Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
The Brexit electorate was in fact almost equal parts older working-class northern/midlands/wales and, also older, middle and upper-middle class, southern and rural english.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
That's true, but as much as I want a referendum the 2 million young people now over 18 argument is and always has been a pile of old cobblers, since there's millions more younger people than them who still won't, and while I'd expect them to eventually broadly take the same view, we cannot know, and should we wait another few years to hold a referendum to make sure they are included in a decision about their future?
How did the PM boycott a vote today? He was there and he voted in every division.
There was no division on the main motion. BoZo boycotted it.
No. And more no. There was no boycott. Why lie?
It’s actually quite simple the substantive motion as amended with letwin was put to the house with the majority of the original motion deleted was passed. I would say that under normal rules of debate an amendment that undermined the substantive would not be accepted but who am I to know.
The Letwin amendment to Motion 1 passed 322 to 306; the amended version of Motion 1 was then passed without division (since it was bound to pass having just been amended) See Hansard @ 2:30pm (Columns 649 - 652 about 80% of the way down this long page)
Immediately afterwards Motion 2 (That this House approves the withdrawal with No Deal) was not moved by the Government... presumably since they knew they were going to lose.
It’s entirely up to the Speaker whether or not to hold a division. Nothing to do with the PM.
Oh dear.
The speaker called for Ayes and Nos.
There was no division. BoZo boycotted the vote...
This is not complicated
It's not complicated, but I'm not clear what point you are making from it. What does it matter whether there was a vote on it or not? What does not forcing a division on it matter?
He is trying to be 'clever' and failing.
It wasn't a boycott - but Scott won't give up on it.
But that's just it - say we call it a boycott for the sake of argument, what does that boycott matter?
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
No deal vs deal?
Or are you just trying to rerun the first referendum in that classic EU favoured way of voting again until you get the result you want?
So sorry, was the first referendum Boris's Deal versus Remain?
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
That's true, but as much as I want a referendum the 2 million young people now over 18 argument is and always has been a pile of old cobblers, since there's millions more younger people than them who still won't, and while I'd expect them to eventually broadly take the same view, we cannot know, and should we wait another few years to hold a referendum to make sure they are included in a decision about their future?
Surely as younger people get older their view changes? Otherwise voters would be 100% Labour by now.
Ukip went fash some time ago. No surprises if what's alleged is true.
I remember when I warned on here UKIP was heading down the road of far right bigotry and Islamophobia but I was assured by the Kippers on here that was rubbish because they were anti racists and there's no way they'd ever be associated with anything like that.
Haven't all the Kippers on here long since quit UKIP so are not associated with anything like that?
Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
The Brexit electorate was in fact almost equal parts older working-class northern/midlands/wales and, also older, middle and upper-middle class, southern and rural english.
Gross oversimplification if I may say so... there are plenty of young people around too
What’s the bloody problem he writes a letter, brings back his wonderful deal after the house have passed the WAIB then he says we don’t need the extension. There is more going on but I really don’t know what. If he can’t pass hisWAIB then he has problems but that can’t possible because it’s a wonderful deal and far better than what we currently have so therefore no problem
It could be because the Remainers in Parliament attempt to obstruct the WAIB in order to disrespect the public vote.
Well f they have a majority that is the democracy we live in
But that's just it - say we call it a boycott for the sake of argument, what does that matter?
It doesn't, but some people seem really, really keen to claim it didn't happen
That's not an answer - you obviously believe it matters or you wouldn't make the distinction in the first place. What exactly matters about there not being a vote on it? You said he did not want a division (and obviously so, or there would have been a division) - why does it matter if he did not want a division?
22:59 send email. 23:00 send another email saying don't pay much attention to last email and take your time over deciding on extension and preferably give impression you won't give extension, while I try to get legislation passed. That way, hopefully you won't have to decide on extension. ?
Does time pressure to get legislation passed then appear to apply as 'avoid no deal' MPs won't be sure an extension will be granted?
"Officials in Brussels said there was no doubt that an extension request would be granted.."
"..senior EU officials said it was clear during the discussions among the leaders at a summit on Thursday that “they would grant an extension”. “Even [the French president Emmanuel] Macron in the room didn’t suggest otherwise,” the source said."
"The chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, Norbert Röttgen, who is a senior member of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said he had “no doubt” an extension would be granted."
"..EU sources said the private comments of Merkel better represented the leaders’ position.
She had told EU leaders that a Brexit extension would be unavoidable if British MPs vote down the new deal. Merkel said leaders had a responsibility not to push the UK out without a deal."
What’s the bloody problem he writes a letter, brings back his wonderful deal after the house have passed the WAIB then he says we don’t need the extension. There is more going on but I really don’t know what. If he can’t pass hisWAIB then he has problems but that can’t possible because it’s a wonderful deal and far better than what we currently have so therefore no problem
It could be because the Remainers in Parliament attempt to obstruct the WAIB in order to disrespect the public vote.
Well f they have a majority that is the democracy we live in
If they do its a majority built on lies since over 80% of MPs were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum.
Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
The Brexit electorate was in fact almost equal parts older working-class northern/midlands/wales and, also older, middle and upper-middle class, southern and rural english.
Gross oversimplification if I may say so... there are plenty of young people around too
The vote in favour of Brexit, I mean ; it was heavily skewed towards the older at all levels. Not to say there weren't young people involved too, ofcourse.
There are generally good reasons for such an approach, but given other standing orders have been suspended by others when they too were established for good reasons, I think the sanctimony is a bit unwarranted if Boris and co wanted to do something which was against a standing order.
It's like the rushing through legislation point - there may be justifiable reasons for the specific circumstances which led to rush of the Benn Act for example, but having done it in that instance it is hypocritical to act like it is an immutable line that should not be crossed as Boris now seeks to rush things, and having suspended Standing Orders to do that and other things, someone else wanting to go against those orders may well not be justified, but is not as stupid or as outrageous as is being pretended, and the high horse is unconvincing.
The importance of procedures seems to be very movable as far as both sides are concerned.
Erskine May is not Standing Orders, it’s an account of the powers and privileges of Parliament which has been compiled from statute and convention and is deemed to be authoritative. Standing Orders can be suspended and changed, Erskine May rather describes facts and practically can no more be changed than an encyclopaedia can be changed to state the sky is green. That said, Parliament is sovereign and not debating the same issue twice is rooted in convention, not statute. The Commons could theoretically pass a motion to suspend or end the convention, but the convention regarded as a bulwark against the executive dominating the legislature so I doubt it’d pass.
Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
I think it depends on the propoganda disseminated by the Brexit supporting media. They have the power to manipulate people into accepting things or rejecting them. The Brexit supporting media have spent a lot of capital/credibility on advocating a worse deal for the UK, than we have in the EU. The Brexit supporting media in promoting this agenda may well have damaged their business model as their papers become less of an essential to life and more of an optional.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Leavers should have pushed for that when they had the chance... now Remain will have to be an option too.
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
That's true, but as much as I want a referendum the 2 million young people now over 18 argument is and always has been a pile of old cobblers, since there's millions more younger people than them who still won't, and while I'd expect them to eventually broadly take the same view, we cannot know, and should we wait another few years to hold a referendum to make sure they are included in a decision about their future?
Surely as younger people get older their view changes? Otherwise voters would be 100% Labour by now.
Of course they do, but that point goes without saying. And I personally want a referendum as my view has changed and I think the incompetence since 2016 means it is reasonable to see if the country as a whole has changed its mind. Plenty will disagree with me hugely on that score, but the argument that more people who could not vote then now can vote seems a very ill conceived reason to back a referendum. Let's get an extension and delay the vote another 2 years, even more young people who could not vote then will be able to vote then too!
Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
The Brexit electorate was in fact almost equal parts older working-class northern/midlands/wales and, also older, middle and upper-middle class, southern and rural english.
Gross oversimplification if I may say so... there are plenty of young people around too
The vote in favour of Brexit, I mean ; it was heavily skewed towards the older at all levels. Not to say there weren't young people involved too, ofcourse.
Ukip went fash some time ago. No surprises if what's alleged is true.
I remember when I warned on here UKIP was heading down the road of far right bigotry and Islamophobia but I was assured by the Kippers on here that was rubbish because they were anti racists and there's no way they'd ever be associated with anything like that.
Haven't all the Kippers on here long since quit UKIP so are not associated with anything like that?
They were members when I made the warnings.
Back in 2013/14 I warned they were headed down this route when Batten wanted all Muslims to sign a charter.
They were members when Nigel Farage said Muslims had split loyalties.
They were members when Farage and others failed to prove evidence about no go areas created by Muslims.
They were members when Farage blamed Muslims for losing the Oldham by election then declined to provide evidence.
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
Okay. 🙂. See you in a fortnight and we’ll see if you were justified to be so rude and patronising to me, as I explained Letwins mendacious trick better than media so far, doubted the numbers are there to pass the deal, honestly can’t see why labour like turkeys voting for Christmas push for a GE instead of confirmatory vote, and suspect EU will pressure for that as well if the deal falls.
Sleep well till then old fella. 😌
You have been posting thoughts that do not make sense when you see the wider dialogue from many sources including the EU and the HOC
For my sins I have watched the media continually all week and from that I try to form an opinion. For instance I watched Oliver Letwin live in the HOC respond when he won his vote and he pledged 100% support for the deal and to get it passed by the 31st
I have explained to you how a GE can come about without Corbyn' consent
I have explained how a referendum needs to Summer 2020 and just now on Sky an EU reporter has stated that the EU are not going to extend that far and the EU are likely to say that they want to see how matters progress this week in the HOC before responding to Boris's letter.
I apologise if you think I was rude but that is never my intention in any post I make though sometimes posts do push my boundaries
This is an outstanding forum for political discourse and I learn greatly from my fellow posters and do try to be constructive
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
Back from the march. Different from the one in March. People much more ready to chip in with "Bollocks to Brexit!" Got the sense that Remainers are getting a bit more comfortable shouting for their beliefs. Livelier atmosphere, less stifled and middle class. Crowd was denser than last time. Shoulder to shoulder for a solid 2 miles. Packed in like sardines on Whitehall even after the rain had been going for a solid 15 minutes.
