Another Weird Brexit Turn: Tories Vote to Support No Deal Bill in House of Lords


A big filibuster was in progress then suddenly it vanished. Tories voted for the Benn bill blocking No Deal.

Sorting Out the Truly Weird

Remainers are bragging tonight that the Filibuster is broken. Guess who broke it.

Via Eurointelligence

The Conservatives in the House of Lords abandoned their filibuster in the early hours of this morning. The government whip in the Lords actively encouraged members to get the Brexit-extension bill approved by Friday. The bill would then return to the Commons for a final reading on Monday morning.

This looks to us like one of three things have happened overnight. Maybe the government simply caved in as the Tory Lords realised that their filibuster would be broken eventually. Having a Brexit-supporting Lord reading the telephone book to you in order to kill time is right up there with the poetry-citing Vogons in the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

A second possibility is that the government may have concluded that it has other, more effective, means to frustrate the bill than an unpopular Lords filibuster. It could, for example, withhold Royal Assent. The legal expert Robert Craig recalls yet another arcane procedural requirement. It is called Queen’s Consent which - if you can believe it - is different from Royal Assent. Queen’s Consent relates to legislation that shifts the royal prerogative - in this case the right of the Crown, and the government as its agent, to conduct international negotiations. Withholding the Queen’s Consent would constitute an effective government veto. We are not in a position to offer any legal or procedural interpretation of our own, let alone to judge whether this avenue will be pursued.

A third possibility is that the government and opposition parties may have struck a deal on the next election. Yesterday, Labour abstained on the government motion under the fixed-terms parliaments act to hold early elections. There is a big debate within the Labour Party, with Keir Starmer and other pro-Remain MPs wanting to prevent Johnson from being able to trigger a no-deal Brexit even if he were to win elections.

We still believe that elections are more likely than not, simply because we don’t believe that Labour can hold its position for very long. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, also come out in favour of early elections and criticised Labour for trying to block it. The longer this stalemate goes on, the more it will reverberate against the party. As an opposition leader you don’t want to go into an election with the prime minister calling you a big girl’s blouse, as happened yesterday, or a chlorinated chicken.

Queen's Consent

I vote for the Eurointelligence second possibility, Queen's Consent.

Queen's Consent is different from Royal Assent.

I never heard of QC. I suspect 99.9% have not heard of it either.

But my overriding premise has always been that the Johnson team knows what it is doing.

I have amusing comments from UK expats telling me things like a filibuster is impossible, now bragging that the filibuster is broken, no doubt without even know it was the Johnson Tories who broke it.

Queen's Consent Legal Opinion

Let's investigate a Legal Opinion on Queen's Consent.

Emphasis is original, not mine.

Queen’s Consent is a procedural requirement for any Bill passing through the Commons and Lords where the terms of the Bill would ‘affect’ the exercise of any royal prerogative if it was passed. The effect on the prerogative must be more than de minimis.

Queen’s Consent is normally a formality, because the government usually proposes (or more accurately for Private Members Bills, acquiesces to) all Bills that are successfully voted through both Houses. The current scenario could see a situation where a Bill passes in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the government.

Prerogative powers are legacy powers of the Crown that are now mainly exercised by the government. Conducting foreign affairs, and in particular the power to agree treaties and operate treaty powers, is an important part of the prerogative and is the relevant power for this post. Under that power, the UK government has agreed new treaties, and particular laws, at EU level over the last 46 years (and indeed continues to do so).

The story behind the passage of Cooper-Letwin is more complex than many realise. The drafting of the original version was masterly. Cooper-Letwin mandated the then Prime Minister (PM) to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. The word ‘seek’ is crucial. The reason it is so crucial is that it allowed the argument to be made that Queen’s Consent was not necessary for the Bill. This was because to ‘seek’ an extension does not actually have any effect in terms of changing the date of exit at EU level. Seeking an extension arguably does not ‘affect’ prerogative exercise as a matter of law.

The sheer cleverness of the drafting of Cooper-Letwin rests on the fact that it left entirely open what would happen after the extension was ‘sought’. The negotiations and agreement of a new exit date were without doubt exercises of prerogative power and any Bill that sought to regulate or supplant those aspects of securing an extension would certainly have required Queen’s Consent during the passage of the Bill.

The issue of Queen’s Consent was taken very seriously during the passage of the Cooper-Letwin Bill and was so controversial it resulted in a Formal Ruling by the Speaker. That ruling made clear that the original draft of the Bill did not require Queen’s Consent.

The Benn-Burt bill

If Benn-Burt had precisely followed the format of Cooper-Letwin and only mandated that the government seek an extension, then it would have placed no obligation on the PM to agree or accept any extension. That would remain part of the prerogative power to be exercised as the PM sees fit in his negotiations with the EU27.

However, Benn-Burt goes much further than Cooper-Letwin. It mandates that the PM must not only seek but also agree to an extension, either 31 January 2020 or another date if the Commons approves a date suggested by the EU27. Mandating that the PM agrees to an extension manifestly affects the prerogative. It is difficult to see how requesting Queen’s Consent can be avoided for this Bill. If so, it follows that the government must agree to the Bill being passed during Third Reading.

What is most fascinating about this dilemma is that the Cooper-Letwin prototype gave such clear and unequivocal evidence of where the bright line on Queen’s Consent is actually drawn by the legal experts who understand, and indeed determine, these issues within the Commons. Can there be any doubt that if a stronger wording could have been secured without triggering Queen’s Consent then such a wording would have been used last time?


The proponents of a new Bill to prevent No Deal are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they had drafted a Bill that only mandated the PM to seek an extension, the PM would be left free to refuse to agree or accept any extension in negotiations with the EU27.

But the actual Bill tries to impose a requirement that the PM either agrees to 31 January 2020 or agrees any new exit date suggested by the EU27 (as long as a motion approving the alternative date in the House of Commons is passed). House of Commons procedural rules mean that the government is required formally to approve the Bill by affirming ‘Queen’s Consent’ to the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is because the power to agree or accept an extension is normally exercised using a prerogative power. If passed, this statute would have the legal effect, by whatever means, of forcing the PM to agree an extension to the Article 50 process would manifestly ‘affect’ the prerogative for the purposes of the relevant test as to whether Queen’s Consent is required.

Too Clever

The Benn Bill requires Johnson's approval. What do you think the odds of that are?

That's the long and short of it.

It's unclear if Benn knew this or not. It's possible he did and hoped Johnson would not catch it. More likely, the drafters of the Benn bill did not know.

Either way, the point is moot.

There is no way to force Johnson to approve this. And he won't, even if Bercow demands.

Benn can take it to the courts, but the law is clear.

Benn is Dead

I was mocked this evening "So, spin this all you want. You were wrong about all the procedures in parliament. Have YOU gone back to study parliamentary rules and UK law?"

Mind you, this is from the person who told me a filibuster in the House of Lords was not even possible.

I never presume I know everything. Clearly, I don't.

However, I have high confidence the Johnson team picked the dates very carefully and for a reason, even if I did not understand the reason.

Benn is dead unless it's part of a deal as per Eurointelligence option three.

Respectable Opinions

I highly respect the opinions of Eurointelligence.

Q: Why?

A: Because the outfit is staunchly pro-remain.

It's easy to find opinions supporting your view. It's damn hard to find someone saying what you want to hear when they disagree with the outcome.

Impressions are Deceptive

Here's another intelligent view point via Eurointelligence, but referencing a paywalled article Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings Believe Their Plan Can Still Work.

Emphasis Mine.

While no one foresaw the scale of the rebellion a showdown with parliament was long planned

Johnson and his chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, deliberately planned and engineered last night’s defeat, goading the Commons into opposing him; he was lying to his party, parliament and the country when he claimed that he was being pushed into calling an election.

An early election that he could deny seeking is exactly what he has been scheming to achieve ever since he took power.


Eurointelligence comments "In particular, Number 10 remains confident that they will get early elections. On balance, we agree with that assessment."

Ignore the Nonsense

Yesterday I commented Ignore the Nonsense Reporting: Boris Johnson was Not Defeated, He Won Big Time.

