Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.
You are quite right. Letwin is not about preventing no deal. It's about delaying Brexit in the hope that something turns up to stop it altogether.
This is correct. To be fair, this is a fight to the finish between two sides where only one can win and at the moment the Remain side mostly can't self identify as such. At this moment the only public weapon Remain have got is delay, and, to the surprise and shock of nobody, they are using it. Neither side is fighting under Queensbury rules - Boris is out defending that which recently he traduced with regard to NI; the ERG is doing the same because they can see that much further delay will abort their entire operation. Loads of Remainers are denying their real intention. Lots of Remainers voted for TMs deal as along as they knew it would lose, and so on and on. Remain are getting closer to succeeding every moment time passes and every time finality is deferred.
I'd almost (and I say 'almost') like France to pull the plug. "No more delay. Deal or no deal. (Or revoke)." And watch the fireworks. We'd probably revoke, but then we'd end up with no government and a GE almost certain.
I agree. It is a wreaking amendment that defeats the purpose of this sitting. It should be ruled out of order. If people wish to oppose the deal they should oppose the principal motion. We have had more than enough prevarication.
I'm sorry, but you are using the phrase "wrecking amendment" too casually. It has a specific Parliamentary meaning:
The purported purpose of this sitting is not relevant. What is in the Bill is relevant. Does the Letwin amendment make it "useless, contradictory or unworkable"? No, it slows it up.
I don't agree with David's conclusion, though. I think that the "Get it done" mood will see the Government through every Bill needed, no doubt with some irritating conditions, but the politics of the matter have swung decisively.
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....
Wouldn’t it be funny if they now backed a confirmatory referendum !
Edited extra bit: should stress I have rather more respect for the Lib Dems (though the revocation policy remains crackers) because at least they're upfront about what they think and what they want.
David Herdson is completely right and it explains why labour are willing to back the amendment, because it transfers the fight to a more complicated detailed place. Letwins amendment does not do what he says it does - if it did it would not have labour backing .
Probably enough votes to pass the motion now, but it's become meaningless.
Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.
You are quite right. Letwin is not about preventing no deal. It's about delaying Brexit in the hope that something turns up to stop it altogether.
People would do well to remember Letwin was one of the leading tory eurosceptics and has always voted for the exit deals.....why do they think he now wants to block it?
Is most of the support for his amendment from people seeking to block it or at least get a 2nd ref, yes of course, but Letwin himself is clearly using their votes to get his version of leave with a deal that has been scrutinised secured, as he doesnt trust the govt.
BBC reporting that if the Letwin amendment passes the Government will pull the vote putting no deal very much in play
This is Letwin being too clever by half
How would that make No Deal any more likely? The Benn Act would still be triggered. The government could still go ahead with the WAIB. The only consequence would be that they'd rob themselves of an indicative vote on the deal.
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....
I am not going to pretend to be able to follow the DUPs thinking but I suspect that they thought that a UK outside the EU would be less integrated with Eire than one in it and therefore the Union would be stronger. Now they face a deal which to some degree separates Ulster from rUK and leaves it closer to the Republic. This defeats their objective and makes them vulnerable to a unification referendum in the future. The fact that the deal doesn't give their community a veto at Stormont is also troubling. They are losing control.
I just don't think that their plan A was ever thought through. It would have been an economic disaster for Ulster and the business community there has been very, very clear about that. This deal works for Ulster because it recognises that economic reality.
A strategic view would be to ask if this is worth burning their bridges with the Conservative party for. If their votes prove decisive today, and they might well, there will be a backlash that threatens everything they hold dear.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
Grieve’s argument was that you can’t leave off an option that has substantial support, but that’s no longer the case.
So you’re saying we should leave off Remain, then?
Remain has substantial support.
From whom? The public? They’re about evenly matched between deal and no deal. MPs? Only a handful of minor parties support revoking. Of course more of them want to remain really, but dare not say so.
You are, as usual, letting your emotional attachment to the EU cloud the facts. The whole problem all the way through this is people on both sides have projected what they wanted to project onto the whole debate, rather than sitting down and taking a cold hard look at the real situation and trying to deal with it.
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....
Wouldn’t it be funny if they now backed a confirmatory referendum !
They would, but dont think it has the votes regardless. Also would make leave with a deal a reasonable fav if the tory party is united behind deal.