Just back too. It was enjoyable. There's a big difference between the Remain and Leave crowds when it comes to these demos. The Leave ones seem to attract a lot of quite thick and nasty people. The difference really is quite striking. It's a much bigger difference than 52/48, interestingly.
Isn't it the case that better educated and wealthier people have a greater stake in the status quo when they have done well out of the present set up. This is a large part of the difference in crowds. It tells us nothing about the merits of the matter. I imagine the crowds in the Peasants' revolt of 1381 or Kett's rebellion of 1549 were dimmer and smellier than John of Gaunt's or the Earl of Warwick's closest friends. But they still had a point.
Too few acknowledge that there is a perfectly decent case for both sides, and a better case still for that which seems now unattainable -a properly reformed EU.... EFTA still the best option IMHO but the bedlam has drowned it out.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Leavers should have pushed for that when they had the chance... now Remain will have to be an option too.
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
There are generally good reasons for such an approach, but given other standing orders have been suspended by others when they too were established for good reasons, I think the sanctimony is a bit unwarranted if Boris and co wanted to do something which was against a standing order.
It's like the rush high horse is unconvincing.
The importance of procedures seems to be very movable as far as both sides are concerned.
Erskine May is not Standing Orders, it’s an account of the powers and privileges of Parliament which has been compiled from statute and convention and is deemed to be authoritative. Standing Orders can be suspended and changed, Erskine May rather describes facts and practically can no more be changed than an encyclopaedia can be changed to state the sky is green. That said, Parliament is sovereign and not debating the same issue twice is rooted in convention, not statute. The Commons could theoretically pass a motion to suspend or end the convention, but the convention regarded as a bulwark against the executive dominating the legislature so I doubt it’d pass.
Of course Erskine May can be changed, as has Bercow noted you can go against precedent, set new precedent in effect, and convention if the situation justifies it. It just means it should be justified very strongly given the weight of convention and law detailed there in.
That's why Erskine May itself is written in a way to enable wide interpretation in many parts as well, so convention allows wiggle room much of the time. That's why there's the bit about attempts made to evade the rule by applying different wording (doesn't really apply in this instance in fairness), even saying at one point 'some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule'.
The idea it can no more be changed that the sky is bonkers. The procedures and conventions do alter over time, not only in reaction to statute, that's one reason they bring out new editions!
And for the record I don't think such a motion would pass either, but the opposition have gleefully abandoned regular procedures at times, and while that can be justified, it does mean when someone else suggests a similar action it is not as ridiculous as they are pretending it is.
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
The key point is "Parliament decided".
It's what you might call 'taking back control'.
(Except of course Parliament has never lost the ability to exert this control).
I don't think support for Brexit correlates strongly with income, because it is supported by older people (tend to be wealthier) and less well educated people (tend to be poorer). So I think the argument that Remainers are simply trying to hold on to their advantages is incorrect. I expect that Brexit will make me richer, for instance, but I oppose it because of its broader impact on the country (including making many of the people who support it poorer). I can see both sides of a lot of arguments, but I genuinely don't think there are strong arguments for Brexit that hold up to proper scrutiny. It's just a bad idea and a tragedy for our country.
It's interesting to look at how Brexit support varies e.g. by income or education but within different age strata. However, at some point it becomes difficult or meaningless to say Brexit "isn't really correlated with X, but rather it appears to because it's correlated with Y that coincidentally is correlated with X " because some characteristics (e.g. education, professional status, income) are so tightly wrapped up with each other and perhaps best identified with some underlying latent factor.
As for the last paragraph ... personally I expect Brexit to reduce my income, but I voted for it because I am absolutely incredulous of the case to Remain. I'll give a free pass to those europhiles whose hope and aspiration is to live, or want their children or grandchildren to, within a federal European super-state, and believe the European Union as currently constituted is the vehicle with the best hope of delivering that. That view I can grok even if I do not share the sentiments. The other 90% of Remainers seem to want to get ever more entangled in a club where they fundamentally disagree with the point of the club, as explicitly stated in the club rules, in the direction of flow that the club has been moving (and in which current they want the UK to swim) and with the intentions of the other members. I find this viewpoint simply incomprehensible, even if you do think it boosts British GDP by a couple of percent.
(I appreciate the main difference is that I am focusing on the long-term which is therefore rather more speculative, and more people focus on the relatively short-term which is more certain, but on the basis of this likely being a once in 30 or 40 years referendum, it made more sense to me vote from the perspective of "do I think this country is going to be a good fit with the EU in a couple of decades time" rather than assuming the current arrangements were going to be preserved in aspic.)
Okay. 🙂. See you in a fortnight and we’ll see if you were justified to be so rude and patronising to me, as I explained Letwins mendacious trick better than media so far, doubted the numbers are there to pass the deal, honestly can’t see why labour like turkeys voting for Christmas push for a GE instead of confirmatory vote, and suspect EU will pressure for that as well if the deal falls.
