Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Only in your mind.
A government that signs an agreement and then backs amendments in the House of Commons that render the agreement void is a government that cannot be trusted. That's just a matter of simple fact.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
That is July. Now, I accept that it isn't the five to ten years necessary to conclude a trade agreement but it will do in the interim. And it certainly gives enough time for a second referendum.
And if the result was to revoke and remain - then the entire election is a problem as the other countries have additional MEPs in our seats (for example France had 74 in 2014 but will have 79 in 2019)?
I think in the scheme of things these are relatively trivial. If there weren't half a dozen EU apparatchiks working on it as I type then I would be amazed.
Already sorted. Legislation passed to deal both with us still being nembers and electing MEPs after all and then subsequently leaving anyway.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Presumably you have piled on the generous odds available Southam?
This all has the whiff of President Mitt Romney to me.
You always boosterise the outcome you oppose, sometimes you turn out right, sometimes you turn out wrong.
But, you are equally emphatic in all cases, as my Euro election betting victory against you in favour of Amnesty International proves.
You cannot have a single market without freedom of movement.
In general, yes, a single market would work better if people are free to move to work anywhere in the market without unnecessary restrictions or conditions.
But the argument is really about what restrictions or conditions are necessary e.g. should one insist that a minimum level of language proficiency is needed or that benefits or tax credits can only be paid after a minimum period of time has been spent in the country/income earned, even if that is different to the conditions applicable to citizens? It seems to me that much of the FoM arguments are about a sense that some people - obviously quite a lot - have that British citizens should be seen as special in their own country and that while it is OK to have someone from Greece or whoever come to a job here it somehow feels unfair if they can come here and get priority over a British person on the housing list, for instance. Or get tax credits the minute they start working. It may be illogical from an economic perspective. But it is not just about the economics, is it?
It is the combination of FoM and the non-discrimination rules of the EU which cause issues, I think. Now on the whole I am in favour of removing discriminatory rules. But that means that in Britain British people are no more special than French people or Bulgarians or whoever. And that is the whole point of the EU - that it is one big melting pot where people from its different nations move freely as if there is no distinction between them.
What the EU has not understood I think that some of the peoples within it have a strong sense of their own national identity and value this and do think that a nation's priority should be its own people i.e. British citizens and that people coming here from elsewhere are in a sense visitors who need to earn their place here.
Also, let's face it - Britain has received far more of the FoM than other countries. If, say, France had received proportionately the same number from other countries, mostly located in one part of the country with consequent pressures on housing, transport etc, do you really think they wouldn't have kicked up a fuss about this oh-so-precious-and-indivisible-freedom? Let's not be naive here.
FoM is generally a good thing. But it has its costs and challenges precisely because people are not like goods and services and other intangibles. And the EU has been dishonest and disingenuous in not understanding this and seeking to craft a policy which ignored peoples' feelings on this. A lack of political empathy and emotional intelligence - on both it and the British government's part - has landed us where we are.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
So, May goes back to EU and says I want time limit.
Again, it's a no.
This is can kicking again.
No deal hoves into view
I think this is the point @southamobserver is making about the motivations of some Tory supporters of the amendment: it allows May to carry on playing ‘nothing has changed’ for perhaps another month, and as a result reduces the time in which the grown-ups have options to avert no deal.
Had to look that one up. And, OK, I agree. No chance. Which is great because I am as keen as the next man to see what Plan B will be. I suspect something along the following lines:
"My people. They have only gone and done it. MPs have rejected the best and only negotiated exit from the European Union. It's a damn shame but nothing has changed. I am still your Prime Minister and I am still resolved to deliver on the referendum instruction that we leave the EU. It is my duty. So I will go to Brussels and obtain some further assurances, then I will give parliament a second and final chance to vote on it, knowing that if they reject it again we are nonetheless leaving on 29th March. If colleagues wish some other outcome, and bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition is as keen as I am that we honour the referendum, then they need to turn their fancy talk of replacing my government with some sort of Grand Unity Coalition into reality. I bet they can't. In the meantime we go back to work. Thank you."
