WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
So which is it, is Westminster legislating without Holyrood's consent or are they not?
The Government's approach and proposed legislation, ignoring the Sewel conventions, was clearly outlined weeks if not months in advance. Only when attempts by the Scottish Government to agree changes failed did their Continuity bill have to be fast-tracked.
Status of the former does not depend on the latter.
This is particularly important as the US is closing down their version - despite the fact that a large number of successful companies were created under it.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I think the Speaker would have a thing or two to say about it, it isn't just the SNP's "appetite" that matters.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I think the Speaker would have a thing or two to say about it, it isn't just the SNP's "appetite" that matters.
I am sure he would - but procedurely I don't think the Divisions could be avoided if SNP MPs were to shout 'Noe' when the question is put by him to the House.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I think the Speaker would have a thing or two to say about it, it isn't just the SNP's "appetite" that matters.
I am sure he would - but procedurely I don't think the Divisions could be avoided if SNP MPs were to shout 'Noe' when the question is put by him to the House.
As I said, the Speaker can ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I think the Speaker would have a thing or two to say about it, it isn't just the SNP's "appetite" that matters.
I am sure he would - but procedurely I don't think the Divisions could be avoided if SNP MPs were to shout 'Noe' when the question is put by him to the House.
As I said, the Speaker can ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
The SNP have chosen a nifty way of supporting the government whilst appearing to oppose it. I presume it's a dry run for any No Confidence vote.
Yes, if the SNP aren't coming back to the chamber today then the vote will be easily won by the government. If the SNP do a Sinn Fein then the Pro-EU lot have lost all of their power.
It’s the hung parliament that gives the Europhile Tory rebels the most power.
It May had got a majority of 40, 15-20 rebels on the EU side could have more or less been ignored. 70-80 in the ERG could not have been, and they would have had the power, so we’d be getting a cleaner and harder Brexit.
Do you think May would have used a larger majority to impose an Irish sea border? If not, a cleaner and harder Brexit doesn't exist.
The "cleanest" and "hardest" brexit would surely be WTO? The border wouldn't be in the Irish Sea.
No it would be on the River Foyle. A joyous prospect for peace.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
Motions are normally decided by Division - the Speaker does not have discretion on that. Bercow today was clearly very reliant on the advice from the Clerks to the House. On your reasoning, why are Divisions ever held when one side is clearly going to win overwhelmingly? The minor parties would never succeed in bringing their own issues to a vote because the majority opposing them would be so overwheming!
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
Motions are normally decided by Division - the Speaker does not have discretion on that. Bercow today was clearly very reliant on the advice from the Clerks to the House. On your reasoning, why are Divisions ever held when one side is clearly going to win overwhelmingly? The minor parties would never succeed in bringing their own issues to a vote because the majority opposing them would be so overwheming!
Parliament's own background paper (citing Erskine May) disagrees with you.
The Speaker has the discretion to ask each side to stand in their places in the Chamber, if s/he believes that a division is unnecessary.3.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
To me this seems epic mismanagement by the May team. If they had arranged for all repatriated EU functions such as Farming, Fisheries, Environment etc to Holyrood rather than Westminster, they would flip a large part of the SNP on the subject of Brexit.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
Motions are normally decided by Division - the Speaker does not have discretion on that. Bercow today was clearly very reliant on the advice from the Clerks to the House. On your reasoning, why are Divisions ever held when one side is clearly going to win overwhelmingly? The minor parties would never succeed in bringing their own issues to a vote because the majority opposing them would be so overwheming!
Parliament's own background paper (citing Erskine May) disagrees with you.
The Speaker has the discretion to ask each side to stand in their places in the Chamber, if s/he believes that a division is unnecessary.3.
And on your second point, divisions aren't always held. They cite an example of that in the same background paper.