Sleep well till then old fella. 😌
You have been posting thoughts that do not make sense when you see the wider dialogue from many sources including the EU and the HOC
For my sins I have watched the media continually all week and from that I try to form an opinion. For instance I watched Oliver Letwin live in the HOC respond when he won his vote and he pledged 100% support for the deal and to get it passed by the 31st
And Letwin was quite clear in the points of order (I think it was) that he would now be parting ways with the rest of the alliance because their goals now diverged from this point and he wanted to focus on getting the deal done, not stopping Brexit or rerunning the arguments.
So (theoretically) the opposition can no longer rely on Letwin to float amendments that they can also support albeit for different reasons
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Leavers should have pushed for that when they had the chance... now Remain will have to be an option too.
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I have been out all day, and there wasn't much bandwidth on the march due to the vast crowds. Is this true from the DUP?
What’s the bloody problem he writes a letter, brings back his wonderful deal after the house have passed the WAIB then he says we don’t need the extension. There is more going on but I really don’t know what. If he can’t pass hisWAIB then he has problems but that can’t possible because it’s a wonderful deal and far better than what we currently have so therefore no problem
It could be because the Remainers in Parliament attempt to obstruct the WAIB in order to disrespect the public vote.
Well f they have a majority that is the democracy we live in
If they do its a majority built on lies since over 80% of MPs were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum.
Any MPs that votes knowingly votes for something that he believes is not in his/her constituents best interests is abdicating his responsibility.
I'm not sure what the mileage is in complaining he didn't physically sign it. They know he did not decide the wording or want to send it, so it hardly frustrates things for him to not bother to put a signature on it. The covering letter thing being an attempt to frustrate the spirit of the Act seems like having more teeth.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I have been out all day, and there wasn't much bandwidth on the march due to the vast crowds. Is this true from the DUP?
I preferred my own screenplay where the PM is delivering the letter by helicopter but turning round at ten thirty, landing in Buck House's rosebeds and resigns. (Deleted scene: also nukes the French)
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Leavers should have pushed for that when they had the chance... now Remain will have to be an option too.
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
If, and it is a huge if, that has to be the choice. Many try to argue no deal is kept away but with 40% and TBP advocating it it would be wrong to omit it and would lead to legal challenges
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
No, the problem was nobody trusted Johnson or Cummings not to try to engineer a No Deal Brexit via a fait accompli of not getting the WA through all the stages of the Commons and Lords.
Despite what you and others may think, Benn and in turn Letwin aren't about thwarting Brexit or defying the "will of the people". They are about preventing a No Deal crash out on 31/10 (for which there is no majority or mandate), whether accidental or engineered and ensuring the WA receives appropriate and proper scrutiny in Parliament.
In other words, MPs today did their job - represented the interests of the country and asserted their role in the scrutiny of legislation.
I still think a lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing we would leave the EU on 31/10 if the WA is passed - we won't. We enter a period of transition during which we not only remain a full member with all the obligations and commitments pertaining but we also have to negotiate a comprehensive future trade deal with the EU before 31/12/20.
Going to court over a signature will be an utter waste of time, money and other resources. The Act requires the PM to send a letter. Not to sign a letter.
It does not preclude any other communication on the subject.
I have just looked at the text of the Act and nowhere does it require a signature.
An interesting comparison is the Countryside Alliance protests.
Also very large protests numerically, largely upper/middle-class well-heeled "comfortable" people on a well-mannered march, but mobilising largely because the political ascendancy had moved against them. They also thought they had right on their side, in that their life-perspective was in fact entirely reasonable, and opposed mainly by those ignorant of the details of their circumstances - people who would surely come around if they were given greater education.
I do think you'd see larger Leave crowds if there were a parliamentary vote to revoke Article 50.
Generally I think that protests against something happening don't work, because the crowd is nearly always tempted to turn it into hostility to the government - an exception that did work was the poll tax riots, but generally if you see a lot of people screaming abuse at you, the normal reaction is to do the opposite. I was much more militantly anti-Countryside Alliance after seeing the marchers' attacks on Blair (who God knows was not a reliable ally of the anti-hunt movement) and Labour.
By contrast, people demanding that something be done get a certain respect, from suffragettes to XR. The referendum crowd is somewhere in between, but they have been extremely good-natured and that ought to help.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I'm all for a "confirmatory" Ref:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Leavers should have pushed for that when they had the chance... now Remain will have to be an option too.
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
If, and it is a huge if, that has to be the choice. Many try to argue no deal is kept away but with 40% and TBP advocating it it would be wrong to omit it and would lead to legal challenges
I agree Big_G... let's put it on the 2nd ref. If the country votes for extreme self harm so be it.
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
No, the problem was nobody trusted Johnson or Cummings not to try to engineer a No Deal Brexit via a fait accompli of not getting the WA through all the stages of the Commons and Lords.
Despite what you and others may think, Benn and in turn Letwin aren't about thwarting Brexit or defying the "will of the people". They are about preventing a No Deal crash out on 31/10 (for which there is no majority or mandate), whether accidental or engineered and ensuring the WA receives appropriate and proper scrutiny in Parliament.
