The two options for an election (the government's for 12 Dec, the LDs/SNP for 9 Dec) look almost indistinguishable in terms of timing, but are very different both in terms of process and crucially for treatment of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB).
This thread discusses how...
This thread discusses how...
The government is seeking approval for an early election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA). That requires approval by 2/3 of MPs - unlikely to be forthcoming. Even abstentions count against the motion.
Crucially government also wants parliament to pass the WAB by 6 Nov
Crucially government also wants parliament to pass the WAB by 6 Nov
Passing the WAB to such a timetable seems problematic - only a few days for a big complex bill.
Here's the Unit's analysis of time given to other Brexit bills. The most similar comparator had 36 days of scrutiny:
Here's the Unit's analysis of time given to other Brexit bills. The most similar comparator had 36 days of scrutiny:
As other commentators have pointed out, it's not just a matter of how many days of scrutiny, but the overall timetable, allowing for committee reports, etc.
This exchange between @bricksilk and @jillongovt is illuminating, with good graphs:
This exchange between @bricksilk and @jillongovt is illuminating, with good graphs:
So there isn't time to scrutinise the WAB adequately before parliament breaks up on 6 Nov for a 12 Dec election.
In addition there's a contradiction: if the WAB passes, why the urgency for an election?
After all, we just had a Queen's speech for a new government programme.
In addition there's a contradiction: if the WAB passes, why the urgency for an election?
After all, we just had a Queen's speech for a new government programme.
As the Unit's Robert Hazell warned:
"If [the speech] is delivered in mid-October, and is swiftly followed by an election in November, then the ... Queen will have been used to make a Conservative party political broadcast"
constitution-unit.com/2019/10/03/hol…
"If [the speech] is delivered in mid-October, and is swiftly followed by an election in November, then the ... Queen will have been used to make a Conservative party political broadcast"
constitution-unit.com/2019/10/03/hol…
The Liberal Democrat / SNP proposal is different.
First, this would be achieved through a bill, not a motion.
Second, it would put the WAB on hold, at least until after a general election.
Both of these differences are important.
First, this would be achieved through a bill, not a motion.
Second, it would put the WAB on hold, at least until after a general election.
Both of these differences are important.
To legislate for an election only a simple majority in the Commons would be needed, rather than 2/3. But this would need to hold through all stages, including committee stage, when amendments can be moved.
And the bill would need to pass all stages in the Lords.
Very quickly!
And the bill would need to pass all stages in the Lords.
Very quickly!
Five weeks is needed as run-up to an election, so for an election on Mon 9 Dec the bill would need to pass this week.
And there's no "programming" of legislation in the Lords, so such a timetable would be very challenging indeed, even if the bill got through the Commons.
And there's no "programming" of legislation in the Lords, so such a timetable would be very challenging indeed, even if the bill got through the Commons.
If such a bill did somehow pass, the Lib Dems would clearly hope the general election outcome was decisive in changing the direction of Brexit.
If the Conservatives won they'd presumably return to the WAB. This would leave a bit more scrutiny time, until 31 Jan, but not much.
If the Conservatives won they'd presumably return to the WAB. This would leave a bit more scrutiny time, until 31 Jan, but not much.
In short, it's hard to square proper scrutiny time for the WAB and a general election before 31 January.
Having just negotiated a deal the natural next step would appear to be for the government to focus on trying to get its bill through parliament.
Having just negotiated a deal the natural next step would appear to be for the government to focus on trying to get its bill through parliament.
BUT of course if the bill gets into trouble the question of an election could soon return, as a means of breaking the impasse
Or a referendum amendment to the bill might seek to do the same
The second of these would definitely take us beyond 31 January. The first might as well.
Or a referendum amendment to the bill might seek to do the same
The second of these would definitely take us beyond 31 January. The first might as well.
There's a useful thread on election timing here by the Unit's @alanjrenwick, which for some inexplicable tech reason refused to copy into this thread earlier.
This addresses the question of whether the five weeks could be cut:
This addresses the question of whether the five weeks could be cut:
