Guardian brings weekly good news of disruption and coups

There's a new weekly roundup of Brexit news frm the Gruna. Lovers of good news can even get it via email. Here's a bit of this week's:

Best of the rest

• Surge in EU citizens unfairly refused access to universal credit.
• Low-income Britons ‘more vulnerable to recession than in 2008’.
• Edinburgh festival performers refuse sterling payments due to Brexit.
• UK less able to cope with hard Brexit than it was in spring, say officials.
• UK manufacturing ‘suffocating’ as output slips to seven-year low.
• BMW boss urges Boris Johnson to abandon no-deal Brexit.
• Labour would be ‘off our rockers’ not to back remain in poll, says Thornberry.
• We’ll block trade deal if Brexit imperils open Irish border, say US politicians.
• Brexit causes UK car industry investment to crash to ‘pitiful’ £90m.
• No-deal Brexit would endanger rural life, says Welsh leader.

Meanwhile V Bogdanor offers some expert advice for coup organisers, with the cheerful headline:

MPs can still thwart Boris Johnson over no deal. Here’s how

 there are, in theory, five ways in which the Commons could act.

First, it could legislate to require the prime minister to seek a further extension. The EU27 would then have to decide by unanimity whether to grant it, and under what conditions. Second, it could legislate to prevent the government from leaving without a deal.But that would in effect repeal the act withdrawing Britain from the EU, since if the Commons were then to reject every deal put to it, the UK would remain in the EU ad infinitum.[I'd not realized that implication! It's not clear if he approves of that or not] ...Third, the Commons could legislate for a referendum before Brexit [Would there be time?] . Fourth, it could legislate to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act and reinstate the European Communities Act, in which case the UK would remain in the EU....Finally, the Commons could vote no confidence in the government. There might then be either an alternative government prepared to delay or prevent Brexit or a general election.

It turns out that each alternative actually has real problems, insuperable in normal conditions.

Of the five, all but the last require the Commons to take control of the legislative process. That could be achieved by the Commons agreeing to suspend standing order 14, which gives priority to government business. In April the Cooper-Letwin bill, which passed third reading by one vote, did precisely that, requiring Theresa May to seek an extension to the Brexit date to avoid a no-deal Brexit....But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. [That would be very popular!] But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended....The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.

a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn...there is a 14-day window in which to find an alternative government capable of securing the confidence of the Commons. A Corbyn government would be unlikely to secure that confidence. Conservatives, the DUP and Liberal Democrats would vote against it. Another possibility, however, would be a government of national unity to forestall Brexit, led perhaps by someone such as Yvette Cooper or Keir Starmer...[but the Queen] ...would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister. [And what on earth would the electorate think?]

The alternative is a general election, which would inevitably take on the character of a second referendum. The election would be called by the prime minister following the closure of the 14-day window. After dissolution there must be 25 working days before the election. So if a vote of no-confidence took place on 5 September it could be held on 17 October just in time for the new parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit...The trouble is that dissolution need not follow immediately after the 14-day window closes. Under section 2 (7) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act it is for the prime minister to recommend a suitable election date to the Queen. Only when he has done so is the date of dissolution determined. Were Johnson to delay the election date beyond 31 October he would be accused of acting unconstitutionally, but it would not be unlawful.

Then a damp squib to end:

The caretaker convention dictates that no alteration of policy should occur during the pre-election period. Suppose the Commons had clearly indicated that it was opposed to a no-deal Brexit. How should the convention then be interpreted? Constitutionally, there is no clear answer. The logic of democracy [!] suggests that the people should decide.

Very convenient that 'logic of democracy'. It permits backbenchers to take control of the order paper, even to impose a GNU which no-one has voted for, led by people who have not been elected even by a small group of party members.