Ironically the Letwin amendment has the effect of negating the original Grieve amendment on the meaningful vote. The WAIB would have been needed in any case.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
It’s quite simple 1 do you wish to leave the EU yes or no
2 if there is a majority vote for leave then do you wish to Leave with the negotiated deal or Leave with no deal
It's simple but as if to prove Morris Dancer's point, YOU GOT IT BACKWARDS! The whole argument for the confirmatory referendum is to confirm that the voters want to go ahead with a given course once they know what it is. So if you're going to have two rounds you have to decide what Brexit is first, *then* decide whether you want to do it.
I agree. It is a wreaking amendment that defeats the purpose of this sitting. It should be ruled out of order. If people wish to oppose the deal they should oppose the principal motion. We have had more than enough prevarication.
I'm sorry, but you are using the phrase "wrecking amendment" too casually. It has a specific Parliamentary meaning:
The purported purpose of this sitting is not relevant. What is in the Bill is relevant. Does the Letwin amendment make it "useless, contradictory or unworkable"? No, it slows it up.
Does it slow it up, intrinsically, though? By more than the time taken to have a final meaningful vote after the WAIB has passed?
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....
I am not going to pretend to be able to follow the DUPs thinking
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
It’s quite simple 1 do you wish to leave the EU yes or no
2 if there is a majority vote for leave then do you wish to Leave with the negotiated deal or Leave with no deal
Am I correct the Johnson’s “deal” (unlike May’s) is actually “leave with no deal in 18 months” (if no new trade agreement reached)? So we’re going to be here again before we know it.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
It’s quite simple 1 do you wish to leave the EU yes or no
2 if there is a majority vote for leave then do you wish to Leave with the negotiated deal or Leave with no deal
Am I correct the Johnson’s “deal” (unlike May’s) is actually “leave with no deal in 18 months” (if no new trade agreement reached)? So we’re going to be here again before we know it.
On topic the Letwin amendment is a wreaking amendment and should really not be allowed by the Speaker. The point of this first Saturday sitting since 1982 is to have a meaningful vote in terms of s13 (1) (b) of the European Withdrawal Act 2018 which provides: "the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,"
A resolution amended by the Letwin amendment will not meet that criteria which means that a decision has once again been avoided. That is unacceptable and defeats the purpose of this special meeting.
Hence Letwin claiming the motion will still kind of supporting the WA, even though his very careful drafting explicitly says the opposite and even though any non ex-con backing it will I highly doubt consider their vote as supporting the WA.
Hes provided a fig leaf for Bercow to say it is not wrecking. Why look, even the mover of the amendment says it means x, so it's fine.
I've seen the exact thing happen with planning applications, trying to tack on deferral to a motion to apptive/refuse. It just doesn't work because the purpose of the motion is to decide now, not later
I agree. It is a wreaking amendment that defeats the purpose of this sitting. It should be ruled out of order. If people wish to oppose the deal they should oppose the principal motion. We have had more than enough prevarication.
I'm sorry, but you are using the phrase "wrecking amendment" too casually. It has a specific Parliamentary meaning:
The purported purpose of this sitting is not relevant. What is in the Bill is relevant. Does the Letwin amendment make it "useless, contradictory or unworkable"? No, it slows it up.
I don't agree with David's conclusion, though. I think that the "Get it done" mood will see the Government through every Bill needed, no doubt with some irritating conditions, but the politics of the matter have swung decisively.
I think it does meet that test and it appears that the government does to according to the latest reports that they will simply pull the amended resolution.
I think the mood outside the Commons has definitely changed in favour of get this done but I am a lot less confident about inside it.
What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffed
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
It’s quite simple 1 do you wish to leave the EU yes or no
2 if there is a majority vote for leave then do you wish to Leave with the negotiated deal or Leave with no deal
It's simple but as if to prove Morris Dancer's point, YOU GOT IT BACKWARDS! The whole argument for the confirmatory referendum is to confirm that the voters want to go ahead with a given course once they know what it is. So if you're going to have two rounds you have to decide what Brexit is first, *then* decide whether you want to do it.
Unfortunately it is not that simple anyway as Leavers might argue with perfect justice that we’ve already had round one.
BBC reporting that if the Letwin amendment passes the Government will pull the vote putting no deal very much in play
This is Letwin being too clever by half
How would that make No Deal any more likely? The Benn Act would still be triggered. The government could still go ahead with the WAIB. The only consequence would be that they'd rob themselves of an indicative vote on the deal.
