Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman confirmed that the party would whip for Margaret Beckett’s “confirmatory public vote” option - as well as Gareth Snell’s and Ken Clarke’s, calling for a customs union, and of course the one setting out Labour’s own Brexit policy.
And he said whips would be “encouraging” Labour MPs to support common market 2.0, the cross-party proposal drawn up by Stephen Kinnock, among others. .. "The basis for that is that they’re all in line with our policy - in the case of the public vote motion, in the sense of our conference policy that if we’re unable to achieve a general election, keeping all options on the table. So the intention is to support those options going forward in the process"..
In other words, having voted for the indicative vote motion which seeks to find a way forward, Labour actually wants to ensure that there isn't a way forward. Got it.
Is there any point to an indicative vote which one side whips?
No. This is laughable from Corbyn.
It is of a piece with his support for a second referendum on May's deal, but not one on anything he might hypothetically negotiate. Brexit has highlighted plenty of arses; Corbyn is one of them.
Activist Jackie Walker expelled by Labour for 'prejudicial' and 'grossly detrimental' comments
Three years after she was first suspended by the party, Jackie Walker has been expelled from Labour for making comments that were “prejudical” and “grossly detrimental” to the party, the JC has learned.
We really have plumbed new lows in the self-awareness stakes when Casino Royale is accusing other posters of being pompous and rude.
Funny old world.
Is this get Casino day today, he is getting a concerted pasting last couple of threads. Get in among them Casino.
Thanks Malc.
There’s a cluster of morons who like to fornicate awkwardly together in the basement of this site now, and it’s about time they were called out on it.
I think they’re upset I was right about the PV numbers on the march at the weekend, and can’t bear to admit it.
I’d take ten of you any day of the week over one of them.
CS I suspect this is going to be a waste of time because I did try the other day and got rebuffed but when someone posts: 'We really have plumbed new lows in the self-awareness stakes when Casino Royale is accusing other posters of being pompous and rude.' How does a reply of: 'There’s a cluster of morons who like to fornicate awkwardly together in the basement of this site now, and it’s about time they were called out on it.' do anything other than reinforce that impression?
It is easy to get sucked into tit-for-tat exchanges, and eventually you have a feud. One rule I try to observe is never to carry over from one thread to the next. As Balfour said, Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all.
Balfour of course was a Scottish old Etonian who went to Trinity, Cambridge and was a published philosopher, the same path followed by Oliver Letwin. See, this isn't just thrown together.
That makes a lot of sense. Today I avoided engaging on previous days stuff (march numbers) and only posted unrelated and agreeing posts. I couldn't but help trying to assist (but maybe shouldn't have) when I saw the same thing happening with others.
B - Barron (No deal) D - Boles (CM2) H - Eustace (EFTA + EEA) J - Clarke (CU) K - Corbyn (Labour deal) L - Cherry (Revoke to avoid no deal) M - Beckett (Kyle-Wilson referendum) O - Fish (managed no deal)
A little more sympathetic to the Brexiters than I was expecting, by including O. Otherwise my calls this morning were spot on.
I'm always slightly paranoid when it comes to politicians and celebs. Two groups I have little respect for. I include lawyers and child molesters in there although some lawyers might sneak through occasionally as being human. Estate agents - they have a job to do.
I remember Franck le Boeuf being uncharacteristically gobby on a TV programme about his world cup win. When he got a lot of stick on social media, he protested he'd been reading from a script the BBC had given him. Although Theo is a celeb, he might be genuinely chicken when the going gets tough.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Bercow is handling this well. The potentially disruptive proposals and amendments are all being rejected and MPs are not kicking up the fuss I anticipated.
And now Bercow has ruled paving motions on MV3 out of order. I think that's unacceptable myself.
Tbh, if the government can cobble together a majority for the WA they will force his hand by using it to dissolve parliament and force a new session.
Well the same majority might not vote to do that (nor remove Bercow). Notwithstanding convention, his primary job is to be the servant of the House. Blocking efforts to determine its will is surely prejudical to that. And in any case, given the deadlines in international law, there is a clear case for setting aside convention in this instance.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
Big picture - I understand why Bercow is fed up with a government with no Plan B and that continues to try and frustrate attempt of MPs to identify a Plan B Detail - surprised that Bercow is able to prevent a motion to override his ruling.
So Bercow has done the right thing, possibly in the wrong way.
However given the mood of the house (larger majority for Letwin) and the DUP position, surely government trying to get MV3 is pointless.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
Except, no PM can promise those outcomes, can they?
And now Bercow has ruled paving motions on MV3 out of order. I think that's unacceptable myself.
So it's safe for JRM and Boris to say they back May's Deal because they know it won't be presented again.
