I'd be glad to be corrected on this, but until I am, I maintain that the assertion that the EC Act 1972 will be repealed automatically on the 29th should the SI to change the exit day fail to pass, is incorrect until a minister commences the relevant section.
I would be very interested to know what happens if we reach 11pm BST on 29th March with neither the SI to change the exit date passing NOR section 1 having been commenced. I think I'd be correct in saying it'd then become practically impossible for a minister to commence section 1 without the SI passing as it would make section 1 retrospective which would make things even more messed up.
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.
This conversation falls firmly with the category of ‘Only on PB’.
Kit Malthouse is correct to oppose a long extension. Liberal snowflakes will never meet us with a compromise. They want to wreck the whole thing. No deal.
Or the deal could be the compromise, since many remainers have already voted for it. Just a thought. If you cannot get no deal, something else will take its place.
Basically he's saying his case was heard by a biased judge and the appeal judge is also biased. He's as deranged as the Brexiteers who blame the civil service for reality.
After scolling down the tweet. Interesting that the case deals with the supply of pharmaceuticals. If I was still practising I would be concerned at the potential for serious problems, and some of the comments are IMHO, valid. However I haven't looked the detail of the regulations.
I am not entirely unclear on what is supposed to have happened there.
Well I am not sure anybody knows now.
He claimed it was a racist attempted lynching, but his story changed at different times and there is no sign of any Grand Wizard types in the area (which is heavily covered by CCTV).
The only two blokes who were also shown to be in the vicinty at the time (tracked via Uber and seen on CCTV), are two Nigerians wannabe actors, who he appears to have known previously due to being extras on the TV show he is on.
After scolling down the tweet. Interesting that the case deals with the supply of pharmaceuticals. If I was still practising I would be concerned at the potential for serious problems, and some of the comments are IMHO, valid. However I haven't looked the detail of the regulations.
Yes, but the potential for problems doesn't make the the government's proposed mitigation measures (which are specifically designed to reduce the problems) unlawful.
Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland.
I think continental Europe still moves back an hour the last Saturday in September? It's only the UK and Ireland that make the change in October. Or maybe it's changed in recent years?
No - definitely the last Sunday in October which is when airlines also introduce their winter schedules in Europe. This has been the position EU wide since 1998 - before then it was September on the continent and October in the UK and Ireland - and is enforced by an EU directive.
If we must retain GMT we should at least align it with the US daylight saving time, which causes confusion at this time of year, every single year.
Also, there is simply no case for waiting until the end of March to move to BST. We don't need it to be light at 5.45am, as it currently is.
Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland.
I think continental Europe still moves back an hour the last Saturday in September? It's only the UK and Ireland that make the change in October. Or maybe it's changed in recent years?
No - definitely the last Sunday in October which is when airlines also introduce their winter schedules in Europe. This has been the position EU wide since 1998 - before then it was September on the continent and October in the UK and Ireland - and is enforced by an EU directive.
If we must retain GMT we should at least align it with the US daylight saving time, which causes confusion at this time of year, every single year.
Also, there is simply no case for waiting until the end of March to move to BST. We don't need it to be light at 5.45am, as it currently is.
Move it to the first weekend in March.
I am already more or less on summer time, as with these light mornings there is no way the dog will wake up on winter time.
Well not everybody thinks this Smollett decision was the right one...
Chicago police officials said Supt. Eddie Johnson was not briefed on the decision to drop charges and learned about it in the middle of a police academy graduation ceremony scheduled at the same time Foxx’s office announced it.
A CPD source said Johnson was “furious” and maintained the evidence against Smollett was “rock solid.”
Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland.
I think continental Europe still moves back an hour the last Saturday in September? It's only the UK and Ireland that make the change in October. Or maybe it's changed in recent years?
No - definitely the last Sunday in October which is when airlines also introduce their winter schedules in Europe. This has been the position EU wide since 1998 - before then it was September on the continent and October in the UK and Ireland - and is enforced by an EU directive.
Ah I see, I remember being in France one year when the change was made in September but I guess that must have been before 1998.
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.
Exactly
Large numbers of safe seats were no such thing within considerably less than living memory.
Newbury for example. Or possibly my favourite, hyper-marginal Somerton and Frome, 3 times held by the LDs with <1000 majority. Now "safe".