It is not a fair indicative vote as most anti brexit mps will vote for it
I expect Boris will make clear today how the government deal with Letwin if it passes
The DUP dispatched themselves. Whether their objections are sound or principled or not they have made they will not vote for any Brexit which is going to be acceptable to the rest of parliament and the gov doesnt have a majority even with them so it doesnt matter.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
Grieve’s argument was that you can’t leave off an option that has substantial support, but that’s no longer the case.
So you’re saying we should leave off Remain, then?
Remain has substantial support.
But you cannot say no deal has no support.
Recent polls have put it at 40% and of course TBP sole purpose is a clean no deal break
Indeed if a referendum without no deal was proposed I would expect TBP to mount a legal challenge
The referendum version that is best for the government, and "respects" the original vote the most is one that is actually confirmatory. So govt deal or extend for a further 6/12 months to go back to square one.
No idea why it never gets a mention, it would pass as people want Brexit over, and is hard to argue against given parliament has failed to reach a consensus.
It seems like Johnson's deal is both better than May's in that it includes an element of consent for Northern Ireland. But it's also worse, in that it effectively makes the temporary backstop permanent, and that it makes concessions designed to make a (frankly unlikely) UK-US FTA happen quicker.
Despite my misgivings, I'd vote for it.
But it appears that... Well... I don't really understand. What is going on?
Join the club Robert. I think we are all in the same boat in spite of various 'authoritative' explanations on here.
Of course Letwin will pass: if there's one thing this Parliament always agrees on it's extension. So the MV will probably end up being pulled today.
The crucial number will be the votes for Letwin. They will be very similar to those voting for or against the Deal itself (excepting a handful of independent Tories) so will give us a good sense where things stand.
This line is so ridiculous. It's not about having tine to discuss *brexit*, it's about having time to discuss *this specific deal*. They haven't had plenty of time to discuss that, they've had like literally a day, including a grand total of zero hours getting the relevant people in front of the committees whose job it is to question them about it and make sure nobody's missed anything important.
The Tories have spent the best part of three and a half years negotiating it with themselves, it's not unreasonable for the people who are supposed to be scrutinizing it to ask for a couple of weeks.
More time to pass the legislation makes sense, the deadline of 31st is political and pointless. But the 300 non tory backers of the Letwin amendment don't want to scrutinise the legislation they want to reject it no matter what- hence they will vote for the amendment and then against the motion.
Itd be simpler if they just got behind the second referendum amendment - other than shifting the fight nothing is gained from not having a decision today.
Just when I thought it was all over, it's not! The Deal would pass - I'm pretty sure of that - but it looks like Letwin will stop it. So it's another extension and Remain fight on. Good news. I can't stand Boris Johnson and I do not have 'Brexit fatigue'.
From here? -
Letwin IMO just delays the inevitable. I'm not tired of the debate but the country is. The momentum is to leave by 31 Jan at the latest, with this Deal and under PM Johnson. GE to follow in 2020, which the Cons win.
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.
It's either a very clever amendment or a very dumb one, because I think you are right. I just cannot get past how Letwin, who is not a remainer fanatic, can claim this is about getting the deal done (but in the right way) when it is overwhelmingly to be backed by those who want the deal dead.
They Dont regard the amendment as supporting the deal, so how can he say it is?
What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffed
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.
Machines and computers do not go on strike
Is freepost postmarked?
Yes plus Royal Mail has managers delivering post and brings in agency workers during strikes too
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.
It's either a very clever amendment or a very dumb one, because I think you are right. I just cannot get past how Letwin, who is not a remainer fanatic, can claim this is about getting the deal done (but in the right way) when it is overwhelmingly to be backed by those who want the deal dead.
They Dont regard the amendment as supporting the deal, so how can he say it is?
You're still confusing the amendment with the motion.
The amendment isn't meant to support the deal - it's meant to insure against no deal, by ensuring the Benn Act is triggered.
But Letwin's stated intention is that the amended motion would serve as an "indicative" vote in favour of the deal (but one which wouldn't prevent the Benn Act from being triggered).
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.
It's either a very clever amendment or a very dumb one, because I think you are right. I just cannot get past how Letwin, who is not a remainer fanatic, can claim this is about getting the deal done (but in the right way) when it is overwhelmingly to be backed by those who want the deal dead.
They Dont regard the amendment as supporting the deal, so how can he say it is?
If Letwin wants scrutiny of the deal before voting for it, as he almost certainly will, what are his alternative options?