I think that could be quite a reasonable summary of TM response, though maybe expressed slightly differently
I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings I'm all tied up to you But where's it leading me to?
:-)
Many would say that 'Puppet on a String' is more appropriate for TM than either of mine.
But let's see. She may surprise us all with a Plan B of breath-taking audacity that nobody has even thought of.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Presumably you have piled on the generous odds available Southam?
This all has the whiff of President Mitt Romney to me.
You always boosterise the outcome you oppose, sometimes you turn out right, sometimes you turn out wrong.
But, you are equally emphatic in all cases, as my Euro election betting victory against you in favour of Amnesty International proves.
I really don't need the money - and I could well be wrong. But I genuinely do not see how No Deal is avoided from here. The government effectively giving its support to the Murrison amendment is the clincher for me.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Only in your mind.
A government that signs an agreement and then backs amendments in the House of Commons that render the agreement void is a government that cannot be trusted. That's just a matter of simple fact.
Not if the agreement has already been voted down it isn't.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
So, May goes back to EU and says I want time limit.
Again, it's a no.
This is can kicking again.
No deal hoves into view
I think this is the point @southamobserver is making about the motivations of some Tory supporters of the amendment: it allows May to carry on playing ‘nothing has changed’ for perhaps another month, and as a result reduces the time in which the grown-ups have options to avert no deal.
Precisely. It seems to me that Mrs May has accepted we are heading towards a No Deal and her usual cackhanded way is now seeking to shift the blame for the consequences onto Brussels.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Presumably you have piled on the generous odds available Southam?
This all has the whiff of President Mitt Romney to me.
You always boosterise the outcome you oppose, sometimes you turn out right, sometimes you turn out wrong.
But, you are equally emphatic in all cases, as my Euro election betting victory against you in favour of Amnesty International proves.
I really don't need the money - and I could well be wrong. But I genuinely do not see how No Deal is avoided from here. The government effectively giving its support to the Murrison amendment is the clincher for me.
May probably thinks the EU will agree to the time limit.
I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings I'm all tied up to you But where's it leading me to?
:-)
Many would say that 'Puppet on a String' is more appropriate for TM than either of mine.
But let's see. She may surprise us all with a Plan B of breath-taking audacity that nobody has even thought of.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
Can anyone please explain this bill? I don’t understand it.
It makes an application to extend A50 the default in the absence of a WA not no deal. It originally was to revoke but they've watered it down to attract more support.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Only in your mind.
A government that signs an agreement and then backs amendments in the House of Commons that render the agreement void is a government that cannot be trusted. That's just a matter of simple fact.
Not if the agreement has already been voted down it isn't.
That’s the point: the discussion is about the implications of the government supporting the amendment *before* its bill has been voted down.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
The amendment is an opportunity for MPs to vote for a No Deal Brexit, nothing more.
It is an opportunity for MPs to highlight that there is a particular aspect of the current deal that is preventing them from supporting it.
We know that already. Those supporting it are supporting a No Deal Brexit. Presumably it’s an attempt to pin the blame on the EU27 for the consequences. I doubt it will work. That ship has sailed.
No - there are some who would support the deal if there was an end date or unilateral notice period.
Which isn't a no deal Brexit.
So...there are people who would support the deal if it was a different deal.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Presumably you have piled on the generous odds available Southam?
This all has the whiff of President Mitt Romney to me.
You always boosterise the outcome you oppose, sometimes you turn out right, sometimes you turn out wrong.
But, you are equally emphatic in all cases, as my Euro election betting victory against you in favour of Amnesty International proves.
I really don't need the money - and I could well be wrong. But I genuinely do not see how No Deal is avoided from here. The government effectively giving its support to the Murrison amendment is the clincher for me.
It really depends on whether the Irish are willing to risk no deal. I think the EU will show solidarity with them but I doubt they would insist on this if the Irish didn't.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
If May returns to Brussels saying ‘I can only get the backstop through provided that you agree amendments to the backstop so that it’s not a backstop’ then it’s possible we’ll be able to hear the laughter from this side of the channel.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
It's genius - a backstop which expires before it comes into force wouldn't be temporary, so should be acceptable to the Irish.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Of course its absurd. But we are where we are as some war criminal once said.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Of course its absurd. But we are where we are as some war criminal once said.