Just the Facts Maam

  1. Johnson goaded 21 problematic Rebel Tories into voting against him. Those Tories have been removed from the party and will lose their seats in the next election. Good riddance.
  2. Because of foolish Remainer actions, Johnson will no longer have to go through the charades of working out a deal with the EU.
  3. Johnson's hands are effectively bound and he welcomes that! He will not have to work out a deal. Instead he can lay the blame on the EU and on the Remainers for removing the option to negotiate with the EU.
  4. By removing the 21 rebels, Johnson won the support of Nigel Farage thereby allowing a coalition between the Brexit Party and the Tories minus the rebel problem makes.
  5. The Remainers are hopelessly split. Corbyn wants a referendum or the right to work out a customs deal with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to remain. Many Labour party members want Brexit.

Delusional Remainers

My 5 comments from yesterday are backed up by events and independent analysis today.

Meanwhile, delusional Remainers keep believing they have the upper hand.

In reality, the Remainers do precisely what Johnson says: strip him of any chance of working out a deal.

It's debatable if Johnson really wants a deal. I don't pretend to know. I do know he cannot live with the backstop.

The deal question is moot even though the result sure isn't.

Johnson will form an alliance with the Brexit party if for no other reason than Remainers forced him into that hard stance.

Look for a big Johnson win in the next election whether or not he gives into the Benn bill to get it.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (61)
No. 1-14

The opposition position has moved again. They intend to make Johnson apply for the extension. As soon as they have humiliated him enough they will consign him to the dustbin of history. There is no disguising the fact that 20% of the current Conservative parliamentary party loathe and detest the liar-even his own brother and sister do not support him. As ye sow so shall ye reap and that lying charlatan is going to get everything he deserves.


I don't know if your read of the Brexit situation is correct or incorrect. I do know, however, that you indicated that Catalonia independence was a foregone conclusion. So as far as I can tell you are batting 0


Can't find link now but I understand Speaker Bercow ruled on Wed 4th that Benn's Bill did NOT need Queen's Consent. Not a clue how he came to that conclusion after reading above.


Carlos, Catalonia deemed it's independence a foregone conclusion, I was there at the time (leaving the morning before the vote) the overwhelming majority were for independence. In law and by their rights under the EU they should have had a proper vote without intimidation from the federal government and that vote counted fairly and then respected as the will of the people. Instead Madrid had thousands of para military police all up and down the Ramblas toting machine guns and never seen to smile. Their presence was a blunt tactic of intervention and intimidation. As the people went to vote the polling places were raided and the government houses in Barcelona were locked and left in shambles. And it is exactly for reasons like this that the EU is an evil construct that basically has well earned the moniker of the EUSSR. Don't tell me I am wrong about what I saw with my own eyes.

Mish I think your conclusions are exactly right, every move and counter move so far since May resigned has been made to look like a humiliation of Johnson (who I had no respect for as London mayor but now see in a different light). And every so called humiliation actually turned out to be remainers working against themselves once they realized that Johnson had outsmarted them.

Those that believe that Jo Johnson quit politics to make a point are just wrong, and worse than wrong being dense, intentionally or not, I do not know, but if he and the remainers had not been utterly boxed in and unable to proceed he would have stayed in order to further their cause. Instead he up and quit so WHY? Because he just realized they have LOST, they were outsmarted, and by his own brother no less. This looks to any thinking adult more like frustration and sibling rivalry not political point making. Just quitting his office is a LAST option, if he had any others he would have been more than glad to hand his brother a defeat.

Benn may have believed his bill did not need QC and that is why he wrote it the way he did, and others (such as the people that claimed a filibuster in Lords could not happen) were either wishful in their thinking or just did not do their homework. It assumed no need for QC and you can't find the original article because it was withdrawn or edited once they realized Benn had played into Johnson's hands.

The more I think about it the more I believe the Queen agrees with Johnson and is actively participating for Brexit behind the scenes. After all it is her throne that the EUSSR seeks to usurp. She royal houses are allowed to stay in name only but as pure figureheads with zero power in their own nations, nothing more than photo ops as chamber of commerce tools.


Brexit is boring. I suspect if Brexit ever does occur, not much will change.