It is hardly the first time a politician will have tried getting support of people he disagrees with to leverage his own view. I really dont understand the fuss or surprise.
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.
Letwin's Deal actually is Johnson's Deal if you read it in full, it just wants the legislation for the Deal passes in full before the meaningful vote
That is its intention. Boris and his supporters should accept that he has to do the detail in order to get his win.
Thats not the intention of those backing it. I can believe it is letwin's, but in that case he has drafted it very poorly indeed and doesnt understand what he has written.
It passing unamended isn't even my first choice, I'd like it amended to need a referendum, but it's the delay that bugs me - if this is down to the justified lack of trust then surya theres better wording or a better way to make sure the detail comes than pretending the amendment expresses support?
The government will send mps home if Letwin passes and will bring it back on monday
Hopefully everyone will be happy then.
EU Ambassadors sitting tomorrow so by monday the question of an extension may well be answered by the EU
It appears any extension has to be given by EU leaders sitting together and it is unlikely to happen before 27th just 4 days before exit day
I think we know they could do it by phone if necessary. But it would make most sense for them to acknowledge the request but monitor further developments in parliament before giving an answer.
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.
It's either a very clever amendment or a very dumb one, because I think you are right. I just cannot get past how Letwin, who is not a remainer fanatic, can claim this is about getting the deal done (but in the right way) when it is overwhelmingly to be backed by those who want the deal dead.
They Dont regard the amendment as supporting the deal, so how can he say it is?
You're still confusing the amendment with the motion.
The amendment isn't meant to support the deal - it's meant to insure against no deal, by ensuring the Benn Act is triggered.
But Letwin's stated intention is that the amended motion would serve as an "indicative" vote in favour of the deal (but one which wouldn't prevent the Benn Act from being triggered).
But it basically negates the entire point and purpose of the Grieve amendment that requires the vote in the first place.
I am not seeing what pulling the vote on the amended motion (even if that is possible) achieves. The Benn Act will then come into effect and the letter will have to be sent. The Court of Session is sitting on Monday or Tuesday to make sure it is.
The only upside, I suppose, is that the motion to approve the deal will not have been defeated.
However, it is surely right that MPs, media, and the public actually have some time to consider the detail of Boris’s Deal.
Otherwise you are basically just saying that Boris’s ego is paramount.
It is right for there to be more time, but a wrecking amendment which is being falsely claimed to not be wrecking is poor form even if gives that time. Procedurally it makes no sense and its dishonest.
The government will send mps home if Letwin passes and will bring it back on monday
Hopefully everyone will be happy then.
EU Ambassadors sitting tomorrow so by monday the question of an extension may well be answered by the EU
It appears any extension has to be given by EU leaders sitting together and it is unlikely to happen before 27th just 4 days before exit day
I think we know they could do it by phone if necessary. But it would make most sense for them to acknowledge the request but monitor further developments in parliament before giving an answer.
No. The procedure was explained just now and the Ambassadors meet tomorrow and if it is a formal request a special meeting of leaders has to be convened and they discuss it face to face with each having a veto
I am not seeing what pulling the vote on the amended motion (even if that is possible) achieves. The Benn Act will then come into effect and the letter will have to be sent. The Court of Session is sitting on Monday or Tuesday to make sure it is.
The only upside, I suppose, is that the motion to approve the deal will not have been defeated.
If there isn't majority support for a deal, wouldn't it be better from Johnson's point of view for the motion to be defeated as soon as possible, so there can be an election earlier than later?
Let's suppose Letwin passes, the motion as amended passes, the no deal motion and second referendum amendments fail.
That would mean the first big test on the Johnson Deal would be second reading on the WAIB. Sometime next week?
In a week's time that's the vote that will have mattered. Letwin will only matter if we make it to the end of the month still mired in the detail (but not actually having defeated the Bill).
As big g noted yesterday they key figure may be Clarke.
He is probably on board for the WA, but there are quite a few figures who might only be backing the WA because the Letwin amendment gives them cover to know they are not committed.
If Clarke and a few others in speaking I assume in support of Letwin state their view is this in effect albeit not law is an endorsement of the WA and any legislation approval is to wrap up detail, not fight the battle all over, can that persuade the handful of labour figures and indies using Letwin to sit on the fence that it is too late? That as Letwin claims to believe the motion even as amended is about supporting the WA?
It's a psychological thing. Will those who break ranks for today have crossed a Rubicon?