Not just LD implosions either - Romford was Labour in 1997, now Tory majority of nearly 14000
I suspect we may see some interesting results next time...</p>
That is correct. There's been a big churn in seats between 2005 - 2017.
And yet is the overall number of 'safe' seats still about the same, even as there has been churn?
I believe the overall number of safe seats has been rising, as the major parties get better at 'gaming' the boundary review process. Both Tory and Labour look to maximise the number of safer seats and reduce the number of marginals, and both ensure lots of representations go in to support their proposals, with the process passing most ordinary members of the public by.
Thus the same swing results in fewer gains and losses than previously. But I don't have any link to back this up.
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May. If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.
And then we get to 11pm on 29 March and the decision adopted is now clear that condition for extension to 8 April is met, therefore? But the whole brexit situation has evaporated, so is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?
IANAL but I imagine no if we revoke before 11pm on 29 March then the Article 50 period is over. Thus it's not extended.
I will admit that is a possible conclusion. However the EU and EU council decisions still exist and the existing adopted decision says it is extended in these circumstances of the deal not being ratified. Note also that it is possible to extend deadline before deadline is reached, extension is independent and can come before usage of the extension. So why doesn't the adopted decision still extend the deadline after a revoke decision (which makes reaching the deadline cease to have any effect)? There still seems to me to be an awkward question of:
Is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?
The extension would be void and never have occured. If we revoke then Article 50 is terminated and there is no end date to Article 50 anymore since it doesn't exist anymore.
If legally the extensions only took effect if a condition was met then no extension will have occured [because neither condition was met] and the extension conditions don't kick in because they have been voided since there is no longer an Article 50 deadline to extend in the first place.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Asking the plebs fills airtime and is cheap....polling is expensive and proper investigative journalism even more so.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
Didn't the Letwin amendment just give over control of Parliament for just tomorrow? So surely the government controls the program plan for Monday, unless a Lewin2 motion passes again?
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Surely that is just as per R5s talk radio remit compared to R4, which would have done what you suggest?
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Surely that is just as per R5s talk radio remit compared to R4, which would have done what you suggest?
Much as I hate rolling news channels sometimes you need them and this is one of those times. That said I loathe those vox pops although they do give an indication of what the man/woman/other on the Clapham/Cardiff omnibus thinks.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Asking the plebs fills airtime and is cheap....polling is expensive and proper investigative journalism even more so.
Indeed. I notice when they need an exit poll to fill 2 hours of dead air time on GE night they don't ask the residents of Macclesfield what they think the result was.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
Didn't the Letwin amendment just give over control of Parliament for just tomorrow? So surely the government controls the program plan for Monday, unless a Lewin2 motion passes again?
The programme motion setting out how Letwin and the Regulations will be dealt with itself reserves futher time. It needs to pass before the further time is granted; indeed it needs to pass before Letwin can proceed, so is presumably first item tomorrow after PMQs.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
They fill space and allow broadcasters to pretend they take the public seriously. That the sort of person wandering around a provincial market square on a weekday is unlikely to be the sharpest knife in the drawer is not really considered or commented upon.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
At this rate the House of Commons could gradually start developing a taste for actually doing its job.
Nah, as soon as they've conspired to put the leave voting plebs in their place and tell them who's boss it'll be back to claiming their salary and expenses and doing **** all for it as usual....
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Surely the first stick to make it all the way down the Thames and up the North Sea to Norway wins!
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
PS I see the Government has just defeated a Labour amendment to one of its bills in the Commons by a whopping 59 votes! May's authority is restored....
2pm (could be earlier, not later) - Programme motion debated for up to an hour. Vote at 3pm. Amendments are possible.
If passes (and subject to any changes made by amendments), move on to a debate on the options Speaker has selected. Speaker announces selected options. Criteria likely to be breadth of support and distinctiveness from other proposals.
7pm - sitting suspended for half an hour to allow MPs to complete paper ballots on each option
7.30pm - MPs agree the Regulations concerning exit date change
Around 9 pm - results announced. Individual votes of MPs published presumably soon after.
If there is extended debate on the Regulations this would continue after the Speaker's results announcement.