After the Speaker has asked for shouts of 'Aye' and 'Noe' he can say 'I think the Ayes have it' - or 'the Noes have it'. If his opinion is challenged , he will then shout 'Division'. I am not aware of a single example of an MP having to leave the House as a result of the other Members rising to their feet.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
Broxtowe was 54.6% Leave
I think Broxtowe the constituency was estimated to be slightly less leave than Broxtowe the district - they are not quite contiguous.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
Motions are normally decided by Division - the Speaker does not have discretion on that. Bercow today was clearly very reliant on the advice from the Clerks to the House. On your reasoning, why are Divisions ever held when one side is clearly going to win overwhelmingly? The minor parties would never succeed in bringing their own issues to a vote because the majority opposing them would be so overwheming!
Parliament's own background paper (citing Erskine May) disagrees with you.
The Speaker has the discretion to ask each side to stand in their places in the Chamber, if s/he believes that a division is unnecessary.3.
And on your second point, divisions aren't always held. They cite an example of that in the same background paper.
After the Speaker has asked for shots of 'Aye' and 'Noe' he can say 'I think the Ayes have it' - or 'the Noes have it'. If his opinion is challenged , he will then shout 'Division'. I am not aware of a single example of an MP having to leave the House as a result of the other Members rising to their feet.
I'm well aware of how votes are called (I've recently read through a background paper on the matter!). That does not mean it is not within his right, and after a campaign of disruption don't you think he'd exercise it?
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
The overall general election set of voters will probably have voted to remain at the General Election, though certainly Soubry's votes on their own would tally for 'leave'.
The SNP have chosen a nifty way of supporting the government whilst appearing to oppose it. I presume it's a dry run for any No Confidence vote.
Yes, if the SNP aren't coming back to the chamber today then the vote will be easily won by the government. If the SNP do a Sinn Fein then the Pro-EU lot have lost all of their power.
It’s the hung parliament that gives the Europhile Tory rebels the most power.
It May had got a majority of 40, 15-20 rebels on the EU side could have more or less been ignored. 70-80 in the ERG could not have been, and they would have had the power, so we’d be getting a cleaner and harder Brexit.
You're assuming the 70-80 in ERG are as rebellious as the 15-20 proEU rebels. I doubt that. The 15-20 are just the most committed, there must be well over 50 other Tory MPs who would like to see a soft-Brexit.
Why on earth would you doubt that? They rebelled all the time during 2010-2016.
They are not doing so now because they want Brexit to happen and don’t want to precipitate a downfall of a Conservative Government before it happens.
The SNP have chosen a nifty way of supporting the government whilst appearing to oppose it. I presume it's a dry run for any No Confidence vote.
Yes, if the SNP aren't coming back to the chamber today then the vote will be easily won by the government. If the SNP do a Sinn Fein then the Pro-EU lot have lost all of their power.
It’s the hung parliament that gives the Europhile Tory rebels the most power.
It May had got a majority of 40, 15-20 rebels on the EU side could have more or less been ignored. 70-80 in the ERG could not have been, and they would have had the power, so we’d be getting a cleaner and harder Brexit.
Do you think May would have used a larger majority to impose an Irish sea border? If not, a cleaner and harder Brexit doesn't exist.
No. And I disagree, the Irish border is a red herring. The EU are trying to use it to force the UK into a softer Brexit (very irresponsibly I might add) than it would otherwise seek.
The SNP have chosen a nifty way of supporting the government whilst appearing to oppose it. I presume it's a dry run for any No Confidence vote.
Yes, if the SNP aren't coming back to the chamber today then the vote will be easily won by the government. If the SNP do a Sinn Fein then the Pro-EU lot have lost all of their power.
It’s the hung parliament that gives the Europhile Tory rebels the most power.
It May had got a majority of 40, 15-20 rebels on the EU side could have more or less been ignored. 70-80 in the ERG could not have been, and they would have had the power, so we’d be getting a cleaner and harder Brexit.
You're assuming the 70-80 in ERG are as rebellious as the 15-20 proEU rebels. I doubt that. The 15-20 are just the most committed, there must be well over 50 other Tory MPs who would like to see a soft-Brexit.
Why on earth would you doubt that? They rebelled all the time during 2010-2016.
