8

On Thursday, the Conservative Party in the UK decided not to pursue their filibuster of the bill intended to stop a no-deal Brexit. Why did they cancel their plans to filibuster it?

See https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/106309/lords-agree-pass-anti-no-deal-brexit-bill-after-tories-ditch-filibuster for one of many source. I have been looking for a more informative answer than just "it would be a bad look for them."

Sid
  • 240
  • 1
  • 4
  • Most likely they got tired and wanted to go home. – Jonathan Potter Sep 08 '19 at 07:52
  • 9
    I believe that the main reason behind all these Brexit moves is a conspiracy to provide question material to politics.SE – Taladris Sep 08 '19 at 14:14
  • 3
    The Lords never want to add to a controvosy, in case public opinion turns to abolishing them. – Caleth Sep 08 '19 at 15:03
  • Because Downing Street told them not to bother, but get the bill passed. It would have passed anyway, eventually. And having prorogued parliament Johnson didn't want to waste any time as he hoped to get a vote through for a general election. As it stands, he may well run out of time this week for what he wants to do - and he won't have an election in place. So having run out of time he finds himself "hoist by his own petard". – WS2 Sep 08 '19 at 21:37
  • @WS2 : "he hoped to get a vote through for a general election" He had no hope of the opposition agreeing to a GE, him calling for one can only have been posturing for the purpose of 'laying blame' & nothing else, to claim Johnson 'expected' (or even merely 'hoped') to win is implausible. – Pelinore Sep 09 '19 at 11:54
  • @Pelinore Yes, I agree with that. But at the time that the Lords filibuster was cancelled was the PM aware that the GE bill would be rejected? So much has happened in the last few days the exact chronology has become a fog in my mind. – WS2 Sep 09 '19 at 20:58
  • @WS2 : Still trying to unpick some of that myself, strongly suspect we'll have to wait until they get back in 5 weeks to find out if he or Cumimngs have any sort of strategy that isn't simply waiting for the 2022 GE. – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 11:48
  • @WS2 : I can't see any way they can force an early GE without Labours say so so unless they think they can (& in fact can) either ignore the new bill by invoking Queens Consent or Royal Assent (advising it be refused) or an amendment to the bill as it passed through one of the houses that I've not heard of yet provides another way out then for the moment I'm at a loss as to what they're up to. – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 11:53
  • @WS2 : They may simply be crossing their fingers & hoping for all I know right now? – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 11:56
  • @WS2 : Did any amendments pass in the lords or commons shortly b4 the filibuster was cancelled? there might be a clue in there if any did. – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 11:58
  • @WS2 : "new legislation, which was granted royal assent on Monday, changes that, and will force the PM to seek a delay to 31 January 2020 unless a deal - or a no-deal exit - is approved by MPs by 19 October" : So, that only leaves Queens Consent (as that can be retroactively applied after Royal Assent, but only if Bercow's ruling isn't binding?) or something in the wording of the bill or an amendment to it. – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 12:32
  • @WS2 : I wonder if we aren't all focusing on UK parliamentary process too much, is it possible their plans are seated in the process on the EU end? ~ is it possible that the UK can veto its own extension request & their plans are there rather than this side of the water? – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 13:13
  • @Pelinore Under the Benn law the UK government have to ask for an extension by 19 October. If, for any reason this does not happen, or one of the EU27 decides to veto an extension, Parliament always has the option in its hands of revoking Article 50, during the ensuing twelve days - and at a time when John Bercow remains Speaker. – WS2 Sep 10 '19 at 18:18
  • @WS2 : It's one view perhaps, but it doesn't get us any closer to working out what Johnson & Cummings might think their doing, what their strategy is or if they even have one. – Pelinore Sep 10 '19 at 21:21
  • @Pelinore Cummings wields a power behind the scenes with influence over ministers but carries no responsibility for the outcome. Is there any precedent for this? The best example I can think of is Rasputin. – WS2 Sep 11 '19 at 21:03
  • @WS2 : "Is there any precedent for this?" : Oh memory, how vertically challenged art thou? Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's Special adviser? – Pelinore Sep 11 '19 at 21:35

1 Answers1

6

It looks like the Tories in the House of Lords had a different (and arguably important) reason for the filibuster, and it wasn't something decided by Boris or Tory MPs. It wasn't the case that they didn't want the new law to pass, but rather, they were opposed to the guillotine motion Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour) wanted to introduce to make sure the bill was passed on time. The Tory peers believed the guillotine motion would introduce a dangerous precedent for the future: they argued that the key feature of the House of Lords is that they take as much time as it is needed to discuss and amend the bills. To quote Earl Howe (Conservative):

I will make some brief remarks on the amendment of my noble friend. I focus, as other noble Lords will do, on the practical effects of this Motion. Its main effect, as has been said, is a guillotine. Setting aside the issue of precedent, I do not think that one can dismiss this as some kind of run-of-the-mill measure. The practical effects of the guillotine will be wide ranging and deeply damaging to the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation as fully as it needs to.

In the end, Labour and Tory peers came to agreement: Labour wouldn't introduce the guillotine motion, and the Tories wouldn't obstruct the proceedings and would make sure that the bill completes the passage through the Lords by 5pm on Friday. To quote Lord True (Conservative):

It is extraordinary that, when one is trying to round something off amicably, some people mutter in that way. The purpose of all the amendments—the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite was extraordinarily gracious on this point—was to guard against the guillotine, something that the noble Baroness said was not desirable in this House. As far as I am concerned, we will give an undertaking that we will abide by any usual channels agreement, as Back-Benchers in this House always do. Certainly, if another attempt is ever made to bring forward a guillotine Motion of this kind, it can expect the same sort of resistance, irrespective of the issue concerned.

The details are in the House of Lords Hansards from 4 September 2019. The agreement was announced at 1.09 am.

michau
  • 2,400
  • 13
  • 25
  • I assume the opening line should be 'dropping the filibuster' – Jontia Sep 08 '19 at 12:12
  • @Jontia No, the opening line should be "filibuster" -- the point is that the filibuster wasn't to protect no-deal, but to stop the guillotine. – cpast Sep 08 '19 at 12:21
  • @Jontia No, I didn't mean "dropping the filibuster". They had different reasons for starting the filibuster in the first place. – michau Sep 08 '19 at 12:22
  • 2
    So 90 amendments were placed into the Bill bill in response to a presumably early amendment instead of rejecting that amendment itself? – Jontia Sep 08 '19 at 16:13
  • 1
    @Jontia The Tories don't have a majority in the Lords, so they had no way to reject it. – michau Sep 08 '19 at 18:55
  • @michau given the nature of the guillotine amendment a Tory Lords Majority seems unlikely to have been required. The old saying that Bills pass the Commons on the Whip, but the Lords on their Merits should have made a Majority vote down a guillotine amendment assuming that everyone would behave responsibly with filibuster tactics. But perhaps this is a discussion for another time. – Jontia Sep 08 '19 at 19:45