I dont think so personally, I think as speculated passing the fight onto the detail just makes it even harder, but I can see the theory.
I am not seeing what pulling the vote on the amended motion (even if that is possible) achieves. The Benn Act will then come into effect and the letter will have to be sent. The Court of Session is sitting on Monday or Tuesday to make sure it is.
The only upside, I suppose, is that the motion to approve the deal will not have been defeated.
Never thought it was likely personally. He st least hadn't spent the last year suggesting he might back a deal then not doing so, so it's more believable he actually contemplated it.
BBC reporting that if the Letwin amendment passes the Government will pull the vote putting no deal very much in play
This is Letwin being too clever by half
How would that make No Deal any more likely? The Benn Act would still be triggered. The government could still go ahead with the WAIB. The only consequence would be that they'd rob themselves of an indicative vote on the deal.
The Benn Act doesn't gain us an extension, it is far too arrogant in assuming the NI will be content to see us dicking around. I sincerely hope the EU responds "enough is enough, the door is over there".
Just when I thought it was all over, it's not! The Deal would pass - I'm pretty sure of that - but it looks like Letwin will stop it. So it's another extension and Remain fight on. Good news. I can't stand Boris Johnson and I do not have 'Brexit fatigue'.
From here? -
Letwin IMO just delays the inevitable. I'm not tired of the debate but the country is. The momentum is to leave by 31 Jan at the latest, with this Deal and under PM Johnson. GE to follow in 2020, which the Cons win.
Maybe. Perhaps even probably. But I'm not sure. The last few days have been a classic momentum play, or timeshare sales trick. Get everyone anxious, then use the euphoria of a deal to get it cemented in place. (In fact, I do wonder if all the noise of the prorogation and the Boris deal that wasn't was all a decoy, and something like this deal was the plan all along.) With more time, details will emerge, and people will notice them. That might not counteract Just Get It Done (which is a massive con any way- we have about nine months to decide what to do about the end-of-transition cliff edge), but you never know.
Bottom line is the No 10 is desperate to get this signed off suspiciously quickly. Given the current occupant, that's a good reason to say "not today, thank you".
I am not seeing what pulling the vote on the amended motion (even if that is possible) achieves. The Benn Act will then come into effect and the letter will have to be sent. The Court of Session is sitting on Monday or Tuesday to make sure it is.
The only upside, I suppose, is that the motion to approve the deal will not have been defeated.
I imagine they are hoping the EU only grant a short extension as the uk has not provided a reason eg s deal, ge or referendum, and Boris will then bring back the vote and the legislation with time to do it with the extension not his fault.
Pulling the vote makes sense - the motion is meaningless once amended, why cock about?
The idea the motion is still indicative support as that is letwins intention is just barmy - the motion will no longer say it supports it, so it doesnt matter what he intends that is not what it means. The intent of the opposition backing it make clear the opposite for a start.
BBC reporting that if the Letwin amendment passes the Government will pull the vote putting no deal very much in play
This is Letwin being too clever by half
How would that make No Deal any more likely? The Benn Act would still be triggered. The government could still go ahead with the WAIB. The only consequence would be that they'd rob themselves of an indicative vote on the deal.
The Benn Act doesn't gain us an extension, it is far too arrogant in assuming the NI will be content to see us dicking around. I sincerely hope the EU responds "enough is enough, the door is over there".
And Macron will then veto further extension meaning No Deal
No he won’t.
He will absolutely if the Commons refuse to vote for the Deal or for EUref2 or a GE Macron will veto further extension, no question
You cannot possibly know that and a bit of caution or IMHO would be wise
I do, if the Commons has not voted for the Boris Deal, EUref2 or a GE by the end of the week the French government have rightly made clear they will veto further extension and No Deal Brexit it is which Boris can blame on the opposition
BBC reporting that if the Letwin amendment passes the Government will pull the vote putting no deal very much in play
This is Letwin being too clever by half
How would that make No Deal any more likely? The Benn Act would still be triggered. The government could still go ahead with the WAIB. The only consequence would be that they'd rob themselves of an indicative vote on the deal.
The Benn Act doesn't gain us an extension, it is far too arrogant in assuming the NI will be content to see us dicking around. I sincerely hope the EU responds "enough is enough, the door is over there".
Then Letwin makes even less difference!
It just wastes a few very valuable days that we need Parliament to not be wasting.
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....
