together with financial equivalence - is discussed in the Times article referred to as if these requirements are somehow a surprise.
Anyway, it was Johnson, not the EU, who shifted after his little walk in the park with Varadkar. Falling into No Deal would be stupid - it would be make future talks longer and harder. Pursuing No Deal would be a policy which nobody campaigned for in 2016, as far as I can remember, so very few people would have voted for it. If that's Johnson's objective, he should be honest for once in his life and say so.
Now for the "people's priorities"
If they can fit them in.Apart from all that legislation in the latest Queen's speech, much of which couldn't have been guessed at from the lightweight manifesto, what might there be to do? Significant parts of the country are still living with flooding or the effects of flooding, which Johnson shows no sign of reacting to. Then there are the homeless, who've been helped this week with... an announcement. Government certainly seems to have been embarrassed into action here, but some of the numbers are vague and some look a bit pathetic - "The Communities Secretary also announced £10 million – extended today by £3 million – for the Cold Weather Fund, which will boost life-saving support for rough sleepers during the cold winter weather". That's across the whole of England.
When Parliament opens again on 7 January Johnson will have been prime minister for 167 days, with Parliament sitting for just 35 of them, and in that time he's just about managed three sessions of Prime Minister's Questions. Watch for a proposal to change the format of PMQs for the avoidance of even more scrutiny. That's a real people's priority!
Or maybe a quick trip to Mustique
And now he has his majority he doesn't have to care, so off he and girlfriend Carrie Symonds fly to "the exclusive island" to "spend new year with the Von Bismarck family". As you do.And "According to The Times, it is expected that Mr Johnson will pay for the flight himself" is apparently news. I wonder why that might be. I'll be keeping an eye on the Commons register of members' financial interests. He could be really strapped for cash compared with the last couple of years in which he's pulled in about £800,000 above his MP's salary - the House of Commons' top outside earner.