They are not doing so now because they want Brexit to happen and don’t want to precipitate a downfall of a Conservative Government before it happens.
They're making a mistake because they think it will save them from losing face.
It must have been pressing if Sir John was persuaded to miss the cricket.
Its a day night match. He wouldn't have missed much.
I've just put a small bet on Australia at 11/1 following England's performance against Scotland the other day.
They got 365. Today they need 215. Once Bairstow's got his 100 that doesn't leave many for the others. I would have been looking for a lot better odds than that.
I believe that is restricted to a particular context - not to one of his rulings. A Division would arise here if an MP refused to depart when ordered to do so by the Speaker. The Division would effectively be held to uphold the Speaker's authority.
What gives you that impression? The standing order states that a motion is made to suspend a member. Motions are all voted on in the same way.
Motions are normally decided by Division - the Speaker does not have discretion on that. Bercow today was clearly very reliant on the advice from the Clerks to the House. On your reasoning, why are Divisions ever held when one side is clearly going to win overwhelmingly? The minor parties would never succeed in bringing their own issues to a vote because the majority opposing them would be so overwheming!
Parliament's own background paper (citing Erskine May) disagrees with you.
The Speaker has the discretion to ask each side to stand in their places in the Chamber, if s/he believes that a division is unnecessary.3.
And on your second point, divisions aren't always held. They cite an example of that in the same background paper.
After the Speaker has asked for shots of 'Aye' and 'Noe' he can say 'I think the Ayes have it' - or 'the Noes have it'. If his opinion is challenged , he will then shout 'Division'. I am not aware of a single example of an MP having to leave the House as a result of the other Members rising to their feet.
I'm well aware of how votes are called (I've recently read through a background paper on the matter!). That does not mean it is not within his right, and after a campaign of disruption don't you think he'd exercise it?
No I don't! His predecessors in the late 19th century had to put up with such tactics - which at the end of the day would be legitimate however disruptive they might prove to be. If Blackford had refused to move today - as Salmond and others did in the late 1980s - the resultant Division would have overwhelmingly backed the Speaker. Had he still refused to depart - as some Irish Nationalists did in the late 19th century - the Speaker would have called on the Sergeant at Arms to physically evict him. If Blackford and his SNP colleagues had then resorted to a serious physical brawl to resist eviction on the floor of the House - such has been seen in other Assemblies - such behaviour would clearly not be legitimate.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
Because Marxism and open borders will become huge vote winners for Labour in the next few years?
One would expect the Socialists to get a small boost following the change of PM. It'll be interesting to see how long it lasts.
Sanchez has had a very good two weeks - he has played the nationalists, Cs and Podemos perfectly, while PP is licking its wounds. Right now, no-one wants an elections, which suits him perfectly.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
That may be true of Justine Greening in Putney too.
Broxtowe 52.5% Leave, maj 863 Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269 Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
Broxtowe was 54.6% Leave
I think Broxtowe the constituency was estimated to be slightly less leave than Broxtowe the district - they are not quite contiguous.
Okay. It's a big difference though. The Leave majority in the district was over 6000
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
Because Marxism and open borders will become huge vote winners for Labour in the next few years?
No... Because millions of Con Leave voters will stay at home.
I think both Lab and Con will be down in 2022 compared to 2017 but Con will be down a lot more.
To me this seems epic mismanagement by the May team. If they had arranged for all repatriated EU functions such as Farming, Fisheries, Environment etc to Holyrood rather than Westminster, they would flip a large part of the SNP on the subject of Brexit.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
100% Agree. This and the Henry VIII clause are ridiculous power grabs off the back of Brexit and do massive harm to the process.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
Because Marxism and open borders will become huge vote winners for Labour in the next few years?
More because chaos and incompetence in government are viewed very badly by the voters.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
Because Marxism and open borders will become huge vote winners for Labour in the next few years?
No... Because millions of Con Leave voters will stay at home.
I think both Lab and Con will be down in 2022 compared to 2017 but Con will be down a lot more.