We'll just have to hope you are right about No Deal!
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
How can a backstop have a time limit - especially one that expires before the backstop would ever come into force? It is absurd.
It's genius - a backstop which expires before it comes into force wouldn't be temporary, so should be acceptable to the Irish.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
I think that could be quite a reasonable summary of TM response, though maybe expressed slightly differently
Yes, I am not, alas, her speechwriter, so no doubt it will be delivered in mayspeak.
But it has to be (i) press on or (ii) pivot or (iii) resign, and I rank them in that order in terms of probability.
The thing is that your version is a pivot of a sort, because it makes it very clear that she'll go for No Deal over A50 extension, revocation, 2nd ref, etc., That may force the hand of some Tory MPs to resign the whip, though I don't see it being enough to pass a vonc.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
The Con backbench amendments have a chance of allowing Brexit to proceed - logical thinking is that hence Bercow will block.
Can anyone please explain this bill? I don’t understand it.
It makes an application to extend A50 the default in the absence of a WA not no deal. It originally was to revoke but they've watered it down to attract more support.
It won't work. The extention is relient on the EU27 agreeing, which they won't for any old reason.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
The Con backbench amendments have a chance of allowing Brexit to proceed - logical thinking is that hence Bercow will block.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
The Con backbench amendments have a chance of allowing Brexit to proceed - logical thinking is that hence Bercow will block.
How would they allow Brexit to proceed?
As discussed - if the Con backbencher amendments pass - or come closer than May's deal to passing- it shows further adjustments to the deal could allow Parly to pass it.
Can I ask the wonks if I am reading tonight correctly:
Parliament has only four options left: Remain (revoke); Deal; No Deal; Don't decide - Second referedum
Problem I see is:
Parliament have ruled out no deal. Parliament are likely to rule out the deal. The Government have ruled out a second referendum. The Government have ruled out revoke Article 50.
So the only REAL options are:
[1] Change of government, to one which would be prepared to entertain either a second referendum or revoke. [2] Change the deal, to one more acceptable to Parliament.
[1] Requires EITHER the Prime Minister to go (And she’s being a bloody difficult woman and refusing to resign); OR the Governing Party to go. [2] Requires the EU to make some concessions, and they have consistently said the legal text cannot change.
The Prime Minister won’t resign, and she’s safe from internal party mechanisms for another 11 months now after December’s failed internal VoNC in her. The Government can’t change because Labour don’t have enough Parliamentary support. The Labour party can’t get a VoNC through Parliament. Even if they do, all it does is force a General Election, which may not change the Parliamentary numbers at all (And it takes at least three weeks) The EU won’t change the deal.
Will the penny drop - only a Labour-friendly deal can pass in Parliament.
Official Labour can not afford to support anything because they are split like the Conservatives. Especially Corbyn is pro Brexit but doe not want to alienate the 70% of his party who are pro Remain.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
The Con backbench amendments have a chance of allowing Brexit to proceed - logical thinking is that hence Bercow will block.
How would they allow Brexit to proceed?
As discussed - if the Con backbencher amendments pass - or come closer than May's deal to passing- it shows further adjustments to the deal could allow Parly to pass it.
[2] Requires the EU to make some concessions, and they have consistently said the legal text cannot change.
Are we completely and utterly screwed?
No - as the Con backbench amendments even if they fail to pass by a small number of votes could point a huge finger at (2) above as a potential feasible way forward.
Beth Rigby on Sky saying the DUP may back the Murrison amendment
Is this the way through? If the ERG do likewise and May returns to Brussels saying that I can only get the WA through if there is a time limit on the backstop will they say yes? I think it would depend on the Irish but there seems to have been some real signs of panic there in the last couple of weeks.
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Yes - if Bercow allows it. He may not.
He needs to allow all amendments or he risks mps openly defying him and causing chaos
I think he showed last week he doesn't care a fig about MPs.