Process continues Monday (presumably narrowing toward a choice)
Prof Curtice was on BBC News earlier and made a lot of sense. Few people have changed their minds but some of the previous non-voters have been swayed (they weren't necessarily the new ones).
Hardly surprising with Project Fear having unrivalled exposure on the media.
He did say it might not survive a more rigorous three week neutrality pre-referendum, and he ended with a warning "Be careful what you wish for."
After scolling down the tweet. Interesting that the case deals with the supply of pharmaceuticals. If I was still practising I would be concerned at the potential for serious problems, and some of the comments are IMHO, valid. However I haven't looked the detail of the regulations.
Yes, but the potential for problems doesn't make the the government's proposed mitigation measures (which are specifically designed to reduce the problems) unlawful.
As posted, I haven't looked a the detail, but the DHSS and the relevant professional bodis are usually pretty good on this sort of thing.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper, if the suggestion is what applies with one should apply with the other?
Notable for who is saying it. It's quite extraordinary how Theresa May is lining up long term loyal supporters of the Conservative leadership against her:
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Asking the plebs fills airtime and is cheap....polling is expensive and proper investigative journalism even more so.
Indeed. I notice when they need an exit poll to fill 2 hours of dead air time on GE night they don't ask the residents of Macclesfield what they think the result was.
Also a poll or a proper investigation may not give you the answer you want whereas in ten interviews you can probably find a couple of people who tell you what you want to hear.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Doesn't she really have to call it Friday at the latest? Wasn't the EU's terms for 22 May exit dependent on the WA passing this week?
I assumed they only reason they would specify such a thing would be to make sure she did bring it back for at least a try, rather than have her pretend it was still alive by not bringing it until April 11th or something.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Surely that is just as per R5s talk radio remit compared to R4, which would have done what you suggest?
Not saying I disapprove of phone ins or the like. At least then people have something they want to say, and have given some thought to it. They can then be challenged and followed up. The shoving of a Mike in the face of a random going about their business and getting a stream of incoherent and ill-informed babble back, without any context, seems to add absolutely nothing to anything.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
It seems pretty daft to use a process which led to deadlock the last time it was used. Couldn't they ask some brainier MPs than average to suggest a different voting system?
Surely if they start off with nine choices like 'deal', deal subject to referendum, revoke, etc, etc they can vote eight times giving an order of preference. Each time, they eliminate the lowest scoring option. They finally have a winner which is the option receiving over 50% of the votes in the final ballot.
If any MPs are reading this, PB users like to be helpful ...
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper, if the suggestion is what applies with one should apply with the other?
And it looks to me as if Letwin is holding off any AV type process until Monday - tomorrow is simple yes/no on each option. Although an amendment to change the process is possible.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
Notable for who is saying it. It's quite extraordinary how Theresa May is lining up long term loyal supporters of the Conservative leadership against her:
Her time as PM could be limited to hours, I really don't see how it matters all that much how angry some long term loyal people are, since all that really matters is whether the Commons approves something. If it is, somehow, the WA, then May will I am sure name a date for her departure in double quick time and growing anger at her does not matter. If it is something else, well, she's powerless anyway.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
Didn't the Letwin amendment just give over control of Parliament for just tomorrow? So surely the government controls the program plan for Monday, unless a Lewin2 motion passes again?
The programme motion setting out how Letwin and the Regulations will be dealt with itself reserves futher time. It needs to pass before the further time is granted; indeed it needs to pass before Letwin can proceed, so is presumably first item tomorrow after PMQs.
So using the time they've been granted on Wednesday they're going to push to ensure they get more time going forwards? Sort of like a buy one get one free promotion?
And I assume if they give themselves time for Monday, they can on Monday give themselves more time on Tuesday and so on and so forth for as long as Parliament keeps voting to approve that?
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
The full text is in Benn's tweet, but it's some distance from plain English.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
It seems pretty daft to use a process which led to deadlock the last time it was used. Couldn't they ask some brainier MPs than average to suggest a different voting system?
Surely if they start off with nine choices like 'deal', deal subject to referendum, revoke, etc, etc they can vote eight times giving an order of preference. Each time, they eliminate the lowest scoring option. They finally have a winner which is the option receiving over 50% of the votes in the final ballot.