I am not going to pretend to be able to follow the DUPs thinking but I suspect that they thought that a UK outside the EU would be less integrated with Eire than one in it and therefore the Union would be stronger. Now they face a deal which to some degree separates Ulster from rUK and leaves it closer to the Republic. This defeats their objective and makes them vulnerable to a unification referendum in the future. The fact that the deal doesn't give their community a veto at Stormont is also troubling. They are losing control.
I just don't think that their plan A was ever thought through. It would have been an economic disaster for Ulster and the business community there has been very, very clear about that. This deal works for Ulster because it recognises that economic reality.
A strategic view would be to ask if this is worth burning their bridges with the Conservative party for. If their votes prove decisive today, and they might well, there will be a backlash that threatens everything they hold dear.
The DUP were not ever the traditional allies of the Tories. That was the Ulster Unionists. So I don’t think they much care about burning their bridges with the Tories.
Oh - and to be pedantic, it’s not Ulster but NI. Ulster has 9 counties. NI has 6. 3 were removed to create that Protestant state for a Protestant people. Which is how this nonsense all started.
What I find astounding is that Brexiteers are now highlighting the very things that Britain is losing as why the deal is good for NI. When the Spectator says that the deal provides an incentive for companies to relocate to NI, do they not also realise that they are saying that provides an incentive for companies to relocate out of Britain altogether.
They are writing the marketing material for every EU country. Quite extraordinarily stupid to advertise your own weakness as a win. No wonder the EU wants the deal to go through.
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
Grieve’s argument was that you can’t leave off an option that has substantial support, but that’s no longer the case.
So you’re saying we should leave off Remain, then?
Remain has substantial support.
But you cannot say no deal has no support.
Recent polls have put it at 40% and of course TBP sole purpose is a clean no deal break
Indeed if a referendum without no deal was proposed I would expect TBP to mount a legal challenge
The referendum version that is best for the government, and "respects" the original vote the most is one that is actually confirmatory. So govt deal or extend for a further 6/12 months to go back to square one.
No idea why it never gets a mention, it would pass as people want Brexit over, and is hard to argue against given parliament has failed to reach a consensus.
Now that we have two deals, Johnson's and May's, that have substantial differences in how they treat the Union with Northern Ireland and in how much divergence from the EU economy is envisaged, it would be perfectly logical to hold a referendum between those two deals.
Comments
And watch the fireworks. We'd probably revoke, but then we'd end up with no government and a GE almost certain.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/wrecking-amendment/
The purported purpose of this sitting is not relevant. What is in the Bill is relevant. Does the Letwin amendment make it "useless, contradictory or unworkable"? No, it slows it up.
I don't agree with David's conclusion, though. I think that the "Get it done" mood will see the Government through every Bill needed, no doubt with some irritating conditions, but the politics of the matter have swung decisively.
This is Letwin being too clever by half
What a creature.
Letwin is the most successful Labour sleeper.
Edited extra bit: should stress I have rather more respect for the Lib Dems (though the revocation policy remains crackers) because at least they're upfront about what they think and what they want.
Probably enough votes to pass the motion now, but it's become meaningless.
Is most of the support for his amendment from people seeking to block it or at least get a 2nd ref, yes of course, but Letwin himself is clearly using their votes to get his version of leave with a deal that has been scrutinised secured, as he doesnt trust the govt.
I just don't think that their plan A was ever thought through. It would have been an economic disaster for Ulster and the business community there has been very, very clear about that. This deal works for Ulster because it recognises that economic reality.
A strategic view would be to ask if this is worth burning their bridges with the Conservative party for. If their votes prove decisive today, and they might well, there will be a backlash that threatens everything they hold dear.
You are, as usual, letting your emotional attachment to the EU cloud the facts. The whole problem all the way through this is people on both sides have projected what they wanted to project onto the whole debate, rather than sitting down and taking a cold hard look at the real situation and trying to deal with it.
Recent polls have put it at 40% and of course TBP sole purpose is a clean no deal break
Indeed if a referendum without no deal was proposed I would expect TBP to mount a legal challenge
Hes provided a fig leaf for Bercow to say it is not wrecking. Why look, even the mover of the amendment says it means x, so it's fine.
I've seen the exact thing happen with planning applications, trying to tack on deferral to a motion to apptive/refuse. It just doesn't work because the purpose of the motion is to decide now, not later
I think the mood outside the Commons has definitely changed in favour of get this done but I am a lot less confident about inside it.
