This is, of course, from a pro-Brexit point-of-view.
Is
Brexit DEAD? The 3 options left for Boris if extension bill passes
but election blocked
BORIS
JOHNSON’S promise of Brexit “do or die” by October 31 has been
tossed into the mire which bogged down and eventually ended Theresa
May’s plans for leaving the EU. So what are his options?
the Express, 4 September, 2019 Boris Johnson’s first vote as Prime Minister in the House of Commons was a disaster. Asked whether to take control of Parliamentary proceedings from the Government, MPs voted 328 to 301 for the motion. With control over Brexit potentially snatched from him, Mr Johnson will try call a snap election
On Wednesday, MPs will debate and vote on a bill which will force the PM to ask for a Brexit extension to January 31, if a deal is not signed by October 19.
On Tuesday, Mr Johsnon said the bill would bring “more dither, more delay, more confusion”.
He said he had no choice but to call an October election, adding: “The people of this country will have to choose.”
But it’s not that simple: under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, a snap general election can only be called if two-thirds of MPs vote to approve it.
With Labour insisting they’ll vote against an election, Mr Johnson’s chances of pursuing that route are greatly reduced.
Brexit: Johsnon said the bill would bring “more dither, more delay, more confusion” (Image: Getty)
With roadblocks at every turn, here are the three possible moves Boris Johnson could now make:
1. The Government refuses to give royal assent to the bill
Royal assent is when the Queen formally agrees to turn a bill that has cleared both houses of Parliament - Commons and Lords - into law.
The Government cannot flat-out refuse to do this, but it can hold out until after prorogation next week, at which point all bills without royal consent are scrapped.
However, this move would almost certainly promo rebel MPs to seek new means of circumventing the PM, as it would be constitutionally unheard of.
A former parliamentary lawyer told The Times: “It is so subversive of every constitutional norm. It would be incredibly irresponsible.”
The lawyer said that while there would be nothing preventing the Government pursuing this route, doing so would be “constitutional dynamite”.
Brexit: Protests have dominated the streets of Westminster (Image: Getty)
Brexit: Johnson in the House of Commons on Wednesday (Image: Jessica Taylor via Reuters )
2. The Government seeks a general election without a two-thirds majority
There is a route, albeit a complicated one, in which the Government could pursue a general election even if the motion fails to achieve the 424 votes it needs.
The PM can propose a one-line bill along the lines of “notwithstanding the provisions of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, there will be a general election on October 15”, which would only need a simple majority to pass.
But in a scenario where Labour opposes Mr Johnson’s early election plan, it is possible that the Government will struggle even to attain that.
And even if it does, it would still need to go through the Lords and receive royal assent before prorogation next Monday.
The Prime Minister would then likely be forced to make the embarrassing decision to rescind the prorogation of Parliament he requested of the Queen last week.
Brexit: The complicated web of possible outcomes (Image: Express)
3. The Government holds another referendum
If the extension bill passes but a general election is impossible, Mr Johnson will be stuck.
By law, he will be compelled to seek an extension to the Article 50 negotiating window in late October if he has not secured a deal first, going against all his promises.
One option is for him to decide that, as all his tactics have been frustrated by Parliament, a referendum is the only choice left.
However, the ength of time required first to legislate for and then hold a referendum will mean a Brexit delay well beyond October 31, and possibly even the January 31 date proposed by the rebel MPs.
So, perhaps, it would be easier to admit defeat and work towards a January 31 departure with a deal?
Theresa
May has cancelled the 2018 Queen’s Speech to smooth the path for
Brexit reforms as a deal with the DUP hangs in the balance.
The
Prime Minister announced that a two-year parliamentary session will
be launched on Wednesday rather than the traditional one-year
session.
The
step breaks with historical precedence and was last taken in the
early days of the Coalition as it scrambled to create stable
government in 2010.
Government
sources last night insisted the move was planned before the election
and would give time for laws needed for Brexit to be fully debated.
However
opposition figures with a knowledge of parliamentary procedure
claimed the move was an attempt to shore up Mrs May’s position
after failing to win a majority.
The
Prime Minister’s new Government is dependent on the support of 10
DUP MPs to remain in place because the Tories lost seats at the snap
election.
The
Queen’s Speech - which lays out the laws that ministers want to
pass in the coming year - is a major moment in the parliamentary
diary.