If any MPs are reading this, PB users like to be helpful ...
The one advantage is that tomorrow people can vote for as many options as they are prepared to support. This gives an overall level of potential support for each, setting up some sort of preference process for Monday.
The fact that they are all defeated will surely be the media takeaway, which does risk discrediting the process. But we know that already; the key is whether Monday can be used to funnel some sort of consensus toward the least unpopular options.
The risk in going straight for AV is that the support is at the extremes whereas the acceptable consensus is probably in the middle.
Notable for who is saying it. It's quite extraordinary how Theresa May is lining up long term loyal supporters of the Conservative leadership against her:
Is 'X should listen' up there with among the most pointless political cliches in existence, along with 'X should act in the national interest'? MPs will always claim to do both, and while both are definitely necessary, they are also regularly used to mean 'X should do as I want'.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
Because as he explained on the day the Commons can vote to set aside that precedent and allow the vote. That vote would itself then be a quasi-MV vote as anyone who wanted to vote Aye to the MV would do so to allow the vote to happen.
I'm guessing it simply means that if the Commons wishes to reject MV3 it can do so at the start of the day rather than spending a whole day on it.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
Isn't it for one because the motion for tomorrow explicitly allows for previous things to be voted on, but also because ultimately if they have the numbers to pass MV3, they should have the votes to amend or suspend the standing orders to allow MV to be voted on anyway?
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
Tomorrow's process isn't a decision so those rules don't apply. And in any event the change in timetable and the new process gives Bercow enough to rule differently.
Edit/ But you are right that the indicative yes/no process is effectively a proxy for MV3. If the deal actually passes it will be a turn up for the books!
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper?
I am not denying AV has its merits - but given voters decisively rejected its use for Westminster elections it then seems odd that it should be used to take important decisions in parliament. You could potentially be disregarding the most recent people's vote (e.g. if MPs vote to revoke) using an electoral system they rejected in the previous one.
As Sir Frank Williams founder of the Formula One racing team put it at the time:
"AV would give the losers, but not the leaders, several cracks at choosing who to vote for, letting the second or third placed options squeak home by getting extra votes from supporters of even less popular options. That’s no way to run a fair race.”
Let alone Baroness Warsi's intervention:
A switch to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections would give more power to fascists, Conservative co-chairman Baroness Warsi warned today. Lady Warsi said that AV represented "a serious danger to our democracy"
If Parliament decides to revoke using AV her ridiculous comments at the time might be proved right!
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Because the purpose of media is entertainment.
Just listening to a Prof is a bit boring - so they break it up / fill it out with something different (but still related to the subject) to help keep people interested.
It's a bit like why reporters stand at the location they are reporting about even though they don't need to be there. If they were just sat in the studio talking to camera it would be more boring.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
The Graun had an explanation the other day but god knows what it said or why it would be fine. Presumably new dates from the EU.
May should call MV3 for Friday if she's going to have one. If she is very close to the line then the juxtaposition of MPs voting against Brexit on what was meant to be Brexit day would put a lot of pressure on any remaining hold outs.
Sounds good.
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
You demean yourself calling Bercow a Quisling just because he is an irritant. It is as silly as suggesting all Leavers are quislings and traitors for advancing the foreign policy agenda of Putin.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Doing a Google the only difference appears to be the presentation - K-W involves Parliament "agreeing" May's deal subject to a confirmatory referendum (presumably with Remain on the other side, although not everyone thinks Labour has confirmed this) whereas the PV is a straight Deal v Remain choice.
Technically there's no difference but psychologically one is saying "we intend to do this, do you agree?" and the other is saying "which of these two do you prefer?" So the ballot paper wording would be different with the former yes/no and the latter more wordy.
If I was the Speaker I would take one or the other.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
So, the switchers in favour of May's Deal (when it's probably too late) are:
JRM James Gray Michael Fabricant Simon Clarke Esther McVey Pauline Latham Daniel Kaczynski Rehman Chishti Robert Courts
Any others?.
The link I just posted misses a few of yours but includes Henry Smith. So that looks like 10 down 65 to go then.
DUP remain critical as Grieves won't back down. If everyone else does and he doesn't he should lose the whip.