In other words, MPs today did their job - represented the interests of the country and asserted their role in the scrutiny of legislation.
I still think a lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing we would leave the EU on 31/10 if the WA is passed - we won't. We enter a period of transition during which we not only remain a full member with all the obligations and commitments pertaining but we also have to negotiate a comprehensive future trade deal with the EU before 31/12/20.
We definitely won’t be a full member during the transition.
Yes it is. I had speculated earlier about what harm there was for him in not sending it, since if the court sends it he is completely off the hook as far as his main supporters are concerned, but I see he has sought to cover his bases - he technically complies so can say he tried to follow the law, and the court can resend it without his contextualising.
In practical terms what difference does it make though other than posturing? I mean, the court says he tried to frustrate the Act and either sends the letter themselves or instructs him to do it, and the same letter (since it cannot be amended) goes to the EU without his contextualising? The request is no more or less valid to the EU that way as far as I can see, even a letter from him saying 'I do want an extension as per the letter' won't factor into things much.
Shouldn't he wait for the court case before he does that? Apparently that will make a difference, as opposed to all the many public times Boris has said he does not want an extension.
There are generally good reasons for such an approach, but given other standing orders have been suspended by others when they too were established for good reasons, I think the sanctimony is a bit unwarranted if Boris and co wanted to do something which was against a standing order.
It's like the rushing through legislation point - there may be justifiable reasons for the specific circumstances which led to rush of the Benn Act for example, but having done it in that instance it is hypocritical to act like it is an immutable line that should not be crossed as Boris now seeks to rush things, and having suspended Standing Orders to do that and other things, someone else wanting to go against those orders may well not be justified, but is not as stupid or as outrageous as is being pretended, and the high horse is unconvincing.
The importance of procedures seems to be very movable as far as both sides are concerned.
Erskine May is not Standing Orders, it’s an account of the powers and privileges of Parliament which has been compiled from statute and convention and is deemed to be authoritative. Standing Orders can be suspended and changed, Erskine May rather describes facts and practically can no more be changed than an encyclopaedia can be changed to state the sky is green. That said, Parliament is sovereign and not debating the same issue twice is rooted in convention, not statute. The Commons could theoretically pass a motion to suspend or end the convention, but the convention regarded as a bulwark against the executive dominating the legislature so I doubt it’d pass.
What were the differences between mv1 mv2 and mv3?
(4)The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
A letter in the form set out in the schedule has been sent. Literally in the form sent out in the schedule, nowhere in the schedule did it include a signature.
Yes it is. I had speculated earlier about what harm there was for him in not sending it, since if the court sends it he is completely off the hook as far as his main supporters are concerned, but I see he has sought to cover his bases - he technically complies so can say he tried to follow the law, and the court can resend it without his contextualising.
In practical terms what difference does it make though other than posturing? I mean, the court says he tried to frustrate the Act and either sends the letter themselves or instructs him to do it, and the same letter (since it cannot be amended) goes to the EU without his contextualising? The request is no more or less valid to the EU that way as far as I can see, even a letter from him saying 'I do want an extension as per the letter' won't factor into things much.
Given that the EU has accepted the letter and is acting accordingly renders any case pointless. The aim of the Act was to ensure that an extension request was submitted. That has happened and the EU machinery is now working on it.
Thus the primary objective of the Act has been secured.
Why does anybody think this is going to heal the division all they are interested is in winning and crapping on the 48% and the 2 million young people now over 18 who didn’t get a vote. There is no healing there is no coming together because there is nothing to come together around.
How is leaving with a deal that's been negotiatied to the satisfaction of the UK and EU and Ireland "crapping on the 48%" ?
That would be leaving with No Deal.
If anything MPs representing the 48% are crapping on the 52% with their never ending game playing and delaying tactics.
We'd only know that the deal was "to the satisfaction of the UK" if it were passed in a confirmatory referendum.
I have been out all day, and there wasn't much bandwidth on the march due to the vast crowds. Is this true from the DUP?
I think it depends on the propoganda disseminated by the Brexit supporting media. They have the power to manipulate people into accepting things or rejecting them. The Brexit supporting media have spent a lot of capital/credibility on advocating a worse deal for the UK, than we have in the EU. The Brexit supporting media in promoting this agenda may well have damaged their business model as their papers become less of an essential to life and more of an optional.
I think it's wrong to treat Brexit supporters as blind idiots misinformed by their biased media whereas Remain supporters are free-thinking individuals well-informed despite the media (or because of their access to unbiased Remain-supporting media).
From a Brexiteer perspective, EU membership is not fundamentally alike to a trade deal (many Brexiteers would in fact be happy with something that seemed aligned with the values of a European "Trade Area" or "Economic Area", but not a "Union") so I think you're misunderstanding the Leaver mindset if you think we're just too dumb or misinformed to grasp that EU membership is a better "deal" than an alternative. EU membership isn't just a transactional relationship, as the keenest europhiles will be well aware. Besides, what constitutes a "good" deal depends very much on your own desires and values.