It
is seen as a critical test for the Government and failure to win the
backing of a majority of MPs is seen as a vote of no confidence.
By
cancelling the 2018 Queen’s Speech, Mrs May removes a vote that
could have bought down her Government from the diary.
Andrea
Leadsom, the Commons Leader, said: “Whilst our top priority right
now is supporting the victims of the terrible tragedy at Grenfell
tower, we also need to look ahead by setting out a legislative
programme that not only delivers a successful EU exit but also a
domestic agenda which aims to tackle the social injustices in our
country.
“The
UK will spend the next two years preparing for our departure from the
European Union in a way that best places us to realise the
opportunities ahead and build a fairer society
This
year’s Queen’s Speech will take place on Wednesday and will
include the Great Repeal Bill - legislation that will convert all EU
law into UK law.
News
laws on immigration will be announced, while counter-terrorism
proposals in the wake of three terror attacks this year are also
expected.
However
Tory MPs think many of the domestic reforms outlined in their
manifesto just weeks ago will be shelved because they will not get
through the hung parliament.
Talks
with the DUP about a so-called “confidence and supply” deal -
where the party would agree to back the Tories in no confidence votes
and the Budget - is yet to be finalised.
Sources
on both sides said they are progressing well and indicated they hope
to complete a deal before the Queen’s Speech - though this is not
certain.
Trade
Minister Todd McClay told Parliament the TPP would not prevent the
government from making good decisions.
Mr
McClay said the trade deal would maximise opportunities for exporters
and create a stronger economy.
"TPP
is our largest free trade agreement to date and places us centrally
in a region encompassing nearly 40 percent of global GDP - TPP will
deliver benefits to New Zealand and ultimately to all New
Zealanders."
However,
Labour MP David Clark said the government had taken a wilfully
arrogant approach to the TPP which had destroyed the traditional
bipartisan political approach to free trade in the country.
He
said the government had failed to protect New Zealand's sovereignty.
The
bill passed 62 votes to 59.
National,
Act, United Future and Labour's Phil Goff voted in favour while the
rest of the Labour Party, the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori
Party opposed the bill.
Radio NZ Prime
Minister John Key has been ejected from the House for disobeying the
Speaker, and after an exchange with Greens co-leader James Shaw over
the Panama Papers.
The
incident happened this afternoon, when the prime minister was
answering a question from Mr Shaw on why he refused to apologise to
charities Greenpeace, the Red Cross, and Amnesty for linking them to
the Panama Papers.
While
calling for order, the Speaker, David Carter, told Mr Key to "resume
his seat".
When
Mr Key didn't he was ordered to leave the chamber.
"I
gave him fair warning, when I stand to my feet and call to order, he
is to be treated no different to any other member of this House."
The
Speaker ordered Mr Key to leave after he continued to shout, despite
Mr Carter telling him to stop.
Yesterday
Mr Key used Parliamentary privilege to claim that Amnesty, Greenpeace
and the Red Cross had been implicated in the Panama Papers leak, and
that Green MP Mojo Mathers had a foreign trust.
The
charities named had been the victim of an earlier scam where
fraudsters used their names as a front to hide their money in foreign
trusts and were not named in the papers.
The
last time a prime minister was asked to leave the house was Helen
Clark in 2005
Green
Party MP Mojo Mathers says she is a beneficiary of a UK-based family
trust - not a foreign trust.Green Party MP Mojo Mathers says she is a
beneficiary of a UK-based family trust - not a foreign trust.
Greenpeace
boss and former MP Russel Norman says John Key is using "discredited
allegations" that Greenpeace gained from a foreign trust to
score political points.
During
Question Time on Tuesday the Prime Minister told Green Party
co-leader James Shaw, who replaced Norman last year, that he should
speak to Greenpeace about why they're implicated in the Panama
Papers.
Key
said there were "quite legitimate reasons why people have a
foreign trust" and told Shaw to leave the House and "ring
Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Red Cross because they are
implicated in the papers".
John
Key accuses Greenpeace and Green MP Mojo Mathers of benefiting from
foreign trusts after being questioned by Green Party leader James
Shaw about Mossack Fonseca.
But
Norman says the reference is to old papers from 2013, which have
already been "discredited" after it was revealed rich
investors had been naming charities as trust beneficiaries to avoid
scrutiny by tax authorities.
Panama
Papers NZ - John Key was 'factually wrong' in comments he made on
charities' links to foreign trusts, says Greenpeace NZ head Russel
Norman.