Tonight is different. Most of the nation will be watching and if there is an open rebellion against Bercow it would be a disaster for politics, the nation, and of course Bercow himself
The Con backbench amendments have a chance of allowing Brexit to proceed - logical thinking is that hence Bercow will block.
How would they allow Brexit to proceed?
As discussed - if the Con backbencher amendments pass - or come closer than May's deal to passing- it shows further adjustments to the deal could allow Parly to pass it.
That's already extremely obvious, though
The numbers from an actual vote of MPs could make all the difference - if the numbers don't change much then further negotiations pointless.
@BBCkatyaadler 11m11 minutes ago More OR b) MPs unite around one particular change to deal and PM tells Brussels that parliament will approve agreement if they grant that change. In that case EU will likely be more flexible that has indicated so far. Leaders want to avoid a no deal Brexit "
I think that is what we should have. Otherwise MPs will be voting for an adulteratd deal that isn't even on offer.
May's Deal is what is on the table today. No fudging.
Right. MPs can vote on adding a time limit to the backstop when the Commons debates what to do next on Monday. There's no need to get ahead of ourselves.
Except that doing so would prevent that debate from happening, so that the only plan B is the ERG plan B.
Can I ask the wonks if I am reading tonight correctly:
Parliament has only four options left: Remain (revoke); Deal; No Deal; Don't decide - Second referedum
Problem I see is:
Parliament have ruled out no deal. Parliament are likely to rule out the deal. The Government have ruled out a second referendum. The Government have ruled out revoke Article 50.
So the only REAL options are:
[1] Change of government, to one which would be prepared to entertain either a second referendum or revoke. [2] Change the deal, to one more acceptable to Parliament.
[1] Requires EITHER the Prime Minister to go (And she’s being a bloody difficult woman and refusing to resign); OR the Governing Party to go. [2] Requires the EU to make some concessions, and they have consistently said the legal text cannot change.
The Prime Minister won’t resign, and she’s safe from internal party mechanisms for another 11 months now after December’s failed internal VoNC in her. The Government can’t change because Labour don’t have enough Parliamentary support. The Labour party can’t get a VoNC through Parliament. Even if they do, all it does is force a General Election, which may not change the Parliamentary numbers at all (And it takes at least three weeks) The EU won’t change the deal.
Are we completely and utterly screwed?
Yep. So it becomes a game of "guess who blinks". If Parliament, we get May's deal. If the EU, we get May's deal minus the backstop. If May herself, we get- most likely- a second referendum. If nobody, we get No Deal.
For my own prediction, the May blinking option seems most likely to me, closely followed by No Deal. My reasoning for that is that May already has a track record for giving in, and to her a second referendum would represent the way to keep her deal on life support for longest which fits her can-kicking MO. No Deal is a close runner up based on the simple logic that it's the default, and everyone's very entrenched at this point.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
I suppose it depends on your view. Dreadful to some, acceptable to others.
Theresa May has held a Cabinet meeting this morning, saying the government is "the servant of the people" and that she "passionately" believes it has to deliver on the referendum result.
...
For the first time, the polling - carried out in mid-December and early January - found a majority in favour of a new referendum in every part of Britain.
@BBCkatyaadler 11m11 minutes ago More OR b) MPs unite around one particular change to deal and PM tells Brussels that parliament will approve agreement if they grant that change. In that case EU will likely be more flexible that has indicated so far. Leaders want to avoid a no deal Brexit "
Huh, interesting. And what does the next tweet after that one say?
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
I suppose it depends on your view. Dreadful to some, acceptable to others.
And no, I do not want no deal
Acceptable to May, her dwindling band of apologists and no dealers. Dreadful to pretty much everyone else.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
I suppose it depends on your view. Dreadful to some, acceptable to others.
And no, I do not want no deal
Acceptable to May, her dwindling band of apologists and no dealers. Dreadful to pretty much everyone else.
I wish the no dealers were a diminishing band but there is no evidence they are and of course the DUP supports their cause with Arlene Foster appearing with Rabb and Davis this morning
The Country divides three ways into no deal - deal - remain with little sign of a breakthrough
Can I ask the wonks if I am reading tonight correctly:
Parliament has only four options left: Remain (revoke); Deal; No Deal; Don't decide - Second referedum
Problem I see is:
Parliament have ruled out no deal. Parliament are likely to rule out the deal. The Government have ruled out a second referendum. The Government have ruled out revoke Article 50.