But if it's not presented again, and passed, the EU won't extend A50 to 22nd May to allow enabling legislation. I think 22nd May is out and so is Mrs May's deal. She;'s going to resign tonight and let someone else implement option J - the permanent customs union.
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Oh come on, Sean, the PM has been wilfully running the clock down for months. It's a bit rich to be blaming the Speaker now.
For sure, but that's a separate issue. If the Commons ultimately decide that the WA is the best of a bad lot, they should be entitled to vote it through.
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Oh come on, Sean, the PM has been wilfully running the clock down for months. It's a bit rich to be blaming the Speaker now.
For sure, but that's a separate issue. If the Commons ultimately decide that the WA is the best of a bad lot, they should be entitled to vote it through.
So the government should have been willing to respect and engage with the MPs' decision and throw its own approach into the ring.
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Oh come on, Sean, the PM has been wilfully running the clock down for months. It's a bit rich to be blaming the Speaker now.
For sure, but that's a separate issue. If the Commons ultimately decide that the WA is the best of a bad lot, they should be entitled to vote it through.
So the government should have been willing to respect and engage with the MPs' decision and throw its own approach into the ring.
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Especially if he's ignoring the precedent of paving motions.
What could he do if the House just went ahead with the vote anyway?
Technically he could suspend the house to prevent the vote taking place.
Edit and instruct the Serjeant-At-Arms to prevent access to the voting lobbies.
And be individually responsible for us falling out in a no deal situation...
is he a secret hardliner Brexiter in disguise?
Missed your posts on wanting Chris Davies to resign.
That is because I wasn't on the site during the relevant period.
If sentenced to any time in prison - suspended or otherwise - I absolutely call on him to resign immediately.
I must admit to not having followed the case in any detail - so don't know the nature of the fraud to which he has confessed. But if it is judged serious enough to require prison time, then he should not be part of the Commons.
Feels like a risky game for Bercow. As others have said, not entirely sure how it's sticking up for the House v the exec.
And if his game is to frustrate Brexit, and if the effect of this is to weaken Deal, at the very least he's raising the stakes in avoiding No Deal By Accident.
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Oh come on, Sean, the PM has been wilfully running the clock down for months. It's a bit rich to be blaming the Speaker now.
For sure, but that's a separate issue. If the Commons ultimately decide that the WA is the best of a bad lot, they should be entitled to vote it through.
Agreed, although I think if they were to so decide there are ways they could get the WA through. They seem however to be a very long way from so deciding, and since the basic facts haven't changed....
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
It's like the "will of the people" faction's objection to a second referendum - we will do absolutely anything to enforce the will of the House/the people, except asking them what that will actually is and proceeding accordingly.
Big picture - I understand why Bercow is fed up with a government with no Plan B and that continues to try and frustrate attempt of MPs to identify a Plan B Detail - surprised that Bercow is able to prevent a motion to override his ruling.
So Bercow has done the right thing, possibly in the wrong way.
However given the mood of the house (larger majority for Letwin) and the DUP position, surely government trying to get MV3 is pointless.
Forcing the WA through against the better judgment of the vast majority of MPs would not solve anything and would merely store up trouble for the future. It's perfectly normal for political organisations to have rules barring repeat consideration of the same proposition within a set period - even humble Labour Party branches have it. It prevents obsessives with personal hobby-horses bringing back the same old bollocks to every meeting.
And now Bercow has ruled paving motions on MV3 out of order. I think that's unacceptable myself.
So it's safe for JRM and Boris to say they back May's Deal because they know it won't be presented again.
But if it's not presented again, and passed, the EU won't extend A50 to 22nd May to allow enabling legislation. I think 22nd May is out and so is Mrs May's deal. She;'s going to resign tonight and let someone else implement option J - the permanent customs union.
But if the UK prepares a coherent plan (yes, ha ha, I know ...) and extends for a genuine reason, like EU elections, it could do so?
If it happens I look forward to casting my vote by PR in May 2019, the only parliamentary election in which my vote counts. Votes not counting was one reason why people voted in 2016 to give the govt a bloody nose, aimed wrongly and hit the EU instead. No-one wants to talk about that.
Big picture - I understand why Bercow is fed up with a government with no Plan B and that continues to try and frustrate attempt of MPs to identify a Plan B Detail - surprised that Bercow is able to prevent a motion to override his ruling.
So Bercow has done the right thing, possibly in the wrong way.
However given the mood of the house (larger majority for Letwin) and the DUP position, surely government trying to get MV3 is pointless.
Forcing the WA through against the better judgment of the vast majority of MPs would not solve anything and would merely store up trouble for the future. It's perfectly normal for political organisations to have rules barring repeat consideration of the same proposition within a set period - even humble Labour Party branches have it. It prevents obsessives with personal hobby-horses bringing back the same old bollocks to every meeting.
Bercow is doing the nation a service here.