What's a better deal to you - three red plastic cubes and a plastic sphere of a colour of your choice for $3.81, or two blue cubes and two yellow spheres for $4.57? There's no "correct" answer to that question. If you think yellow spheres are the devil's own work and the only proper colour for spheres is maroon, then there's only one way to go, but if the only true colour of cubes is red, well then...
Going to court over a signature will be an utter waste of time, money and other resources. The Act requires the PM to send a letter. Not to sign a letter.
It does not preclude any other communication on the subject.
I have just looked at the text of the Act and nowhere does it require a signature.
I imagine the argument is over the spirit of it being frustrated, but Mr David Allen Green does not seem concerned, and in practical terms I cannot see what it alters when his view is very well known on the subject. He should have just sent the letter with nothing else and they'd have known it was under protest, so it was just for home consumption and meaningless it seems.
No doubt someone will pop up to suggest this is another reason for a potential Labour rebel to not vote for the deal legislation.
There are generally good reasons for such an approach, but given other standing orders have been suspended by others when they too were established for good reasons, I think the sanctimony is a bit unwarranted if Boris and co wanted to do something which was against a standing order.
It's like the rush high horse is unconvincing.
The importance of procedures seems to be very movable as far as both sides are concerned.
Erskine May is not Standing Orders, it’s an account of the powers and privileges of Parliament which has been compiled from statute and convention and is deemed to be authoritative. Standing Orders can be suspended and changed, Erskine May rather describes facts and practically can no more be changed than an encyclopaedia can be changed to state the sky is green. That said, Parliament is sovereign and not debating the same issue twice is rooted in convention, not statute. The Commons could theoretically pass a motion to suspend or end the convention, but the convention regarded as a bulwark against the executive dominating the legislature so I doubt it’d pass.
Of course Erskine May can be changed, as has Bercow noted you can go against precedent, set new precedent in effect, and convention if the situation justifies it. It just means it should be justified very strongly given the weight of convention and law detailed there in.
That's why Erskine May itself is written in a way to enable wide interpretation in many parts as well, so convention allows wiggle room much of the time. That's why there's the bit about attempts made to evade the rule by applying different wording (doesn't really apply in this instance in fairness), even saying at one point 'some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule'.
The idea it can no more be changed that the sky is bonkers. The procedures and conventions do alter over time, not only in reaction to statute, that's one reason they bring out new editions!
And for the record I don't think such a motion would pass either, but the opposition have gleefully abandoned regular procedures at times, and while that can be justified, it does mean when someone else suggests a similar action it is not as ridiculous as they are pretending it is.
I think you miss my point. If the sky changed colour, the encyclopaedias would need to be updated, and so Erskine May is updated regularly to reflect changes to statute and convention. But such a major change to convention as this would clearly require the clear proactive consent the Commons which would be unlikely.
The Benn Act wasn't a problem. The government had a deadline of until today to get a deal and put it before Parliament, the government honoured its obligations, got a deal and put it before Parliament ...
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
No, the problem was nobody trusted Johnson or Cummings not to try to engineer a No Deal Brexit via a fait accompli of not getting the WA through all the stages of the Commons and Lords.
Despite what you and others may think, Benn and in turn Letwin aren't about thwarting Brexit or defying the "will of the people". They are about preventing a No Deal crash out on 31/10 (for which there is no majority or mandate), whether accidental or engineered and ensuring the WA receives appropriate and proper scrutiny in Parliament.
In other words, MPs today did their job - represented the interests of the country and asserted their role in the scrutiny of legislation.
I still think a lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing we would leave the EU on 31/10 if the WA is passed - we won't. We enter a period of transition during which we not only remain a full member with all the obligations and commitments pertaining but we also have to negotiate a comprehensive future trade deal with the EU before 31/12/20.
If Letwin and others didn't believe that, then on 29/9/19 if the WAIB hadn't been given royal assent yet they could have demanded Boris send an extension request or no confidenced him.
Or they could have not put down the 'get a deal' section of the Benn Act which Boris honoured but they refused to vote on.
I didn't expect three letters. A stunning manoeuvre from the Prime Minister, leaving his opponents flat-footed.
What a twat pathetic stupid and un necessary if he believes his wonderful deal can gain majority support when he brings the WAIB back, he is actually being silly because it will pass when the sequencing is right. Unless of course there is something in their deal that is unacceptable. Unless I’m missing something then if he gets his WAIB through by 31/10 then as long as the EU say extension only if no resolution happens then its over. I can’t really understand what his problem is pass the WAIB then leave no extension, why the histrionics
What’s the bloody problem he writes a letter, brings back his wonderful deal after the house have passed the WAIB then he says we don’t need the extension. There is more going on but I really don’t know what. If he can’t pass hisWAIB then he has problems but that can’t possible because it’s a wonderful deal and far better than what we currently have so therefore no problem
It could be because the Remainers in Parliament attempt to obstruct the WAIB in order to disrespect the public vote.
Well f they have a majority that is the democracy we live in
If they do its a majority built on lies since over 80% of MPs were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum.