Why should he lose the whip? Because he fundamentally disagrees with the government? If that were the case then most of the people that have caused the trouble for TMay, including old numbskull Duncan Smith should have lost the whip years ago
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
I compiled a list of the hardcore ERG before the Speaker's ruling-out of MV3 (it feels like half a lifetime ago but it was only last week):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Jo Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
What NEEDS to happen is that the MP supporters of the various 'middle' soft Brexit options all agree to vote "yes" to each other's proposals - knowing that Monday will give them another chance to establish the final preference.
Then the media story is that soft Brexit can command a majority and it will look as if we are on our way to a resolution.
Whether they can achieve this in the next 24 hours is another matter.
Edit/ My other take is that a referendum becomes more likely - because it's an obvious deal breaker between leading choices, assuming the process gets that far.
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
VoxPops are almost universally worthless. They are just air fillers for the networks.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
Or there is the compromise - Labour and Tories agree a permanent customs union (May's backstop may well deliver that anyway) and also agree we remain out of the single market (so freedom of movement goes).
We leave on May's deal but renegotiate the PD. We stay in the or a customs union - so the NI border issue is sorted And we don't remain fully in the single market so Freedom of movement ends (so the biggest concern of many leave voters is addressed).
Not ideal - but surely something for everyone (except for the Waitrose class who will find it more difficult to retire to their villas in Tuscany).
I can't see any other compromise which delivers leaving and might gain support. Norway plus or Common market 2.0 just seems a complete waste of time as it delivers nothing for leave voters at all - its vassal state 100.0.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
33 against from government side = 290, plus 15 Labour = 305 Opposition plus 33 minus 15 = 334
So 15 more would need to change their minds to back the government to win it for the government.
Can you see the deal getting through . Am I being too negative ? Perhaps we might see a shock !
Forgot to include on the government side the former Lib-Dem who is backing the deal, Lady Syliva Hermon backs the deal too.
From there get the DUP on board and that makes it 317 to 322 with 3 more needed. If it gets that close then the 3 will be found [or Labour abstentions] to get it over the line.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Less unhinged perhaps than a media and Democrat party that have been feeding the Russia narrative for 2 years. The WH press secretary sayjng false accusation and investigation against the president is treason, the punishment for which is death, ought to highlight the gravity of things. Or we could just assume she was having a laugh and that Trump isn't going to go after those who tried to fit him up as a Putin stooge I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
I compiled a list of the hardcore ERG before the Speaker's ruling-out of MV3 (it feels like half a lifetime ago but it was only last week):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Jo Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
So 50 Lab MPs needed, no problem. Granted, they've only managed 3 so far, but I'm sure Lisa Nandy and co will be just ready to switch in their droves, unless something terribly relevant like their feelings being hurt by a PM statement crops up again.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
Can't wait for Jezza and Johnny Mac to take over the Treasury and send them all back to school to learn about Marxism.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Is that what Kyle-Wilson means or were they just using the term confirmatory referndum to make it more palatable,while still intending remain would be the outcome if deal failed? I don't know the wording on it.
What NEEDS to happen is that the MP supporters of the various 'middle' soft Brexit options all agree to vote "yes" to each other's proposals - knowing that Monday will give them another chance to establish the final preference.
Then the media story is that soft Brexit can command a majority and it will look as if we are on our way to a resolution.
Whether they can achieve this in the next 24 hours is another matter.
Edit/ My other take is that a referendum becomes more likely - because it's an obvious deal breaker between leading choices, assuming the process gets that far.
It also both kicks the can down the road and off the shoulder's of MPs. Don't underestimate their desire for it to be someone elses fault.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Reports on that vary - for example see here, reports K-W is deal v remain:
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Is that what Kyle-Wilson means or were they just using the term confirmatory referndum to make it more palatable,while still intending remain would be the outcome if deal failed? I don't know the wording on it.
I may be reading too much into their wording, but I can't see how else you interpret "confirmatory referendum". I suspect it's triangulation, but I'm not sure if they're more scared of being seen to obstruct Brexit, or facilitate it.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
Comments
I'd be glad to be corrected on this, but until I am, I maintain that the assertion that the EC Act 1972 will be repealed automatically on the 29th should the SI to change the exit day fail to pass, is incorrect until a minister commences the relevant section.
