a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first; b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
Sorry don't mean to sound patronising but I don't think this is being thought through. Mind you, it's not surprising given the flux we're in.
We already know the EU won't change the deal. The chances of them sending back the WA to the HoC are zero. Why would they?
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
So please please forget the technical capability of the HoC to suspend the standing order. Right:
So what are the alternatives?
The EU grant an extension with new terms e.g. the HoC has to hold indicative votes. Or the WA Brexit needs 'softening' to a customs union. Or that it must go to a referendum.
Or
Mrs May herself says she will take it to the people in a referendum.
On those grounds the EU might grant an extension.
The power now lies mainly with the EU.
Unless of course we just revoke Article 50.
There are two parts to “The Deal” - you keep ignoring the part that the EUis likely willing to change.
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
Because the alternative means an economic shock, when the EU (and the UK) are already not far off a recession. No benefit to refusing really, even if there isn't a clear path forward atm.
After the third or fourth extension they might put their foot down .....
Oh I see where you are coming from. Still clinging to this No Deal notion. Ain't gonna happen.
No Deal and May's Deal are finished. Unless:
1. She offers a referendum on it
or
2. they call for a long extension with indicative votes for something else other than her deal
I'm not so sure. It is a righteous fuckup and strange things happen. We could still leave-no-deal on the 29th. Or May may ask for an extension and be denied. Both are still possible.
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first; b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
Like everything the PMs powers are disputable - the government did not believe it needed parliament to approve triggering Art 50 but the SC thought differently, by a majority.
But probably parliament is not required to approve revocation or extension (IMO) because it does not involve changing our current rights and arrangements.
If TM claims such a right, I don’t see it being taken lying down. But neither can I see an A50-style legal challenge in the time available, and I’m not actually sure there’s a Commons majority for a two-year can kick... certainly with a referendum gaffer-taped on the end.
At the risk of sounding like OPatz and chums, “No deal next week remains the legal default”.
Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?
Excellent idea, Baldrick. Here, have some of my rat sandwich.
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
If the government does nothing parliament will certainly do something. If it comes to it, it will send Bercow to Brussels bearing a revocation letter.
It's not relevant. Famously the EU does not deal with parliaments, it deals with member states. The only person allowed to sign treaties is the PM (acting on authority delegated by the Crown). The actions have to be in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state, and the UK Parliament does not have the authority to invoke nor revoke article 50.
Treaties are signed by whoever the Crown, acting on the advice of the government, appoints as plenipotentiaries for the purpose. These days it tends to be the PM or FSec or other cabinet-level minister depending on how important / what the subject is, so that they can get some TV air time of them signing the official copy. On the other hand, something like a social security totalization agreement with Tuvalu is most likely going to be signed by the High Commissioner to Fiji (who is also HC to Tuvalu) unless a junior DWP minister fancies a trip out to the South Pacific on the taxpayers' florin.
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
Because the alternative means an economic shock, when the EU (and the UK) are already not far off a recession. No benefit to refusing really, even if there isn't a clear path forward atm.
After the third or fourth extension they might put their foot down .....
Oh I see where you are coming from. Still clinging to this No Deal notion. Ain't gonna happen.
No Deal and May's Deal are finished. Unless:
1. She offers a referendum on it
or
2. they call for a long extension with indicative votes for something else other than her deal
Andrew Yang won't be the nominee, but if he gets a job as perhaps an entrepreneur tsar in say a Biden administration then he can remove some of Trump's base in the General. It's a very specific part of Trump's base, but I contend it definitely exists.
It’s not new but why is the “tsar” used? Given the fate of the Romanovs, it hardly seems like a happy title. Equally, I’m disappointed that Kaiser or Imperator hasn’t retired to common currency.
I knew it originated in the USA but on checking it seems its first occurrence in this context was in 1919. I wonder if the prominence of the last Romanov tsar in recent events then encouraged its use?
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their say
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be made
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.
Indeed. It's not insurmountable. But given various people think remain or no deal have become a lot more certain because of Bercow's actions, the incentive for all those necessary to switch to supporting the deal to suspend the standing orders has to be pretty low.
January put things back to how they would of been in the vote had been held in December.
