Sandbach another MP making the point that voting for the government's deal twice is respect enough for the referendum result.
More and more people on the deal side are trying to dissuade the government from trying MV3 it seems - essentially saying don't count on new switchers to get it over the line, I'm done.
Bottom line is that the ERG leavers had their chance and have blown it.
That puts the whole question of Brexit (being trashed in the Commons with almost every speech) back on the table.
I struggle with how some of the more passionate ones who think any Brexit would be terrible can not support revocation. Yes, referendum and all that, but if any Brexit is as bad as they say, and they don't feel bound by the first referendum, why should they risk any Brexit in a second? It might be the best they can hope for, but I don't know that it is logically coherent to say any Brexit is a tragedy but that it'll be ok if the public vote for it...the second time.
Those who want a vote to prevent no deal is more reasonable.
The right answer for the country is obviously revocation. The question is how to get there with democratic endorsement.
You can't. If you revoke you have decided democracy no longer matters. I am sure many politicians, not least Corbyn, are going to be very happy with that precedent.
The honest position to take on revocation is that there are some decisions that you will not allow the voters to take, and leaving the EU is one such.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
Mr Pennycook accuses the government of "endlessly repeating the nonsensical mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal".
That, he argues, "desensitised many people in this country to the risks involved".
I certainly hope no one else ever endlessly repeats nonsensical mantras, like 'For the many not the few'.
Or Brexit Means Brexit?
That one was even worse, yes.
Strong And Stable Leadership (In The National Interest) has to be the winner, surely?
His arguments about desensitising the country can't really apply to the slogans because they aren't really policy positions.
I was only really teasing, because you're right a slogan is not really a policy position, but his take that saying no deal is better than a bad deal desensitised people strikes me as silly, as for one it is saying people are stupid and got fooled by a slogan, particularly when so many people have said the opposite. Plus no deal being better than a bad deal could be true, since some people at least think what we have is a good deal.
Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?
Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?
It has unfortunately become painfully clear there is absolutely no commonality between us and the EU on just about anything. We can't stay in, and we can't agree how to leave. The crashout may be all that's left.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
Spelman vote expected to pass, right? The argument really really 'ruling out' no deal would harm negotiations surely doesn't fly for many since the gov have defended their deal on the basis negotiations are over?
You'd think that would be the case, but the twisted logic of Brexit suggests otherwise...
If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?
According to Graun website if Spelman passes it replaces the main motion, with no further vote. I guess that means Malthouse does not proceed it Spelman passes.
So are the useless tw*ts in the cabinet going to resign to vote for this amendment?
A brutal resignation speech from someone senior enough might help bring some clarity.
Who could do that without looking like a fool for going along this far? It's why when Hunt and Javid and co eventually talk about how they thought May was doing X or Y wrong, they will look like utter idiots.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
Which seems utter bonkers to me, the WA is just giving space for the final relationship to be negotiated.
If Spelman passes, does May still vote for main motion?
According to Graun website if Spelman passes it replaces the main motion, with no further vote. I guess that means Malthouse does not proceed it Spelman passes.
That doesn't sound right. At least the substantive (as amended) always requires a vote.
Mr Pennycook accuses the government of "endlessly repeating the nonsensical mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal".
That, he argues, "desensitised many people in this country to the risks involved".
I certainly hope no one else ever endlessly repeats nonsensical mantras, like 'For the many not the few'.
Or Brexit Means Brexit?
That one was even worse, yes.
Strong And Stable Leadership (In The National Interest) has to be the winner, surely?
His arguments about desensitising the country can't really apply to the slogans because they aren't really policy positions.
I was only really teasing, because you're right a slogan is not really a policy position, but his take that saying no deal is better than a bad deal desensitised people strikes me as silly, as for one it is saying people are stupid and got fooled by a slogan, particularly when so many people have said the opposite. Plus no deal being better than a bad deal could be true, since some people at least think what we have is a good deal.
In fairness there is more to it than just the slogan, the government advanced the idea of standing up to Europe and how we would walk away with no deal if we needed to which gave a lot more credence to those who genuinely wanted to walk away with no deal or those who were leaning towards it.
I wouldn't say they've tricked people although most don't pay anywhere near the attention PBers pay but they made the idea more realistic and more mainstream to Conservatives. Before the referendum a Conservative demanding we left with no deal would have been on the fringes of the party. A few years later and that same Conservative would be in the mainstream of the party with people advocating other options being more of a fringe. Although that isn't solely down to the Conservative government they played a huge part in it.