I must admit I cannot vote for May. The combination of incompetence, authoritarianism and dishonesty makes her entirely unfit for office.
To me this seems epic mismanagement by the May team. If they had arranged for all repatriated EU functions such as Farming, Fisheries, Environment etc to Holyrood rather than Westminster, they would flip a large part of the SNP on the subject of Brexit.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
100% Agree. This and the Henry VIII clause are ridiculous power grabs off the back of Brexit and do massive harm to the process.
I think we will see this in practice but the rules for extracting EU law out of our domestic law are going to be pretty standard and frankly probably best left to the draughtsman in Westminster. The only area I see beng even vaguely problematic is fishing where it is likely that there will be some sort of trade off in the main negotiations.
WIll Anna Soubry ever suck it up and move on? She did of course get elected on a Tory manifesto that stated we would leave the single market and customs union. There is no reference to either the single market of the customs union in the GFA as far as I am aware?
Maybe it's time she forced a by election so the people of Broxtowe can have a people's vote?!
To be fair to her, I don't think the voters of Broxtowe were under any illusions about her views on the EU.
I'd go further - given what happened to other Tory MPs in urban seats, my hypothesis is that both Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan would have lost their seats to Labour had they supported a hard Brexit. Much less gnashing of teeth from Tories that 2 of their own weren't "sound" but would have made a parliamentary majority even more tenuous.
Not so sure with Soubry. Broxtowe was a pretty strong Leave constituency at the referendum. If we end up with a very soft or no Brexit I would suggest she is toast at the next GE.
I think Soubry and Morgan will be out next time... But so too will a lot of Con leavers.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
Because Marxism and open borders will become huge vote winners for Labour in the next few years?
No... Because millions of Con Leave voters will stay at home.
I think both Lab and Con will be down in 2022 compared to 2017 but Con will be down a lot more.
Given the threat of Corbyn unlikely and we will still be likely out of the EEA and Customs Union and have replaced free movement with work permits or a job offer requirement which will be fine for all but a few obsessives like you for whom anything short of WTO terms Brexit is a 'betrayal'
To me this seems epic mismanagement by the May team. If they had arranged for all repatriated EU functions such as Farming, Fisheries, Environment etc to Holyrood rather than Westminster, they would flip a large part of the SNP on the subject of Brexit.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
100% Agree. This and the Henry VIII clause are ridiculous power grabs off the back of Brexit and do massive harm to the process.
I think that I must be hallucinating. I don't think we have ever agreed!
Roy is going to seriously regret missing out here. His position is looking slightly less secure again, especially when Stokes comes back and with Hales a ready made opener at 3.
Roy is going to seriously regret missing out here. His position is looking slightly less secure again, especially when Stokes comes back and with Hales a ready made opener at 3.
Wasnt the point of continued contributions to account for particular programmes that still had time to run. To block us access is an act of aggression. We must retaliate if that is their position.
Yeah, but consider the reactions if the UK proposed ending the existing security relationship with the EU.
Is this thought experiment just supposed to demonstrate that Brexit is a doomed project that serves noone’s interests and the tactics we employ are irrelevant?
“UK companies have been central to its design and build. A technical paper handed to the EU negotiators last month warned that restricting the UK from its desired involvement would lead would lead to up to three-year delays and an extra cost of around €1bn for the union.”
It is clear that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith trying to work a mutually beneficial deal.
“UK companies have been central to its design and build. A technical paper handed to the EU negotiators last month warned that restricting the UK from its desired involvement would lead would lead to up to three-year delays and an extra cost of around €1bn for the union.”
It is clear that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith trying to work a mutually beneficial deal.
Yeah, but consider the reactions if the UK proposed ending the existing security relationship with the EU.
Theresa May has been forced to explain herself to top European politicians after her plan to link security cooperation to trade bargaining with the EU sparked anger on the continent.
Current holder of the EU rotating presidency Joseph Muscat and President of the European Council Donald Tusk said that following calls from London, they would take the British Government’s word that it had been a “misunderstanding”.