Today stops a vote being made when nothing except a week in time had changed. Furthermore it avoids a day of parliament being wasted as he has given a workaround were there to be a majority for the decision (which there clearly isn't).
Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?
In the circumstances I’d expect other parties to block it, though watching JC whip his MPs to have confidence in HMG would be amusing.
But the Government still exists until another one is appointed right?
Indeed and there are precedents. Following the 2010 GE, Darling still acted as CoE and signed agreements with the EU during the Greek crisis, even though Labour had not won. He was only replaced when Cameron became PM and formed a new Government.
Sorry don't mean to sound patronising but I don't think this is being thought through. Mind you, it's not surprising given the flux we're in.
We already know the EU won't change the deal. The chances of them sending back the WA to the HoC are zero. Why would they?
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
So please please forget the technical capability of the HoC to suspend the standing order. Right:
So what are the alternatives?
The EU grant an extension with new terms e.g. the HoC has to hold indicative votes. Or the WA Brexit needs 'softening' to a customs union. Or that it must go to a referendum.
Or
Mrs May herself says she will take it to the people in a referendum.
On those grounds the EU might grant an extension.
The power now lies mainly with the EU.
Unless of course we just revoke Article 50.
With respect you seem to writing through a remain perspective which of course you are entitled to
However, I still expect TM to get a WDA through next week after the EU meetings
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.
Except that’s not what’s happened . This makes little difference because if you have a majority for the deal you also have a majority to change the standing order to allow that to be voted on .
This also increases the chances of a long extension and more time for a second EU referendum .
May had no chance of getting the vote through this week . She will now find some changes and make it her deal or long extension , and she will include that in the motion . Effectively if MPs vote no they are green lighting a long extension .
Bizarely some in the ERG think Bercow has helped them but his actions mean they will be forced to either back her deal or get the long extension they don’t want .
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
How does the H o C stop it, if neither the EU nor the government play ball?
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
How do they do that, exactly? They’ve already passed the legislation.
Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?
Except that the EUWA specifically states that a further Act is required to implement the WA.
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
How do they do that, exactly? They’ve already passed the legislation.
Are you actually being serious? They bring a statute 24. Any member can. Bercow has dropped big hints.
As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.
If the government does nothing parliament will certainly do something. If it comes to it, it will send Bercow to Brussels bearing a revocation letter.
It's not relevant. Famously the EU does not deal with parliaments, it deals with member states. The only person allowed to sign treaties is the PM (acting on authority delegated by the Crown). The actions have to be in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state, and the UK Parliament does not have the authority to invoke nor revoke article 50.
Treaties are signed by whoever the Crown, acting on the advice of the government, appoints as plenipotentiaries for the purpose. These days it tends to be the PM or FSec or other cabinet-level minister depending on how important / what the subject is, so that they can get some TV air time of them signing the official copy. On the other hand, something like a social security totalization agreement with Tuvalu is most likely going to be signed by the High Commissioner to Fiji (who is also HC to Tuvalu) unless a junior DWP minister fancies a trip out to the South Pacific on the taxpayers' florin.
Detail is always welcome, thank you. (Although oddly I already knew what "plenipotentiary" meant)
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
How do they do that, exactly? They’ve already passed the legislation.
Are you actually being serious? They bring a statute 24. Any member can. Bercow has dropped big hints.
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.
Except that’s not what’s happened . This makes little difference because if you have a majority for the deal you also have a majority to change the standing order to allow that to be voted on .
This also increases the chances of a long extension and more time for a second EU referendum .
May had no chance of getting the vote through this week . She will now find some changes and make it her deal or long extension , and she will include that in the motion . Effectively if MPs vote no they are green lighting a long extension .
Bizarely some in the ERG think Bercow has helped them but his actions mean they will be forced to either back her deal or get the long extension they don’t want .
Yes as Francois said if Bercow sticks to his guns a second ref is now very unlikely, so there is every chance in my opinion Bercow will be forced to backtrack and allow a 3rd vote. Certainly Betfair hasnt blinked. But it's easy to see why some from the ERG are crowing today, if he doesn't u-turn then no deal is in pole position. Though I suppose given what we all know Bercow is like he'll do whatever it takes to get more attention!
