,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This thread is on the convention that an outgoing government - one that has lost a vote of no confidence and is in office pending an imminent election - should not take any decision that preempts its successor: the “don’t preempt convention”.
What that means is rather important if Johnson loses a vote of no confidence in October. Unless another government is then put together within 14 days that does command confidence (the “national unity” idea) then there is an election and Johnson stays as PM until Election Day.
But Election Day wouldn’t then be till after Halloween: so if Johnson refused to ask for an extension, we’d crash out.
I believe that the don’t preempt convention would require Johnson to get an extension in those circumstances (though my thread drew attention to the extreme Brexiter penchant for ignoring conventions).
But @RobertCraig3 draw my attention to a paper by him and others (including @sc_laws) which argues that the don’t preempt convention wouldn’t require seeking an extension. policyexchange.org.uk/publication/lo…
This is the key passage. 
I have to say - with all respect to the learned authors - that that passage loses contact with reality. It is simply unarguable that a short extension would be a “major policy decision” in the same league as not seeking one and crashing out.
More to the point, not seeking an extension would, spectacularly, preempt an incoming Labour/Labour led coalition government to leave with a deal/hold a referendum. A short extension, however, leaves a pro no deal government full scope for a no deal exit in say December.
So I don’t think the argument run stands up to scrutiny.
Does it make a difference (as the passage suggests) that “no deal” is a default?
No, it doesn’t. The Act clearly contemplates extensions. So an extension (which would have to be approved by Parliament) can hardly be said to be contrary to Parliament’s intent.
Nor can it make a difference to the don’t preempt convention that, here, maintenance of the status quo requires action rather than doing nothing: any argument that depends on a distinction between actions and omissions is shaky indeed.
So I’m afraid that not only do I disagree with the authors on this point, I think their argument is hopeless.
But the mere fact that the argument is hopeless wont necessarily stop Johnson trying to rely on it.
Which is why those voting no confidence in October need also to be prepared to threaten forming a temporary government to replace Johnson if he refuses to promise to seek an extension. /ends