What’s the bloody problem he writes a letter, brings back his wonderful deal after the house have passed the WAIB then he says we don’t need the extension. There is more going on but I really don’t know what. If he can’t pass hisWAIB then he has problems but that can’t possible because it’s a wonderful deal and far better than what we currently have so therefore no problem
It could be because the Remainers in Parliament attempt to obstruct the WAIB in order to disrespect the public vote.
Well f they have a majority that is the democracy we live in
If they do its a majority built on lies since over 80% of MPs were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum.
They are. All they have done is stick to their own vision of what Leave means. No MP was elected on a No Deal mandate.
Sending an unsigned letter is the childish action of a desperate debtor; sending an unsigned cheque. The debt hasn’t been paid, the letter hasn’t been sent, Contempt of Court?
Generally I think that protests against something happening don't work, because the crowd is nearly always tempted to turn it into hostility to the government - an exception that did work was the poll tax riots, but generally if you see a lot of people screaming abuse at you, the normal reaction is to do the opposite. I was much more militantly anti-Countryside Alliance after seeing the marchers' attacks on Blair (who God knows was not a reliable ally of the anti-hunt movement) and Labour.
By contrast, people demanding that something be done get a certain respect, from suffragettes to XR. The referendum crowd is somewhere in between, but they have been extremely good-natured and that ought to help.
Interesting perspective. Thanks Nick.
Some "issue raising" protests do seem to achieve very strong cut-through with media/public narrative - the high street anti-tax-dodging protests definitely brought the issue into the wider consciousness, but I'm not sure too many tax loopholes actually got closed as a result. I think some are too generic for their own good - what was, fundamentally, the "point" of the Occupy protests? Scrap capitalism and then...? I don't think anybody knew, and even if there was discontent with the current system, I don't think it translated into much. The suffragettes, XR and the People's Vote campaign all have/had very clear and (to varying degrees) actionable objectives.
It would only be a problem, I think, if the EU said, it isn't a proper letter, so we will ignore the request. I expect them to say, we've got the letter and will consider it.
Sending an unsigned letter is the childish action of a desperate debtor; sending an unsigned cheque. The debt hasn’t been paid, the letter hasn’t been sent, Contempt of Court?
It's not his letter, it's parliament's, and he completely disagrees with the contents. Entirely within his rights not to sign someone else's words.
Comments
I must have missed that.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENST NEGOTIATED DEAL TO LEAVE THE EU?
YES
NO
(Yes leads to deal. No leads to no deal)
Put in his pocket. Which is probably why he keeps doing it. Where there’s muck there’s always a bit of brass to scam out of someone.
Just got to love the lawyers.
"Officials in Brussels said there was no doubt that an extension request would be granted.."
"..senior EU officials said it was clear during the discussions among the leaders at a summit on Thursday that “they would grant an extension”. “Even [the French president Emmanuel] Macron in the room didn’t suggest otherwise,” the source said."
"The chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, Norbert Röttgen, who is a senior member of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said he had “no doubt” an extension would be granted."
"..EU sources said the private comments of Merkel better represented the leaders’ position.
She had told EU leaders that a Brexit extension would be unavoidable if British MPs vote down the new deal. Merkel said leaders had a responsibility not to push the UK out without a deal."
Make it a three option ref by STV - Deal / No Deal / Remain. How's that for a compromise?
Back in 2013/14 I warned they were headed down this route when Batten wanted all Muslims to sign a charter.
They were members when Nigel Farage said Muslims had split loyalties.
They were members when Farage and others failed to prove evidence about no go areas created by Muslims.
They were members when Farage blamed Muslims for losing the Oldham by election then declined to provide evidence.
... then Parliament decided 'oh shit, we didn't think you'd actually get a deal - well tough, we're not going to vote on it'.
You have been posting thoughts that do not make sense when you see the wider dialogue from many sources including the EU and the HOC
For my sins I have watched the media continually all week and from that I try to form an opinion. For instance I watched Oliver Letwin live in the HOC respond when he won his vote and he pledged 100% support for the deal and to get it passed by the 31st
I have explained to you how a GE can come about without Corbyn' consent
I have explained how a referendum needs to Summer 2020 and just now on Sky an EU reporter has stated that the EU are not going to extend that far and the EU are likely to say that they want to see how matters progress this week in the HOC before responding to Boris's letter.
I apologise if you think I was rude but that is never my intention in any post I make though sometimes posts do push my boundaries
This is an outstanding forum for political discourse and I learn greatly from my fellow posters and do try to be constructive
I hope you have a pleasant nights rest
That's why Erskine May itself is written in a way to enable wide interpretation in many parts as well, so convention allows wiggle room much of the time. That's why there's the bit about attempts made to evade the rule by applying different wording (doesn't really apply in this instance in fairness), even saying at one point 'some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule'.
The idea it can no more be changed that the sky is bonkers. The procedures and conventions do alter over time, not only in reaction to statute, that's one reason they bring out new editions!
And for the record I don't think such a motion would pass either, but the opposition have gleefully abandoned regular procedures at times, and while that can be justified, it does mean when someone else suggests a similar action it is not as ridiculous as they are pretending it is.
