Photo. Getty images
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt continue to vie with each other in a bidding war which includes who is the greater verbal champion of the Union above all else. Both of them claim to be able to square the circle of Union First and No Deal but No Deal if necessary. On the Marr Show Hunt said he would do both, but then I lost track of his reasoning. As nobody bothered to report what exactly he said I can#t check. Did say “I’m a unionist to my finger tips, ” or was it “…. through and through? Something like that. From the heart. ( Incidentally the BBC should emulate Sky News’s excellent practice of supplying a transcript of important interviews almost instantly rather than just posting the video on its slow moving and lazy news website. This elaborately segmented location reads more suitably for second language learners or our distant Kazakh friends than people actually wanting to keep up with the News: but that’s another story).
Before appearing of Sky News’s Sophie Ridge show Boris went several stages further in an article on the Scottish Mail on Sunday. but not carried in the English edition as far as I can see, Only a fleeting specific mention of Northern Ireland I fear. More Tory votes in Scotland!
When foreigners look at this country, they see a place that stands up for certain values and certain freedoms: democracy, the rule of law, human rights, free speech.
They see a country with fantastic Armed Forces and a globally trusted national broadcaster.
They see a place that has provided the world with its greatest explorers, scientists, inventors, poets, suffragettes and environmentalists.
And what is the name of that country? It isn’t England, or Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland.
It is Britain, or rather the UK: the whole composite – the most successful political and economic union in history.
We members of this precious Union are therefore so obviously and so irrefutably more than the sum of our parts; and that is why I am a passionate believer in the unions – all of them – and when you look at the scale of our collective achievement I simply cannot understand why anyone would want to mutilate this country and to break it up.
SO IF I am lucky enough to be elected as leader of the Conservative Party in the next few weeks, I will do anything in my power to stop that disaster, and to bring this country together.
That does not mean reversing devolution. Of course not – and we should give due acknowledgment to the successes of that programme.
But devolution must not mean dissolution. Devolution should not mean decay of the vital bonds that hold us together.
Because there are still passionate voices – especially in Scotland – that are campaigning night and day to break our Union up, to diminish our country. We cannot just leave the field to them, and refuse to engage in the argument.
And to protect the integrity of the whole UK, we need to get Brexit done. We need to fulfil the mandate of the people and come out of the EU, as instructed in the referendum of 2016. We need to get Brexit done sensibly and cleanly – because that is precisely the way to spike the guns of the SNP.
Think of their argument once the whole UK has left the EU.
What are the Scottish Nationalists going to say then?
Are they really going to propose to rejoin the EU as an independent Scotland? Are they going to use the euro in Scotland, to submit to Schengen rules on immigration for Scotland, and to make Scottish business and citizens bow to the full panoply of EU law – while the rest of the UK, Scotland’s most important trading partner, seeks a different and more global destiny?
When the UK leaves the EU, Scotland will finally take back control of Scottish fisheries, which are among the richest in the northern hemisphere.
Are the Scottish Nationalists really going to campaign – post-Brexit – to throw that opportunity away? Will it seriously be their manifesto to hand back control of fisheries to Brussels? Of course not.
(Shrewd point this. Johnson is pledging to devolve fisheries. Sturgeon accused May of a power grab for withholding devolution of Brussels powers over Ag and Fish in order to allow the UK government to conduct new free trade deals with other countries).
Properly done, Brexit will not threaten the Union; a sensible Brexit will enhance the Union and protect it and make life more difficult for those who wish to destroy it.
Now is the time, therefore, to be resolute, to get on with Brexit and to bring the whole country together; with better infrastructure, and full fibre broadband, across all four nations.
We should be boosting Scottish fisheries; improving transport in Wales; and we should be restoring and protecting the governance of Northern Ireland, and insisting on the sovereignty of the UK – as upheld in the Good Friday Agreement.