Ms May’s repeated connecting of security and trade issues in her letter triggering Article 50 led political leaders in both Brussels and London to claim that she was threatening to withdraw help in the fight against terrorism, in a bid to extract good trade terms. Downing Street later denied it.
“UK companies have been central to its design and build. A technical paper handed to the EU negotiators last month warned that restricting the UK from its desired involvement would lead would lead to up to three-year delays and an extra cost of around €1bn for the union.”
It is clear that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith trying to work a mutually beneficial deal.
No deal is better than a bad deal (for the EU).
Let’s agree now on no deal then.
We have 9 months and £39bn to prepare for it.
The EU has 9 months and -£39bn to work out how it isn’t going to build a wall across Ireland or prevent massive queues in Calais.
It is both you and that halfwitted creature that are spouting the shite.
He’s a lawyer and academic.
What’s your qualifications to critique his analysis?
He is a balloon , and as a Labour turned Tory the worst kind. If his lips are moving you know it is mince. Both of above are famous for pork pies, only missing estate agent for the royal flush.
I wonder what would be the impact of the SNP deciding to behave like this at every PMQs? Or indeed in the middle of every debate relating to Brexit simply to cause chaos on the floor of the House?
While exciting, it was only a couple of minutes before they were ejected.
Indeed - but they could have pushed it further. Had the SNP Leader refused to leave when so ordered, the Speaker would have had to put a motion to the House and that could have taken almost half an hour. Then at the end of that Division a second SNP MP gets up to make the same point and the entire process has to be followed all over again. I recall one of Nigel Lawson's later Budget Speeches being disrupted in this way in the late 1980s when Alex Salmond and other SNP MPs forced such divisions in the middle of the Speech. 35 MPs could potentially cauise a lot of procedural mayhem - if sufficiently determined!
Suspect that the vote would not require a division. The SNP members can only shout so hard.
It would mean a Division.When Salmond and his colleagues did this in the middle of the Budget speech there were only a handful of SNP members.
I thought the Speaker could ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support? It would be obvious if a majority supported the motion. Anyway, after the first division, if there was one, I suspect there would be no appetite among other members for it to continue.
There were at least two Divisions in the middle of the - I think - 1988 Budget Speech which delayed the proceedings for over 45 minutes. Only the SNP appetite would be relevant here. How disruptive do they wish to be? Irish Nationalists proved very disruptive in the late 19th century. Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
I think the Speaker would have a thing or two to say about it, it isn't just the SNP's "appetite" that matters.
I am sure he would - but procedurely I don't think the Divisions could be avoided if SNP MPs were to shout 'Noe' when the question is put by him to the House.
As I said, the Speaker can ask members to stand/sit to indicate their support.
Or just call a result based on the shouts - when Bercow was 're-elected' it was by acclamation and unanimity was claimed rather than actual.
Is the British system worthy of the trust and admiration Brexiteers have given it? If not, maybe the coalitions in the Brexit 2.0 fight might be very different and support for a fuller pro-EU engagement, euro, Schengen, elected President and all might come right back onto the agenda.
Some, even amongst formerly keen Brexiteers, may declare that if Britain is not worthy of Brexit, we should become fully part of Europe instead.
Wasnt the point of continued contributions to account for particular programmes that still had time to run. To block us access is an act of aggression. We must retaliate if that is their position.
As I've said before I'd pull the plug on NATO and spend our financial contribution on the NHS and maybe getting some aircraft's to go on those Carriers...
To me this seems epic mismanagement by the May team. If they had arranged for all repatriated EU functions such as Farming, Fisheries, Environment etc to Holyrood rather than Westminster, they would flip a large part of the SNP on the subject of Brexit.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
100% Agree. This and the Henry VIII clause are ridiculous power grabs off the back of Brexit and do massive harm to the process.
I think that I must be hallucinating. I don't think we have ever agreed!
We agree on a lot of things. I want an EEA Brexit and am very pro free movement and the benefits of immigration. I suspect that is just the tip.if the iceberg.
