Thread by @cgwOMT

The PM wants an election, but he can't get one. As long as the Opposition stay united, the timing of any poll is entirely in their hands, and they could even force him to request an extension, something he'd rather 'die in a ditch' than do.

A thread explaining why👇

In 2011 Parliament passed the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA). This stripped the PM of being able to call an election when he wants, meaning there are now 3 routes to a GE:
1⃣ 2/3rds of MPs vote for an early election (FTPA)
2⃣ Vote of No Confidence (VONC) (FTPA)
3⃣ Change FTPA

Let's start with 2/3rds super-majority provided for in FTPA.
On Wednesday the Govt tried a 2/3 vote and 'won' by 298 votes to 56.

But the FTPA states that 434 MPs - 2/3rds of all MPs in the Commons - need to vote in favour, so it failed.

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1169351751729864706?s=20

With only 289 Conservative MPs after the whip was removed from the 21 rebels, the PM now needs more than 145 Opposition MPs to support any 2/3rds vote or it will fail, so Labour hold the whip hand and can prevent an election under this method.

What about the VONC?

Again, the Govt only has 289 Tory MPs, plus the support of 10 DUP MPs, so a max total of 299, well short of the 320 majority point (once Speakers, Deputy Speakers and the 7 Sinn Fein MPs are removed).

Unless Opposition unity breaks down - no election

What about changing the FTPA?

You could do this through a short 'notwithstanding' Bill, which simply amends the FTPA to allow an election on a specified date, e.g. 15 October 2019, but leaves the rest of the Act in place.

But once again, you need a majority for it.

To change an Act of Parliament you need to go through both Houses. Even if the PM somehow found a majority in the Commons, Labour and the Lib Dems together outvote the Tories in the Lords by around 300-200 (depending on turnout).

Once again, no majority here.

I had thought that with Govt abandoning the filibuster in the Lords this week a deal had been struck to allow an election once the Benn-Burt Bill had Royal Assent.

Yet Opposition MPs are beginning to act in concert for the first time, and see a real opportunity here.

Under the Benn-Burt Bill, if Parliament doesn't approve either a new deal, or no-deal in a vote before 19th October, then the PM must write to the EU to seek an extension until 31.01.20.

Instead of an election on 15th October, why not force the PM to seek an extension? As PM he would have to obey the law, and therefore his comments that he would rather 'die in a ditch' are important.

That's why the Royal Assent Government 'veto' becomes critical - because without it, not only can the PM not get an election, he would also have to request that extension under the law if he is still PM on 19th October.

For the record, I've written previously that I don't believe that the Govt can refuse Royal Assent to a Bill that has passed through both Houses of Parliament, agreeing with many other constitutional academics - you can read my @timesredbox here. END thetimes.co.uk/article/why-th…

A quick PS: a few people are suggesting the PM could resign on 18th meaning there is no one to send the extension to the EU under the Benn-Burt legislation. There must always be a PM, and if the Bill passed that PM must comply with the law.

Another PS - as @Raphael_Hogarth has pointed out, the Government has ruled out using refusing Royal Assent 👇

https://twitter.com/raphael_hogarth/status/1169930659529449474?s=21