NOW is a great opportunity to entrench and intensify our Union, and it should be an easy sell and an easy argument to make. The world can see our collective strength. We need to celebrate it ourselves, because we are the awesome foursome – far more together than we are apart.
To underscore the importance of these multiple partnerships that develop and grow richer with every year, I also propose a cost-free but symbolically important addition to the office I seek.
I believe that the occupant of No 10 should be not just Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.
He or she should be Minister for the Union as well.
“I’m going for Canada-plus, not Chequers,”says Hunt
.. and is talking to the former Canadian PM Stephen Harper to help him achieve it. The claim in the story that Harper is on board is oversold. Harper tweets that he’s neutral between the candidates.
The Canada plus – plus an indefinite number of pluses – option harks back to the offer EU Council president Donald Tusk floated a year ago, with Leo Varadkar standing beside him.
Under the basic plan, border checks would be necessary, but both Hunt and Johnson look like taking to Brussels the alternative arrangements plan which would look forward to phasing out the backstop if technical conditions were met and it was certain that key regulations would remain harmonised via a common rule book. Clearly Hunt would bid to extend the 31 October deadline if Canada plus was a runner with the EU. But Johnson is still sticking with the unvarnished version – for now.
But electing Johnson or Hunt is not necessarily the same thing as electing the prime minister – a point endlessly glossed over in the leadership hustings. Delay is built into the system and would further complicate Johnson’s ambition to Leave “come what may” at Hallowe’en. For start he might not even be prime minister in time or at all. The UCL Constitution Unit explains how the immediate options for the new leader are far more limited than they pretend. First, the Observer story and then extracts from the full blog by Meg Russell and Robert Hazell.
With Tory MPs threatening to withdraw support for the party under his stewardship, Johnson is warned that he could be prevented from ever entering Downing Street should it become clear he cannot command a majority in the House of Commons
Johnson’s legitimacy would be challenged if just a handful of Tory MPs declare that they could not support his administration, according to professors Robert Hazell and Meg Russell from the constitution unit at UCL, University of London. “One possible scenario is that a group of Conservative MPs is so concerned about the winning candidate that they declare their withdrawal of support immediately the result of the leadership contest is known – ie, before the new PM is appointed. This would pose a serious dilemma for the Queen and those advising her, because it would not be clear that the new Conservative leader could command confidence.
From the Constitution unit blog
If there is serious doubt about the new Prime Minister commanding parliamentary confidence the Queen might make a provisional appointment, conditional on the new PM demonstrating confidence. Alternatively, Theresa May could remain in place and facilitate a process in parliament to demonstrate that the winning candidate – or indeed an alternative candidate – can win a confidence vote, before recommending that person to the Queen.
The Commons will probably need to sit beyond 25 July to allow adequate time for confidence to be tested before the summer recess.
f the new PM loses an early confidence motion at the end of July, an alternative government could be formed within 14 days; failing that, a general election would be held in mid to late September.
if the new PM loses a confidence motion in September or October, he could abandon ‘no deal’ to try to regain confidence; but he would need significant cross-party support to survive. Failing that, unless an alternative government is formed, a general election would follow
If parliament is then dissolved, can the election be held before 31 October? Could MPs run out of time to prevent ‘no deal’?
The more likely outcome of a successful no confidence motion is that it triggers an early election. But the combination of the statutory 14 days required by the FTPA, plus five weeks for the campaign means that an election before 31 October would need to be triggered by the first week of September. If a no confidence vote occurred any later, there would be insufficient time to hold an election before we are due to leave the EU. In other words, a further Article 50 extension would be required in order to avoid a ‘no deal’ exit ahead of the election date. But the Prime Minister might be reluctant to seek such an extension.
If a no confidence vote had been forced specifically in order to prevent ‘no deal’, the view of the House of Commons on that question would be clear, and for the Prime Minister to ignore it would be to frustrate the will of parliament.