Having seen the hoo-ha in the Commons today, I'm surprised there were chants of "you don't know what you're doing" when Bercow was consulting the bloke in front of him. I'm even more surprised that there weren't chants of "is there a fire drill?" as the SNP walked out.
Commons spat between Caroline Flint and Anna Soubry:
"Soubry adds she is "appalled" Flint has "stood up and not understood and appreciated the considerable value that immigrants have brought to our country".
"These are human beings," she continues.
A visibly furious Flint intervenes on Soubry and states: "I made very clear that I wasn't against all immigration and I also said very clearly that nor are my constituents, but they want to feel that we have better systems in place, that they feel it is fair and managed and that is something they haven't felt for a long time.""
The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do? I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.
I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DanielKorski/status/1006670168506937345
Status of the former does not depend on the latter.
Bercow was clearly on the verge of calling a vote today when it initially appeared that Blackford was refusing to depart.
https://twitter.com/funder/status/1006912518118346752
Loughborough 50.1% Leave, maj 4,269
Putney 27.8% Leave, maj 1,554
It's only Greening that I can see the case for from here.
Is Gorbals Mick there somewhere?
Wonder what Theresa's up to now?
The Speaker has the discretion to ask each side to stand in their places in the Chamber, if s/he believes that a division is unnecessary.3.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06401
And on your second point, divisions aren't always held. They cite an example of that in the same background paper.
The next election will be a bloodbath for the Conservatives.
A similar arrangement in Wales and NI would most likely be well recieved too, and in NI substantially resolve the Irish border issue. A devolved NI taking control of agriculture could make a policy of alignment with the RoI a local matter.
Stuff their mouths with gold! as Nye Bevan might suggest.
10 most recent polls, averages:
Social Democrats: 24.6%
Sweden Democrats: 21.1%
Moderate Party: 20.8%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
They are not doing so now because they want Brexit to happen and don’t want to precipitate a downfall of a Conservative Government before it happens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
https://twitter.com/CitySamuel/status/1005939759435395073
I think both Lab and Con will be down in 2022 compared to 2017 but Con will be down a lot more.
https://mobile.twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1006881396777013254?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-44440809
I see that talks are ongoing with the Australians. Perhaps a Five Eyes GPS is in order?
It is clear that the EU isn’t negotiating in good faith trying to work a mutually beneficial deal.
Current holder of the EU rotating presidency Joseph Muscat and President of the European Council Donald Tusk said that following calls from London, they would take the British Government’s word that it had been a “misunderstanding”.
Ms May’s repeated connecting of security and trade issues in her letter triggering Article 50 led political leaders in both Brussels and London to claim that she was threatening to withdraw help in the fight against terrorism, in a bid to extract good trade terms. Downing Street later denied it.
We have 9 months and £39bn to prepare for it.
The EU has 9 months and -£39bn to work out how it isn’t going to build a wall across Ireland or prevent massive queues in Calais.
https://capx.co/another-nail-in-the-coffin-for-a-meaningful-brexit/
Is the British system worthy of the trust and admiration Brexiteers have given it? If not, maybe the coalitions in the Brexit 2.0 fight might be very different and support for a fuller pro-EU engagement, euro, Schengen, elected President and all might come right back onto the agenda.
Some, even amongst formerly keen Brexiteers, may declare that if Britain is not worthy of Brexit, we should become fully part of Europe instead.
"Soubry adds she is "appalled" Flint has "stood up and not understood and appreciated the considerable value that immigrants have brought to our country".
"These are human beings," she continues.
A visibly furious Flint intervenes on Soubry and states: "I made very clear that I wasn't against all immigration and I also said very clearly that nor are my constituents, but they want to feel that we have better systems in place, that they feel it is fair and managed and that is something they haven't felt for a long time.""
https://news.sky.com/story/pmqs-live-theresa-may-and-jeremy-corbyn-spar-over-brexit-bill-11403420
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006945003330068480?s=20
I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.
I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.