I agree. This morning looking at what MPs had sent in it looked clear there were a large number determined to make a shambles of the whole process. Yet Bercow has cut through it all, and made rulings that have been accepted without a murmur. In my experience of local government a mayor or council chairman wouldn't have got away without at least some fuss, whether right or not. The office of speaker commands high respect in parliament.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
H is No Deal in new clothes. D, J and K are May's deal in new clothes.
The key now is that MPs are willing to back some options other than just their own favourite, so that some of them begin to look like potential runners.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
H is No Deal in new clothes. D, J and K are May's deal in new clothes.
Bercow decision means that the future framework might have to be changed to allow another vote . So in effect making today’s indicative votes more important .
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
H is No Deal in new clothes. D, J and K are May's deal in new clothes.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Sorry, correct list below:
(B) #NoDeal (D) Common market 2.0 (H) EFTA and EEA (J) Customs Union (K) Labour's alternative plan (L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal (M) Confirmatory public vote (O) Contingent preferential arrangements
D, H, J and K are all essentially May's deal in new clothes.
H is No Deal in new clothes. D, J and K are May's deal in new clothes.
Why is H no deal?
It's the one where we should "assert our rights" under the EEA treaty and join EFTA but not a customs union. In effect it's just no deal plus legal shenanigans to try to maintain continuity. Just as much of a unicorn as the GATT Article 24 stuff.
Poor from Bercow re MV3. Suspect he just wants to remind everyone how important he is. No doubt there will be a way around him if needs be. In fact there is - drop the PD and bring back just the WA for ratification. That's a substantial change in anyone's book.
The Beckett should not have been selected. The non-specific REF is not an outcome. It is also a statement of a negative rather than a positive. It does not belong here. It should be tabled as an amendment to whatever target deal is favoured, if such is necessary to get it over the line in a final meaningful vote.
The key now is that MPs are willing to back some options other than just their own favourite, so that some of them begin to look like potential runners.
Like the Deal? :-) Perhaps this is the way to get MV3 passed:
Does that mean that if the Commons want to pass it, they have to remove Bercow?
Yup.
Bercow cannot claim to be defending the rights of the House if he is not prepared to let the House vote in favour of a particular motion.
Oh come on, Sean, the PM has been wilfully running the clock down for months. It's a bit rich to be blaming the Speaker now.
For sure, but that's a separate issue. If the Commons ultimately decide that the WA is the best of a bad lot, they should be entitled to vote it through.
Agreed, although I think if they were to so decide there are ways they could get the WA through. They seem however to be a very long way from so deciding, and since the basic facts haven't changed....
And he is possibly doing them a favour, as there is a range of circumstances in which May's deal could return to parliament, either tied to one of the Letwin end states or if Letwin runs into the sand. Everyone seems to agree that MV4 is no longer a realistic expectation, so he is at least preventing May firing her last bullet prematurely.
And now Bercow has ruled paving motions on MV3 out of order. I think that's unacceptable myself.
So it's safe for JRM and Boris to say they back May's Deal because they know it won't be presented again.
But if it's not presented again, and passed, the EU won't extend A50 to 22nd May to allow enabling legislation. I think 22nd May is out and so is Mrs May's deal. She;'s going to resign tonight and let someone else implement option J - the permanent customs union.
But if the UK prepares a coherent plan (yes, ha ha, I know ...) and extends for a genuine reason, like EU elections, it could do so?
If it happens I look forward to casting my vote by PR in May 2019, the only parliamentary election in which my vote counts. Votes not counting was one reason why people voted in 2016 to give the govt a bloody nose, aimed wrongly and hit the EU instead. No-one wants to talk about that.
If it goes for J, the permanent customs union, then that could be agreed in days with the EU in the PD. However two things would have to happen:
a) the EU would have to agree to an extension to 22nd May for UK to get enabling legislation through
b) Letwin et al would have to get legislation through that force the government to agree to a permanent customs union in its FTA.
Problem with a): it might take longer than 22 May unless Government cooperates totally. Still a backstop issue with standards if not tariffs, but presumably Labour would support it and then the DUP don't matter. In that case we may need a longer extension and take part in the Euro elections.
Problem with b); You cannot commit a future parliament. A new Tory leader could call a GE and change the legislation and strike out a permanent customs union if they won it. But it is more likely to be Corbyn who favours a permanent customs union.
Surely something could be found to change the WA which was a definite change but not something anyone really cares about so EU would agree.
It's as if a motion to get into the lifeboats were defeated on 13th April 1912, and attempts to vote again on 15th April were ruled out of order because of an "only once per voyage" rule.
Labour is going to have a go at whipping. Will support Labour's plan, the CU option, the Kyle-Wilson confirmatory referendum, and it looks like a free vote on CM2
Poor from Bercow re MV3. Suspect he just wants to remind everyone how important he is. No doubt there will be a way around him if needs be. In fact there is - drop the PD and bring back just the WA for ratification. That's a substantial change in anyone's book.