Furthermore, under the ‘caretaker convention’ an outgoing government, once an election has been called, should not tie the hands of any incoming government. As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
In any normal times, these conventions would offer sufficient reassurance to parliament. However, if MPs feared that conventions could be flouted, they could use the 14 day period to issue clear instructions (ideally through legislation) to the government to request an extension. This implies that at least some breathing space is needed between a no confidence vote and the 31 October deadline.
Short answer: in this case the election is unlikely to be held before November. Convention would require the PM to ask the EU for an extension beyond 31 October, and MPs could vote to reinforce that.
- Should the Queen agree to prorogue parliament, if asked by the new Prime Minister
If it is not clear that the PM commands the confidence of parliament, the Queen could ask the Prime Minister to reconsider, or to withdraw his request.
Later
(As far as can be judged at this stage, the final report of the AAC will form the basis of the next UK government’s negotiations over the backstop (interim report discussed here.)
Next month we will publish a final report, reflecting the feedback we have received, most importantly from stakeholders in the island of Ireland. Incidentally, the most important condition we set for our report is that it must uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
One thing we have learnt is that people across the island of Ireland feel that the negotiations with the EU should be supported by a robust dialogue locally between the communities there. Trust that has been damaged between the Irish and the UK governments needs to be rebuilt.
We have met more than 50 organisations on three visits to Ireland. These have included the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland; Manufacturing NI; Diageo (the owner of Guinness); Coca-Cola; the Irish International Freight Association; the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce; the NI Retail Consortium; and many more.
Alongside the final report next month, we will publish a draft alternative arrangements protocol, which could either be reflected in some way in the existing withdrawal agreement or used on a standalone basis in any other Brexit outcome. The purpose of this will be to provide a clear road map so that the backstop, which all parties say they don’t want to see come into force, is never needed.
What would these alternative arrangements, to avoid a hard border, look like? Our interim report shows there is no magic bullet, rather a range of options based on existing technical solutions, administrative techniques and processes already in use on other borders, for instance, between America and Canada, and between Sweden and Norway. We believe they could be put in place within two to three years, but many of them can be realised more quickly.
These proposals include a trusted trader programme for large and medium-sized companies; special economic zones for cross-border communities; exemptions for the very smallest companies; and a proposal that sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks should be carried out by mobile units away from the border using the existing EU customs code or a potential common area for SPS measures.
Our work has convinced me that the biggest obstacle to finding alternative arrangements to the backstop is not that they depend on untested “unicorn technology”, as some have incorrectly suggested. The real problems have been twofold. First, a lack of goodwill. And second, a bizarre failure by the government to commence this work months ago.
Thankfully, Stephen Barclay, secretary of state for the Department for Exiting the European Union, was able to tell our conference last week that three alternative arrangements working groups have at last got going. On Friday the EU was briefed on the work of our Alternative Arrangements Commission. There was a recognition of our engagement on this issue and a suggested five tests that Brussels says any alternative arrangements must meet.
(The “five tests” are: any alternative plan would have to comply with the EU customs unions, EU principles and World Trade Organisation rules, ensure a return to a hard border in Ireland is avoided and the all-island economy is protected)
When either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt sits down in No 10 for the first time on, we assume, July 24 and starts the process of ensuring we do leave the EU on October 31 — preferably with a deal — he will not be staring at a blank screen. Not only will he find a detailed independent report and draft protocol to supersede the backstop, but he will discover that Whitehall has itself been prompted into doing its own work.
The British have not been wasting time, President Tusk. The clock is ticking and both sides need to find a workable alternative to the backstop. Let’s work together to find it.
Former BBC journalist and manager in Belfast, Manchester and London, Editor Spolight; Political Editor BBC NI; Current Affairs Commissioning editor BBC Radio 4; Editor Political and Parliamentary Programmes, BBC Westminster; former London Editor Belfast Telegraph. Hon Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, Univ Coll. London
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