I would be very interested to know what happens if we reach 11pm BST on 29th March with neither the SI to change the exit date passing NOR section 1 having been commenced. I think I'd be correct in saying it'd then become practically impossible for a minister to commence section 1 without the SI passing as it would make section 1 retrospective which would make things even more messed up.
Meanwhile the so called principled members of the ERG having trashed the deal are now in a blind panic and suddenly some will vote for it.
He claimed it was a racist attempted lynching, but his story changed at different times and there is no sign of any Grand Wizard types in the area (which is heavily covered by CCTV).
The only two blokes who were also shown to be in the vicinty at the time (tracked via Uber and seen on CCTV), are two Nigerians wannabe actors, who he appears to have known previously due to being extras on the TV show he is on.
Also, there is simply no case for waiting until the end of March to move to BST. We don't need it to be light at 5.45am, as it currently is.
Move it to the first weekend in March.
Chicago police officials said Supt. Eddie Johnson was not briefed on the decision to drop charges and learned about it in the middle of a police academy graduation ceremony scheduled at the same time Foxx’s office announced it.
A CPD source said Johnson was “furious” and maintained the evidence against Smollett was “rock solid.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/empire-jussie-smollett-emergency-court-hearing/
Thus the same swing results in fewer gains and losses than previously. But I don't have any link to back this up.
If legally the extensions only took effect if a condition was met then no extension will have occured [because neither condition was met] and the extension conditions don't kick in because they have been voided since there is no longer an Article 50 deadline to extend in the first place.
JRM
James Gray
Michael Fabricant
Simon Clarke
Esther McVey
Pauline Latham
Daniel Kaczynski
Rehman Chishti
Robert Courts
Any others?.
Edit: Add Henry Smith.
Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that.
Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days.
Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
DUP remain critical as Grieves won't back down. If everyone else does and he doesn't he should lose the whip.
I read it to suggest that there will be yes/no votes separately on each selected option, and I am guessing that Monday's process is likely to move on to some sort of preferential/elimination process thereafter. Picking up the rumours earlier I think those wanting a more sophisticated process from the off didn't get their way (they are a pretty traditionalist audience after all).
The risk is that - as with the same process for HoL reform - they all go down at first knocking.
Will be really there if Caroline Lucas and Lady Hermon start arguing with themselves.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
PS I see the Government has just defeated a Labour amendment to one of its bills in the Commons by a whopping 59 votes! May's authority is restored....
2pm (could be earlier, not later) - Programme motion debated for up to an hour. Vote at 3pm. Amendments are possible.
If passes (and subject to any changes made by amendments), move on to a debate on the options Speaker has selected. Speaker announces selected options. Criteria likely to be breadth of support and distinctiveness from other proposals.
7pm - sitting suspended for half an hour to allow MPs to complete paper ballots on each option
7.30pm - MPs agree the Regulations concerning exit date change
Around 9 pm - results announced. Individual votes of MPs published presumably soon after.
If there is extended debate on the Regulations this would continue after the Speaker's results announcement.
Process continues Monday (presumably narrowing toward a choice)
Hardly surprising with Project Fear having unrivalled exposure on the media.
He did say it might not survive a more rigorous three week neutrality pre-referendum, and he ended with a warning "Be careful what you wish for."
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper, if the suggestion is what applies with one should apply with the other?
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1110583850877575168
I assumed they only reason they would specify such a thing would be to make sure she did bring it back for at least a try, rather than have her pretend it was still alive by not bringing it until April 11th or something.
The shoving of a Mike in the face of a random going about their business and getting a stream of incoherent and ill-informed babble back, without any context, seems to add absolutely nothing to anything.
Surely if they start off with nine choices like 'deal', deal subject to referendum, revoke, etc, etc they can vote eight times giving an order of preference. Each time, they eliminate the lowest scoring option. They finally have a winner which is the option receiving over 50% of the votes in the final ballot.
If any MPs are reading this, PB users like to be helpful ...
Any idea why Quisling Bercow's dictum that MV3 is not allowed unless the Deal is substantially different to the one defeated at MV2 seems to have become irrelevant?