I expect Boris will make clear today how the government deal with Letwin if it passes
No idea why it never gets a mention, it would pass as people want Brexit over, and is hard to argue against given parliament has failed to reach a consensus.
The government will send mps home if Letwin passes and will bring it back on monday
The crucial number will be the votes for Letwin. They will be very similar to those voting for or against the Deal itself (excepting a handful of independent Tories) so will give us a good sense where things stand.
Itd be simpler if they just got behind the second referendum amendment - other than shifting the fight nothing is gained from not having a decision today.
From here? -
Letwin IMO just delays the inevitable. I'm not tired of the debate but the country is. The momentum is to leave by 31 Jan at the latest, with this Deal and under PM Johnson. GE to follow in 2020, which the Cons win.
They Dont regard the amendment as supporting the deal, so how can he say it is?
It appears any extension has to be given by EU leaders sitting together and it is unlikely to happen before 27th just 4 days before exit day
The amendment isn't meant to support the deal - it's meant to insure against no deal, by ensuring the Benn Act is triggered.
But Letwin's stated intention is that the amended motion would serve as an "indicative" vote in favour of the deal (but one which wouldn't prevent the Benn Act from being triggered).
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1185332233156124674?s=20
The Gold standard pollster gives Labour just 204 seats, even lower than the 209 Foot got in 1983
Tories 338
Labour 204
LDs 47
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=32&LAB=24&LIB=21&Brexit=13&Green=2&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
It is hardly the first time a politician will have tried getting support of people he disagrees with to leverage his own view. I really dont understand the fuss or surprise.
It passing unamended isn't even my first choice, I'd like it amended to need a referendum, but it's the delay that bugs me - if this is down to the justified lack of trust then surya theres better wording or a better way to make sure the detail comes than pretending the amendment expresses support?
What a farce Letwin has created!
The only upside, I suppose, is that the motion to approve the deal will not have been defeated.
That would mean the first big test on the Johnson Deal would be second reading on the WAIB. Sometime next week?
In a week's time that's the vote that will have mattered. Letwin will only matter if we make it to the end of the month still mired in the detail (but not actually having defeated the Bill).
https://twitter.com/normanlamb/status/1185472296389087232
He is probably on board for the WA, but there are quite a few figures who might only be backing the WA because the Letwin amendment gives them cover to know they are not committed.
If Clarke and a few others in speaking I assume in support of Letwin state their view is this in effect albeit not law is an endorsement of the WA and any legislation approval is to wrap up detail, not fight the battle all over, can that persuade the handful of labour figures and indies using Letwin to sit on the fence that it is too late? That as Letwin claims to believe the motion even as amended is about supporting the WA?
It's a psychological thing. Will those who break ranks for today have crossed a Rubicon?
I dont think so personally, I think as speculated passing the fight onto the detail just makes it even harder, but I can see the theory.
The last few days have been a classic momentum play, or timeshare sales trick. Get everyone anxious, then use the euphoria of a deal to get it cemented in place.
(In fact, I do wonder if all the noise of the prorogation and the Boris deal that wasn't was all a decoy, and something like this deal was the plan all along.)
With more time, details will emerge, and people will notice them. That might not counteract Just Get It Done (which is a massive con any way- we have about nine months to decide what to do about the end-of-transition cliff edge), but you never know.
Bottom line is the No 10 is desperate to get this signed off suspiciously quickly. Given the current occupant, that's a good reason to say "not today, thank you".
You can thank me later but send me the money now.
the legislation with time to do it with the extension not his fault.
Pulling the vote makes sense - the motion is meaningless once amended, why cock about?
The idea the motion is still indicative support as that is letwins intention is just barmy - the motion will no longer say it supports it, so it doesnt matter what he intends that is not what it means. The intent of the opposition backing it make clear the opposite for a start.
I know many fellow posters will be laughing and not shocked at all !
Oh - and to be pedantic, it’s not Ulster but NI. Ulster has 9 counties. NI has 6. 3 were removed to create that Protestant state for a Protestant people. Which is how this nonsense all started.
What I find astounding is that Brexiteers are now highlighting the very things that Britain is losing as why the deal is good for NI. When the Spectator says that the deal provides an incentive for companies to relocate to NI, do they not also realise that they are saying that provides an incentive for companies to relocate out of Britain altogether.
They are writing the marketing material for every EU country. Quite extraordinarily stupid to advertise your own weakness as a win. No wonder the EU wants the deal to go through.