Reading that article, it now looks 100% like it is in Boris's hands to deliver Brexit. So we find out what side he is on when he makes the decision about Queen's assent. He has to reveal his hand at that point.

If he is really pro-Brexit, then he will make Brexit happen by not giving asset. The clock has run down at the point. There will no longer be any point delaying a GE either, so he gets that as well, plus of course he gets a massive majority in that election as a reward.

But if he accepts the bill and delays Brexit again, we know he is in the tank for remain. There is no other reason for him to allow this bill to pass.

Country Bob
Country Bob

In other words, Johnson (and/or his allies in the house of lords) deliberately lost (conceded?) the battle in order to win the war.

That seems to be a theme with this whole brexit nonsense. The remainers are going to put everything they have into winning a pointless battle. Tiring out their troops, running down their supplies, using up all their ammo -- just to win a battle that will cost them the war.

The EU "remains" bankrupt, with or without the UK. The war for EU is lost, no matter how many women's blouses get tossed around Parliament.

The remainers can call a general election -- and Johnson wins big time. Or Johnson can say this bill violates queens assent -- the matter might or might not go to court, but either way it triggers a vote of confidence (aka a general election which Johnson wins) or it runs out the October 31st clock. Which is door #3: remainers can just dither around until October 31st -- then the UK is out of the EU by default and Johnson wins big time.

Why anyone would expend so much political capital on a lost cause escapes me. Clearly the remainers did not think this through.

Theresa May already tried to sabotage Brexit, and if the remainers had an effective alternative to brexit she would have done so instead of failing as PM. The political class benefits from remaining, the taxpayers do not. That is the theme all over Europe, not just in the UK.


Mish, no one other than Avidremoron has given you harder time on your Brexit articles over the last 18 months than I have, in my humble opinion. However, once Johson got to 10 Downing and made it publicly clear that October 31st was the date- then and only then did I concede that Brexit was a probable event, and most likely with no deal in place. My previous stance that Brexit wasn't going to happen all depended on having a PM who didn't really support it, like May, who would then do all in their power to frustrate the process until they could get a 2nd referendum that split the Brexit vote, not the Remain vote. Johnson has convinced me that he is authentic on this issue, so I changed my prediction.


On the machinations going on right now:

Yes, I think the Johnson government is going to take both assent paths to block the Benn bill. I think the writers of the bill did know this was a danger to their bill, but they had no choice but to directly tie the PM's hands since not doing so would have allowed Johnson the power to simply refuse to accept an extension. The fact of the Letwin bill's analysis had to have been known to all parties involved.

I do think Johnson did tell the Tories in the House of Lords to give way- politically, it is better to fight this out on the assent issues rather than a filibuster in the Lords. Here is the key thing- to stop Johnson, the rebels will have to now agree to new elections, or they will have to do the VONC and replace Johnson with an interim government. I think, politically, the last option isn't realistic- who would be approved to head such a government, and how would such a government ever survive long without a vote?



"I don't know if your read of the Brexit situation is correct or incorrect. I do know, however, that you indicated that Catalonia independence was a foregone conclusion. So as far as I can tell you are batting 0"

Carlos you don't know shit.

I never made such a statement. I did want independence and I did get the election correct as well.

I never once stated that it was going to happen or it was a "foregone conclusion"

I did yet the result of the vote correct


Man I hope you're right Mish. If this does come to pass and we make it to the Queen's speech Oct 14, do you honestly think there is no chance of the remain forces joining forces for a GONU? I think there is a good chance their hatred of brexit will unite them, like this past week. They may be willing to install Corbyn for a time.

Fingers crossed, this will all make a brilliant tv series in 10-20 years time.


Maybe, as Mish says, BoJo really knows what he is doing. I came across this article about the Fixed Term Act ( , that essentially says that when the PM loses a confidence vote, it is the DEFEATED PM, who proposes the next one to the Queen. So nothing seems to prevent BoJo, once he looses a confidence vote, to name Michael Gove, who can propose early election, lose the early election vote, lose the confidence of parliament, and then recommend... Jacob Rees-Moog as PM, who... etc, etc until the 31st of October : checkmate ?!

Global Economics