I've been surprised how angry some of the voters are by the childish machinations of the MPs. It may be different in the South, but up here they're as popular as ringworm.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
Which seems utter bonkers to me, the WA is just giving space for the final relationship to be negotiated.
Either that, or they don't understand that the WA and the final agreement are different.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
It requires people to accept the fact that membership brings benefits they will no longer enjoy to the same extent after Brexit. Like trade, jobs, tax to fund welfare, national participation in decisions that affect you. You can minimise this damage but it will be there. The negotiating space is better than nothing but worse than before. Everything else is unicorns. The political mess comes from the Leavers' understandable reluctance to accept that truth.
Two essentially inescapable facts about Brexit. Any Brexit arrangement will require the UK sooner rather than later to agree the Withdrawal Agreement including de facto permanent backstop. To succeed Leavers paradoxically have to accept Brexit has failed.
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
That would require one to believe that EU membership is a good thing.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
It requires people to accept the fact that membership brings benefits they will no longer enjoy to the same extent after Brexit. Like trade, jobs, tax to fund welfare, national participation in decisions that affect you. You can minimise this damage but it will be there. The negotiating space is better than nothing but worse than before. Everything else is unicorns. The political mess comes from the Leavers' understandable reluctance to accept that truth.
It requires people to accept there are pluses and minuses to both leaving and remaining.
It's hard to tell - her own plans are already dead in the water, so how significant defeats on measures like this are who can say?
Well I think her plan was to rule out no deal temporarily, extend for a month or two, and then try to pass the deal in MV3 or MV4 at the "new" cliff edge at the end of the extension using the threat of no deal at THAT point.
But if this gets through, and the main vote still has to be voted on (right?) then she can't do that.
I wonder if this anti-no-deal vote might finally scare the ERG and DUP into supporting the withdrawal agreement?
If Bercow allows it back...
It seems tailor made for him to say no at this moment in time, and be a remainer hero. It makes no sense given his own logic on departing from precedent, if there is a good indication MV3 might pass, but in fairness there's not actually a sign of that yet. I don't buy that the ERG and DUP could not see this vote coming and so needed to see it happen before they actually believed no deal would be prevented.
Bit of an impasse — parliament votes against the only deal on offer yesterday, and today votes against No Deal. Result = no man's land.
No Deal continues to slide down the mountain towards 29th March......
If the substantive is clearly passed (with the PM voting in favour), government will have to revoke before getting to no deal.
And whilst this vote doesn't actually say revoke is the will of Parliament, by eliminating the only other possibilities, deal and no-deal, the government could say that Parliament's will is clear and revoke without a further vote.
Comments
To satisfy both parties, the end deal needs to be better than nothing, but worse than what we had as members. Better than nothing but worse than before is a big negotiating space. But it does require the UK and Leavers in particular to accept the baseline is nothing at all, not the status quo. That Brexit is entirely about damage limitation.
In the end it comes down to who rules Britain. The MPs or the electorate.
But, I take your point on the WA. Lots of MP's on either side seem to object to the very principle of the WA.
Just think how these things might feel at being compared to Fox or Brady or Corbyn and back off, guys!
Malthouse seems like the right compromise but I think it will lose overwhelmingly.
And again, unfair to twats.
I wouldn't say they've tricked people although most don't pay anywhere near the attention PBers pay but they made the idea more realistic and more mainstream to Conservatives. Before the referendum a Conservative demanding we left with no deal would have been on the fringes of the party. A few years later and that same Conservative would be in the mainstream of the party with people advocating other options being more of a fringe. Although that isn't solely down to the Conservative government they played a huge part in it.
16.1 million voted against.
Nobody else counts.
I've been surprised how angry some of the voters are by the childish machinations of the MPs. It may be different in the South, but up here they're as popular as ringworm.
You cannot claim those who did not vote were in the remain column
Ayes 312 Noes 308
Commons votes to take No Deal off the table permanently
EDIT: *blushes*
But even less incentive for the remainer side at least to keep voting for the deal (as many have done, if not as many who do not).
And even more to seeing who abstained without a valid reason (speaker, teller, Sinn Fein, dead)
If main motion is moved it is as amended by Spelman.
If May votes Aye, she is voting to exclude No Deal permanently.
Not sure Cooper was confident it would be a win given this beforehand
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1105909783138312192?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1105909783138312192&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47529293
But TBF it always was.
And that probably requires the EU changing something to allow Bercow to say it's a new motion...
But if this gets through, and the main vote still has to be voted on (right?) then she can't do that.
I think, the whole thing is so fucking confusing.
What an absolute helmet.