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.
Except that’s not what’s happened . This makes little difference because if you have a majority for the deal you also have a majority to change the standing order to allow that to be voted on .
This also increases the chances of a long extension and more time for a second EU referendum .
May had no chance of getting the vote through this week . She will now find some changes and make it her deal or long extension , and she will include that in the motion . Effectively if MPs vote no they are green lighting a long extension .
Bizarely some in the ERG think Bercow has helped them but his actions mean they will be forced to either back her deal or get the long extension they don’t want .
I would agree with you that May's deal and remain are dying but no deal is clearly looming large on the horizon. I think most salient commentators can sense it. A lot can happen in a day though...
Let's scotch this. There is no chance whatsoever that the HoC will permit No Deal. None. Zero. Nada.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
How do they do that, exactly? They’ve already passed the legislation.
The myth that the EU will say no to an extension is fanciful .
No 1 they don’t want no deal .
No 2 they don’t want to be blamed for that .
No 3 in the run up to the EU elections do they want all the bad publicity .
No 4 some still hope the UK will change course to a softer Brexit or a second EU vote .
You talk of the EU as if it were an amorphous entity whereas my understanding, with regard to an extension, is that it needs the unanimous agreement of member states.
Don’t know if this is half true but “Italy could block Brexit delay” . Salvini plans to block extension https://youtu.be/YNlboRM5o6E
This is tosh and being peddled by some Leave MPs .
No single country would do that; the repercussions for them would be severe. If there is any truth in it all, it's just a bit of sabre rattling and Italy will be bought off with something else (probably something that is the object of the whole exercise in the first place); that's the way the EU holds together.
The myth that the EU will say no to an extension is fanciful .
No 1 they don’t want no deal .
No 2 they don’t want to be blamed for that .
No 3 in the run up to the EU elections do they want all the bad publicity .
No 4 some still hope the UK will change course to a softer Brexit or a second EU vote .
You talk of the EU as if it were an amorphous entity whereas my understanding, with regard to an extension, is that it needs the unanimous agreement of member states.
But the EU has been hugely more united and co-ordinated than the UK, or even than our governing party (or even the cabinet, etc.)
Comments
b) yes, but others would say no.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1107705455684538369
Given his famed military experience, presumably this was him too:
https://twitter.com/elliotttimes/status/1107701572346277890
No Deal and May's Deal are finished. Unless:
1. She offers a referendum on it
or
2. they call for a long extension with indicative votes for something else other than her deal
You still see more people in the arse-end of nowhere, Scotland, during the TGO Challenge.
If I didn't have a son to look after, it's the sort of stroll I'd quite enjoy. But at least I'd plan a competent route.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaPqWjkyzzk
At the risk of sounding like OPatz and chums, “No deal next week remains the legal default”.
All over bar the screaming.
But if not, the chances of No Deal would rise.
She won’t.
But if helps the ERG keep their eye off the ball I'm happy for them to carry on thinking otherwise.
January put things back to how they would of been in the vote had been held in December.
Today stops a vote being made when nothing except a week in time had changed. Furthermore it avoids a day of parliament being wasted as he has given a workaround were there to be a majority for the decision (which there clearly isn't).
However, I still expect TM to get a WDA through next week after the EU meetings
Indeed Robert Peston on ITV has just said as much
This also increases the chances of a long extension and more time for a second EU referendum .
May had no chance of getting the vote through this week . She will now find some changes and make it her deal or long extension , and she will include that in the motion . Effectively if MPs vote no they are green lighting a long extension .
Bizarely some in the ERG think Bercow has helped them but his actions mean they will be forced to either back her deal or get the long extension they don’t want .
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/235138
Did they win the ballot already?
No 1 they don’t want no deal .
No 2 they don’t want to be blamed for that .
No 3 in the run up to the EU elections do they want all the bad publicity .
No 4 some still hope the UK will change course to a softer Brexit or a second EU vote .
https://youtu.be/YNlboRM5o6E
You talk of the EU as if it were an amorphous entity whereas my understanding, with regard to an extension, is that it needs the unanimous agreement of member states.