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.
Beeb have got the Weatherspoons bloke on. Everyone he has spoken to (i.e. daytime drinkers) wants No Deal, doncha know?
To be fair, Tim Martin does know quite a lot about No Deal. Every time I try to order a burger and a pint of proper cider at the same time in a Spoons, that's the exact phrase they use on me.
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.
They could, but they won't.
If you want to revoke, you need a change of government.
So if we get a different result in this final vote compared to the Spelman amendment vote (i.e. the other way round) then the whole evening's been a waste of time, right?
So if we get a different result in this final vote compared to the Spelman amendment vote (i.e. the other way round) then the whole evening's been a waste of time, right?
p397 matters already decided during the same session A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
Other parts may apply as well, but looks to me like it could be possible for another vote on the WA to be allowed, but that the Chair has wide discretion on it. And it is Bercow.
So if we get a different result in this final vote compared to the Spelman amendment vote (i.e. the other way round) then the whole evening's been a waste of time, right?
I haven't got a clue what the effect of all this is.
So if we get a different result in this final vote compared to the Spelman amendment vote (i.e. the other way round) then the whole evening's been a waste of time, right?
So if we get a different result in this final vote compared to the Spelman amendment vote (i.e. the other way round) then the whole evening's been a waste of time, right?
Perhaps not, now the Spelman amendment has passed it's hard to see the government tabling another No Deal vote at a later time, assuming this one fails.
"Beeb have got the Weatherspoons bloke on. Everyone he has spoken to (i.e. daytime drinkers) wants No Deal, doncha know?"
You can't beat Wetherspoons for a cheap meal and a pint. A man with an eye for business and his finger on the pulse.
It is cheap, but the notion that he has spoken to a representative sample of the UK population and they all wanted out without a deal (which is what he was claiming) is nonsense.
How can May as our national leader justify voting for the original no to 'no deal' motion but opposing the amended one?
The only difference is the technically inaccurate wording that Spelman/Cooper has deleted. And she is surely setting herself up for yet another defeat.
Government whipping to defeat its own motion following Spelman victory. What a farce.
This is a farce, but that aspect of it is not. It makes plenty of sense to vote against a motion which has been substantially altered. They'll lose on that, so what? They've lost far worse.
Government whipping to defeat its own motion following Spelman victory. What a farce.
This is a farce, but that aspect of it is not. It makes plenty of sense to vote against a motion which has been substantially altered. They'll lose on that, so what? They've lost far worse.
But it hasn't been altered in any way significantly different from the intent of the original intention of the motion as confirmed by Gove during his opening speech.
This completely contradicts what the EU were saying publicly yesterday.
"Brussels will grant an extension to allow time for a general election or a second referendum. It would consider a short extension to give more time to prepare for no deal but is likely to reject a British request for a brief extension to try and get the Brexit deal ratified"
"It is cheap, but the notion that he has spoken to a representative sample of the UK population and they all wanted out without a deal (which is what he was claiming) is nonsense."
We all live in a mini echo chamber to some extent. In the group I frequent, I suggested we shoot one in ten MPs pour encourager les autres, but I was shouted down for being too soft.
Government whipping to defeat its own motion following Spelman victory. What a farce.
This is a farce, but that aspect of it is not. It makes plenty of sense to vote against a motion which has been substantially altered. They'll lose on that, so what? They've lost far worse.
But it hasn't been altered in any way significantly different from the intent of the original intention of the motion as confirmed by Gove during his opening speech.
His PM says differently. Plus this way they can claim to ERG they tried to fight their corner.
"It is cheap, but the notion that he has spoken to a representative sample of the UK population and they all wanted out without a deal (which is what he was claiming) is nonsense."
We all live in a mini echo chamber to some extent. In the group I frequent, I suggested we shoot one in ten MPs pour encourager les autres, but I was shouted down for being too soft.
I'm a woolly old Liberal at heart, but I can see a case for that, under the present circs.
This completely contradicts what the EU were saying publicly yesterday.
"Brussels will grant an extension to allow time for a general election or a second referendum. It would consider a short extension to give more time to prepare for no deal but is likely to reject a British request for a brief extension to try and get the Brexit deal ratified"
OH SHIT!!!!