So the only REAL options are:
[1] Change of government, to one which would be prepared to entertain either a second referendum or revoke. [2] Change the deal, to one more acceptable to Parliament.
[1] Requires EITHER the Prime Minister to go (And she’s being a bloody difficult woman and refusing to resign); OR the Governing Party to go. [2] Requires the EU to make some concessions, and they have consistently said the legal text cannot change.
The Prime Minister won’t resign, and she’s safe from internal party mechanisms for another 11 months now after December’s failed internal VoNC in her. The Government can’t change because Labour don’t have enough Parliamentary support. The Labour party can’t get a VoNC through Parliament. Even if they do, all it does is force a General Election, which may not change the Parliamentary numbers at all (And it takes at least three weeks) The EU won’t change the deal.
Are we completely and utterly screwed?
The immediate options are: Revoke A50; Deal; No Deal. However ... Revoke could come with a referendum; Deal could pivot to another state - eg Soft Brexit, Remain/Rejoin; No Deal isn't necessarily the last word (it's unsustainable IMO). They could ask for an extension to the A50, if the EU agree.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
I suppose it depends on your view. Dreadful to some, acceptable to others.
And no, I do not want no deal
Acceptable to May, her dwindling band of apologists and no dealers. Dreadful to pretty much everyone else.
I'm starting to think that ensuring she couldn't be replaced for a year was a cunning plan by the ERG
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Yep, as I say - it's hard to see how No Deal is avoided from here.
TM has been consistent we leave on the 29th March. She has also ruled out extending A50 or a referendum so I would expect her to negotiate the backstop over several weeks and put an amended deal to the HOC and by then it must be very difficult for disorganised mps to be able to get legislation stopping no deal
I hope not but it does look more likely
That would be a dreadful approach, essentially holding us hostage.
I suppose it depends on your view. Dreadful to some, acceptable to others.
And no, I do not want no deal
Acceptable to May, her dwindling band of apologists and no dealers. Dreadful to pretty much everyone else.
I'm starting to think that ensuring she couldn't be replaced for a year was a cunning plan by the ERG
Having an impotent PM remain in office was always in their interest once withdrawal had been legislated for, given most of them don't believe No Deal will cause any significant problems.
That is to some extent true of the DUP too. While no deal is likely a great deal worse for NI than for rUK, the current parliamentary arrangement gives them an influence they will almost certainly never again possess.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/15/brexit-vote-latest-news-parliament-result-deal-theresa-may-commons/
This all has the whiff of President Mitt Romney to me.
You always boosterise the outcome you oppose, sometimes you turn out right, sometimes you turn out wrong.
But, you are equally emphatic in all cases, as my Euro election betting victory against you in favour of Amnesty International proves.
But the argument is really about what restrictions or conditions are necessary e.g. should one insist that a minimum level of language proficiency is needed or that benefits or tax credits can only be paid after a minimum period of time has been spent in the country/income earned, even if that is different to the conditions applicable to citizens? It seems to me that much of the FoM arguments are about a sense that some people - obviously quite a lot - have that British citizens should be seen as special in their own country and that while it is OK to have someone from Greece or whoever come to a job here it somehow feels unfair if they can come here and get priority over a British person on the housing list, for instance. Or get tax credits the minute they start working. It may be illogical from an economic perspective. But it is not just about the economics, is it?
It is the combination of FoM and the non-discrimination rules of the EU which cause issues, I think. Now on the whole I am in favour of removing discriminatory rules. But that means that in Britain British people are no more special than French people or Bulgarians or whoever. And that is the whole point of the EU - that it is one big melting pot where people from its different nations move freely as if there is no distinction between them.
What the EU has not understood I think that some of the peoples within it have a strong sense of their own national identity and value this and do think that a nation's priority should be its own people i.e. British citizens and that people coming here from elsewhere are in a sense visitors who need to earn their place here.