Amnesty
International executive director Grant Bayldon and Greenpeace
executive director Russel Norman.Amnesty International's Bayldon
(left) and Russel Norman of Greenpeace, who says the PM's comments on
trusts were wrong. Photo: SUPPLIED
During
loud exchanges in Parliament yesterday, Mr Key said Greenpeace,
Amnesty and the Red Cross featured in the Panama Papers.
The
organisations are mentioned a searchable database released yesterday
by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The
Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5 million files from
the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world's fourth-biggest offshore
law firm.
Foreign
trusts and New Zealand's rules have been under scrutiny since the
release of the papers, which revealed how Mossack Fonseca
orchestrated a worldwide web of companies to let people hide money
and avoid taxes.
An
investigation into the papers by RNZ, TVNZ and investigative
journalist Nicky Hager has shown New Zealand is being used by
foreigners to organise their private wealth, business affairs and
channel their funds around the world.
Mr
Key went on the front foot over the Panama Papers in Parliament
yesterday, armed with the IRD's initial analysis of the documents,
but Mr Norman said the Prime Minister "fell on his face".
"Because
he was factually incorrect. He got it wrong, and I suggest the prime
minister apologise."
Mr
Norman said while Greenpeace was listed in the database that kept the
Panama Papers information, it was part of a separate data set from
another release of documents several years ago.
He
said the mention of charities in that data release had been found to
be a common scam, where people who were trying to avoid tax would use
a charity to try and cover up their tracks.
The
prime minister should have known more about the facts, said Mr
Norman.
"When
you're the prime minister of New Zealand and you have basically
unlimited research capacity and then you look into this database and
there are two data sets in there - one of them is the Panama Papers,
another one is an entirely separate one - it seems to me that you are
responsible for making sure the comments you make are accurate.
"What
the prime minister said was not true, it was inaccurate. We are not
in the Panama Papers. There may well be many instances where
charities, for example, were basically being used by scammers, but
all the prime minister is doing is revictimising the charities but
saying that somehow, they are caught up in this corrupt thing, and
they're not."
Mr
Norman said the prime minister needed to stop flinging around blame
and should actually address the issue of foreign trusts.
Amnesty
International executive director Grant Bayldon said trusts were scams
designed to trick people into thinking they are giving money to a
real charity.
Mr
Bayldon said it was a known fact that trusts listed charities as
beneficiaries, so the real owners could avoid scrutiny by tax
authorities, and charities were not aware when their names were used
in this way.
He
said Amnesty had no knowledge of any real links with foreign trusts
and he was disappointed Mr Key would insinuate otherwise.
New
Zealand Red Cross secretary general Tony Paine said the organisation
wanted to stay out of the political debate.
"Questions
of the prime minister's motivations probably need to be put to him,"
he said.
However,
he backed up Mr Norman's comments that the data Mr Key had quoted was
a scam where charities' names were used to avoid paying tax.
"Our
message is simply that it is just something that people are going
overseas to use our good name, our much-loved name and we want to
assure people there is no link between either New Zealand Red Cross
or International Red Cross and these trusts."
He
said the Red Cross was one of the most recognised, most trusted,
symbols in the world and it worked hard to keep it that way.
Labour
deputy leader Grant Robertson said Mr Key's was trying to avoid
facing legitimate questions about New Zealand's foreign trust regime.
"This
is typical of the way the prime minister deals with issues like this.
He's attempting to divert and diminish the issue," he said.
"It's
not just Greenpeace and Amnesty and the Red Cross, the All Blacks
have been used in the same way.
"It
is a ridiculous thing for the prime minister, who I'm sure knew that
this was part of a scam, to throw that into the debate," Mr
Robertson said.
Mr
Key's office said he was "simply making the point that just
because someone is named on the database does not mean they have done
anything wrong, and that people should be wary of drawing conclusions
based on the data released."
*The
investigation into New Zealand links in the Panama Papers is a
journalistic collaboration by reporters from RNZ News, One News and
investigative journalist Nicky Hager, and with the assistance of the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the German
newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung
Posts
Brexit: Protests have dominated the streets of Westminster (Image: Getty)
Brexit: Johnson in the House of Commons on Wednesday (Image: Jessica Taylor via Reuters )
Brexit: The complicated web of possible outcomes (Image: Express)
Metiria Turei
Jane Patterson
David Clark