The Beckett should not have been selected. The non-specific REF is not an outcome. It is also a statement of a negative rather than a positive. It does not belong here. It should be tabled as an amendment to whatever target deal is favoured, if such is necessary to get it over the line in a final meaningful vote.
Comments
331-287
Brexit has highlighted plenty of arses; Corbyn is one of them.
No-deal Brexit
Common Market 2.0
EEA (but no CU)
Customs Union
Labour's plan
Revoke A50
Referendum
Malthouse B
B - Barron (No deal)
D - Boles (CM2)
H - Eustace (EFTA + EEA)
J - Clarke (CU)
K - Corbyn (Labour deal)
L - Cherry (Revoke to avoid no deal)
M - Beckett (Kyle-Wilson referendum)
O - Fish (managed no deal)
A little more sympathetic to the Brexiters than I was expecting, by including O. Otherwise my calls this morning were spot on.
Verboten
Manfred Weber the EPP candidate in the Euro elections wants to ban eurosceptics from any receiving party funding from the EU.
More money for him I suppose
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article190929155/Manfred-Weber-Kein-Geld-fuer-EU-Feinde-AfD-reagiert-empoert.html
I'm always slightly paranoid when it comes to politicians and celebs. Two groups I have little respect for. I include lawyers and child molesters in there although some lawyers might sneak through occasionally as being human. Estate agents - they have a job to do.
I remember Franck le Boeuf being uncharacteristically gobby on a TV programme about his world cup win. When he got a lot of stick on social media, he protested he'd been reading from a script the BBC had given him. Although Theo is a celeb, he might be genuinely chicken when the going gets tough.
Wrongthink cannot be rewarded, comrade.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1110926232177311744
Edit: Oh no I'm not.
Edit Edit. I'm confused. Is Malthouse there or not?
Edit Edit Edit. No it's not. O is Fish Contingent Preferential Arrangements. All is clear.
A paving motion to set aside the rule is perfectly legitimate
I suspect he'll get no confidenced out of the chair if there's a majority for passing the withdrawal agreement.
(B) #NoDeal
(D) Common market 2.0
(H) EFTA and EEA
(J) Customs Union
(K) Labour's alternative plan
(L) Revocation to avoid #NoDeal
(M) Confirmatory public vote
(O) Contingent preferential arrangements
https://twitter.com/nigelfletcher/status/1110927073223286784
Detail - surprised that Bercow is able to prevent a motion to override his ruling.
So Bercow has done the right thing, possibly in the wrong way.
However given the mood of the house (larger majority for Letwin) and the DUP position, surely government trying to get MV3 is pointless.
Edit and instruct the Serjeant-At-Arms to prevent access to the voting lobbies.
BMW in discussions to buy Honda Swindon plant and boost production
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/27/bmw-eyes-hondas-swindon-plant-boost-uk-production/
is he a secret hardliner Brexiter in disguise?
If sentenced to any time in prison - suspended or otherwise - I absolutely call on him to resign immediately.
I must admit to not having followed the case in any detail - so don't know the nature of the fraud to which he has confessed. But if it is judged serious enough to require prison time, then he should not be part of the Commons.
And if his game is to frustrate Brexit, and if the effect of this is to weaken Deal, at the very least he's raising the stakes in avoiding No Deal By Accident.
Bercow is doing the nation a service here.
If it happens I look forward to casting my vote by PR in May 2019, the only parliamentary election in which my vote counts. Votes not counting was one reason why people voted in 2016 to give the govt a bloody nose, aimed wrongly and hit the EU instead. No-one wants to talk about that.
I am surprised there is anyone left awake in the chamber after this
The Cabinet are idiots if they all stand back from the voting.
The Beckett should not have been selected. The non-specific REF is not an outcome. It is also a statement of a negative rather than a positive. It does not belong here. It should be tabled as an amendment to whatever target deal is favoured, if such is necessary to get it over the line in a final meaningful vote.
https://twitter.com/AaronBell80/status/1110931517545549824
a) the EU would have to agree to an extension to 22nd May for UK to get enabling legislation through
b) Letwin et al would have to get legislation through that force the government to agree to a permanent customs union in its FTA.
Problem with a): it might take longer than 22 May unless Government cooperates totally. Still a backstop issue with standards if not tariffs, but presumably Labour would support it and then the DUP don't matter. In that case we may need a longer extension and take part in the Euro elections.
Problem with b); You cannot commit a future parliament. A new Tory leader could call a GE and change the legislation and strike out a permanent customs union if they won it. But it is more likely to be Corbyn who favours a permanent customs union.
Like class a drugs.
Who'd have thunk it!