Doesn't that just mean it must be ratified before the end date, ie if you are to MV3, it has to be this week?
"Beeb have got the Weatherspoons bloke on. Everyone he has spoken to (i.e. daytime drinkers) wants No Deal, doncha know?"
You can't beat Wetherspoons for a cheap meal and a pint. A man with an eye for business and his finger on the pulse.
It is cheap, but the notion that he has spoken to a representative sample of the UK population and they all wanted out without a deal (which is what he was claiming) is nonsense.
P.S. I'm definitely not a Mr!
He visited a local pub where I live and I was tempted to go and tell him he was factually incorrect about many things he says the EU does. I decided not to go as I feared for my safety plus I did not want to line his pockets or my stomach with his beer! An example of him being factually incorrect in the last 6 months was when he claimed that European commissioners decided the level of immigration into the UK, which is wrong. European commissioners have zero influence on UK immigration policy and it is absurd to say they do as they patently do not. The bloke talks out of his arse! An ignorant man who mixes with his own kind creating an infinite feed back loop of stupidity!
Gauke, Rudd, Clarke all abstained, Cabinet now in open revolt
So much for collective cabinet ministerial responsibility.
That hasn't existed for a long time. All this talk of people needing to resign voting against May - who cares? She has no authority in her cabinet or her government
Gauke, Rudd, Clarke all abstained, Cabinet now in open revolt
So much for collective cabinet ministerial responsibility.
That hasn't existed for a long time. All this talk of people needing to resign voting against May - who cares? She has no authority in her cabinet or her government
321 to 278 says Taxi for May
Far from it, this tells the ERG it is May's Deal or No Brexit/BINO
This completely contradicts what the EU were saying publicly yesterday.
"Brussels will grant an extension to allow time for a general election or a second referendum. It would consider a short extension to give more time to prepare for no deal but is likely to reject a British request for a brief extension to try and get the Brexit deal ratified"
OH SHIT!!!!!
That's pretty much what they've been saying all along.
This completely contradicts what the EU were saying publicly yesterday.
"Brussels will grant an extension to allow time for a general election or a second referendum. It would consider a short extension to give more time to prepare for no deal but is likely to reject a British request for a brief extension to try and get the Brexit deal ratified"
OH SHIT!!!!
Doesn't that just mean it must be ratified before the end date, ie if you are to MV3, it has to be this week?
No. It means that if Parliament has not agreed on anything by the 29th and May asks for a short extension before the 29th, they will allow a short extension to prepare for no deal. This means we will leave with no deal in around May/June, which is the event I'm not covered for.
Comments
Had it not been for May's election the government wouldn't have lost this vote by 4.
For 164 No 374
"Beeb have got the Weatherspoons bloke on. Everyone he has spoken to (i.e. daytime drinkers) wants No Deal, doncha know?"
You can't beat Wetherspoons for a cheap meal and a pint. A man with an eye for business and his finger on the pulse.
matters already decided during the same session
A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
Other parts may apply as well, but looks to me like it could be possible for another vote on the WA to be allowed, but that the Chair has wide discretion on it. And it is Bercow.
P.S. I'm definitely not a Mr!
The only difference is the technically inaccurate wording that Spelman/Cooper has deleted. And she is surely setting herself up for yet another defeat.
OH SHIT!!!!!
"It is cheap, but the notion that he has spoken to a representative sample of the UK population and they all wanted out without a deal (which is what he was claiming) is nonsense."
We all live in a mini echo chamber to some extent. In the group I frequent, I suggested we shoot one in ten MPs pour encourager les autres, but I was shouted down for being too soft.
Could tip the balance against?
The BBC's Europe Editor says that the EU is warning that the first amendment still does not take no-deal off the table.
She says that the EU states unless MPs rally round a plan, then no-deal will happen by default.
"The EU is saying 'please, be realistic'," she says.
"It is still not clear" if there is one particular plan for Brexit that MPs would vote for.
MPs on all sides still in virtue signalling mode.
My money is on MV5.
Government defeated, Parliament takes control
321 to 278 says Taxi for May
321 v 278
The food is cheap and they're very popular. I'm not sure a Michelin-starred eatery will be a better gauge of public opinion.