Also, let's face it - Britain has received far more of the FoM than other countries. If, say, France had received proportionately the same number from other countries, mostly located in one part of the country with consequent pressures on housing, transport etc, do you really think they wouldn't have kicked up a fuss about this oh-so-precious-and-indivisible-freedom? Let's not be naive here.
FoM is generally a good thing. But it has its costs and challenges precisely because people are not like goods and services and other intangibles. And the EU has been dishonest and disingenuous in not understanding this and seeking to craft a policy which ignored peoples' feelings on this. A lack of political empathy and emotional intelligence - on both it and the British government's part - has landed us where we are.
Another failure of FPTP.
Another election will solve nothing.
Many would say that 'Puppet on a String' is more appropriate for TM than either of mine.
But let's see. She may surprise us all with a Plan B of breath-taking audacity that nobody has even thought of.
Can anyone please explain this bill? I don’t understand it.
That sounds optimistic compared to most of the mood music.
Talk about bunker and the armies in the North.
I hope not but it does look more likely
I think that this is the amendment to watch.
Pause.
Well, that was helpful...😀
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1085145840719667201
Righto.
I'll come back later when all this Brexit malarkey has been sorted.
But it has to be (i) press on or (ii) pivot or (iii) resign, and I rank them in that order in terms of probability.
Does the Speaker have complete discretion about which amendments he calls?
May's Deal is what is on the table today. No fudging.
Parliament has only four options left:
Remain (revoke); Deal; No Deal; Don't decide - Second referedum
Problem I see is:
Parliament have ruled out no deal.
Parliament are likely to rule out the deal.
The Government have ruled out a second referendum.
The Government have ruled out revoke Article 50.
So the only REAL options are:
[1] Change of government, to one which would be prepared to entertain either a second referendum or revoke.
[2] Change the deal, to one more acceptable to Parliament.
[1] Requires EITHER the Prime Minister to go (And she’s being a bloody difficult woman and refusing to resign); OR the Governing Party to go.
[2] Requires the EU to make some concessions, and they have consistently said the legal text cannot change.
The Prime Minister won’t resign, and she’s safe from internal party mechanisms for another 11 months now after December’s failed internal VoNC in her.
The Government can’t change because Labour don’t have enough Parliamentary support.
The Labour party can’t get a VoNC through Parliament.
Even if they do, all it does is force a General Election, which may not change the Parliamentary numbers at all (And it takes at least three weeks)
The EU won’t change the deal.
Are we completely and utterly screwed?
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1085152203369865217
Hence why remainers are so anti these amendments.
It’s only Gove doing it’s thing baby
It’s only Gove that you’re feeling
It’s only Gove doing it’s thing baby
It’s only Gove that you’re giving
@BBCkatyaadler
11m11 minutes ago
More
OR b) MPs unite around one particular change to deal and PM tells Brussels that parliament will approve agreement if they grant that change. In that case EU will likely be more flexible that has indicated so far. Leaders want to avoid a no deal Brexit "
Except that doing so would prevent that debate from happening, so that the only plan B is the ERG plan B.
For my own prediction, the May blinking option seems most likely to me, closely followed by No Deal. My reasoning for that is that May already has a track record for giving in, and to her a second referendum would represent the way to keep her deal on life support for longest which fits her can-kicking MO. No Deal is a close runner up based on the simple logic that it's the default, and everyone's very entrenched at this point.
And no, I do not want no deal
Theresa May has held a Cabinet meeting this morning, saying the government is "the servant of the people" and that she "passionately" believes it has to deliver on the referendum result.
...
For the first time, the polling - carried out in mid-December and early January - found a majority in favour of a new referendum in every part of Britain.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1085156988252798976
Can kicking basically.
The Country divides three ways into no deal - deal - remain with little sign of a breakthrough
I think.
That will do now.
I don’t see any real positives for the Govt position in any remaining unknown.
News out of Germany and Katya Adler is all going to lead to undecideds voting against, I think.
That is to some extent true of the DUP too. While no deal is likely a great deal worse for NI than for rUK, the current parliamentary arrangement gives them an influence they will almost certainly never again possess.