And I assume if they give themselves time for Monday, they can on Monday give themselves more time on Tuesday and so on and so forth for as long as Parliament keeps voting to approve that?
https://twitter.com/DulchaointighO/status/1110274717620031488
The fact that they are all defeated will surely be the media takeaway, which does risk discrediting the process. But we know that already; the key is whether Monday can be used to funnel some sort of consensus toward the least unpopular options.
The risk in going straight for AV is that the support is at the extremes whereas the acceptable consensus is probably in the middle.
In fairness, you have said from the start
more or less the the start that the NI border might prove intractable
I'm guessing it simply means that if the Commons wishes to reject MV3 it can do so at the start of the day rather than spending a whole day on it.
I'd have thought Revoke would get support from the Nationalists, Green, LibDems and TIG, so Rentoul's estimate looks rather light?
I don't see the difference between Kyle-Wilson and the Deal v Remain referendum?
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
Edit/ But you are right that the indicative yes/no process is effectively a proxy for MV3. If the deal actually passes it will be a turn up for the books!
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
As Sir Frank Williams founder of the Formula One racing team put it at the time:
"AV would give the losers, but not the leaders, several cracks at choosing who to vote for, letting the second or third placed options squeak home by getting extra votes from supporters of even less popular options. That’s no way to run a fair race.”
Let alone Baroness Warsi's intervention:
A switch to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections would give more power to fascists, Conservative co-chairman Baroness Warsi warned today. Lady Warsi said that AV represented "a serious danger to our democracy"
If Parliament decides to revoke using AV her ridiculous comments at the time might be proved right!
Just listening to a Prof is a bit boring - so they break it up / fill it out with something different (but still related to the subject) to help keep people interested.
It's a bit like why reporters stand at the location they are reporting about even though they don't need to be there. If they were just sat in the studio talking to camera it would be more boring.
Everyone else - 2 Labour Deputy Speakers - Bercow = Sinn Fein 316
33 against from government side = 290, plus 15 Labour = 305
Opposition plus 33 minus 15 = 334
So 15 more would need to change their minds to back the government to win it for the government.
Technically there's no difference but psychologically one is saying "we intend to do this, do you agree?" and the other is saying "which of these two do you prefer?" So the ballot paper wording would be different with the former yes/no and the latter more wordy.
If I was the Speaker I would take one or the other.
Verified account
@DPJHodges
Follow Follow @DPJHodges
More
And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor)
Lucy Allan (Telford)
Steve Baker (Wycombe)
Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire)
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)
Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
Richard Drax (South Dorset)
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East)
Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford)
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)
Chris Green (Bolton West)
Philip Hollobone (Kettering)
Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire)
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood)
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip)
David Jones (Clwyd West)
Julian Lewis (New Forest East)
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet)
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall)
Priti Patel (Witham)
Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
John Redwood (Wokingham)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
Henry Smith (Crawley)
Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen)
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South)
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy)
Justine Greening (Putney)
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
Sam Gyimah (East Surrey)
Jo Johnson (Orpington)
Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Then the media story is that soft Brexit can command a majority and it will look as if we are on our way to a resolution.
Whether they can achieve this in the next 24 hours is another matter.
Edit/ My other take is that a referendum becomes more likely - because it's an obvious deal breaker between leading choices, assuming the process gets that far.
We leave on May's deal but renegotiate the PD.
We stay in the or a customs union - so the NI border issue is sorted
And we don't remain fully in the single market so Freedom of movement ends (so the biggest concern of many leave voters is addressed).
Not ideal - but surely something for everyone (except for the Waitrose class who will find it more difficult to retire to their villas in Tuscany).
I can't see any other compromise which delivers leaving and might gain support. Norway plus or Common market 2.0 just seems a complete waste of time as it delivers nothing for leave voters at all - its vassal state 100.0.
From there get the DUP on board and that makes it 317 to 322 with 3 more needed. If it gets that close then the 3 will be found [or Labour abstentions] to get it over the line.
I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Had 296 last time Tories free vote surely gets another 25 to pass
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/09/brexit-secretary-met-pro-referendum-labour-peter-kyle-phil-wilson
Pitting the deal against both no deal and remain combined into one "no" choice would surely doom it to failure and resolve nothing?