It's what you might call 'taking back control'.
(Except of course Parliament has never lost the ability to exert this control).
As for the last paragraph ... personally I expect Brexit to reduce my income, but I voted for it because I am absolutely incredulous of the case to Remain. I'll give a free pass to those europhiles whose hope and aspiration is to live, or want their children or grandchildren to, within a federal European super-state, and believe the European Union as currently constituted is the vehicle with the best hope of delivering that. That view I can grok even if I do not share the sentiments. The other 90% of Remainers seem to want to get ever more entangled in a club where they fundamentally disagree with the point of the club, as explicitly stated in the club rules, in the direction of flow that the club has been moving (and in which current they want the UK to swim) and with the intentions of the other members. I find this viewpoint simply incomprehensible, even if you do think it boosts British GDP by a couple of percent.
(I appreciate the main difference is that I am focusing on the long-term which is therefore rather more speculative, and more people focus on the relatively short-term which is more certain, but on the basis of this likely being a once in 30 or 40 years referendum, it made more sense to me vote from the perspective of "do I think this country is going to be a good fit with the EU in a couple of decades time" rather than assuming the current arrangements were going to be preserved in aspic.)
So (theoretically) the opposition can no longer rely on Letwin to float amendments that they can also support albeit for different reasons
That's the problem.
You can't trust BoZo
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1185561862861135872?s=19
Nonetheless this looks like splendid theatre.
Despite what you and others may think, Benn and in turn Letwin aren't about thwarting Brexit or defying the "will of the people". They are about preventing a No Deal crash out on 31/10 (for which there is no majority or mandate), whether accidental or engineered and ensuring the WA receives appropriate and proper scrutiny in Parliament.
In other words, MPs today did their job - represented the interests of the country and asserted their role in the scrutiny of legislation.
I still think a lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing we would leave the EU on 31/10 if the WA is passed - we won't. We enter a period of transition during which we not only remain a full member with all the obligations and commitments pertaining but we also have to negotiate a comprehensive future trade deal with the EU before 31/12/20.
It does not preclude any other communication on the subject.
I have just looked at the text of the Act and nowhere does it require a signature.
By contrast, people demanding that something be done get a certain respect, from suffragettes to XR. The referendum crowd is somewhere in between, but they have been extremely good-natured and that ought to help.
https://twitter.com/A50Challenge/status/1185662787407794176?s=19
In practical terms what difference does it make though other than posturing? I mean, the court says he tried to frustrate the Act and either sends the letter themselves or instructs him to do it, and the same letter (since it cannot be amended) goes to the EU without his contextualising? The request is no more or less valid to the EU that way as far as I can see, even a letter from him saying 'I do want an extension as per the letter' won't factor into things much.
So what are they going to do. It has been sent and all they will do is add sackfulls of votes to Boris
(4)The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
A letter in the form set out in the schedule has been sent. Literally in the form sent out in the schedule, nowhere in the schedule did it include a signature.
Thus the primary objective of the Act has been secured.
Why waste more time and court time on it?
From a Brexiteer perspective, EU membership is not fundamentally alike to a trade deal (many Brexiteers would in fact be happy with something that seemed aligned with the values of a European "Trade Area" or "Economic Area", but not a "Union") so I think you're misunderstanding the Leaver mindset if you think we're just too dumb or misinformed to grasp that EU membership is a better "deal" than an alternative. EU membership isn't just a transactional relationship, as the keenest europhiles will be well aware. Besides, what constitutes a "good" deal depends very much on your own desires and values.
What's a better deal to you - three red plastic cubes and a plastic sphere of a colour of your choice for $3.81, or two blue cubes and two yellow spheres for $4.57? There's no "correct" answer to that question. If you think yellow spheres are the devil's own work and the only proper colour for spheres is maroon, then there's only one way to go, but if the only true colour of cubes is red, well then...
Letwin and everyone who voted for Letwin didn't comply with the spirit of the Benn Act.
No doubt someone will pop up to suggest this is another reason for a potential Labour rebel to not vote for the deal legislation.
NEW THREAD
If nobody shouts "Noe" to a motion then it goes through on the nod.
Or they could have not put down the 'get a deal' section of the Benn Act which Boris honoured but they refused to vote on.
Contempt of Court?
Some "issue raising" protests do seem to achieve very strong cut-through with media/public narrative - the high street anti-tax-dodging protests definitely brought the issue into the wider consciousness, but I'm not sure too many tax loopholes actually got closed as a result. I think some are too generic for their own good - what was, fundamentally, the "point" of the Occupy protests? Scrap capitalism and then...? I don't think anybody knew, and even if there was discontent with the current system, I don't think it translated into much. The suffragettes, XR and the People's Vote campaign all have/had very clear and (to varying degrees) actionable objectives.
Those accusing him of being 'childish' would appear to be seething at his refusal to play the remainers games.
Lets move on to next week where there seems to be a number of possible scenarios to me (plus many i've missed no doubt)...
1. EU refuses an extension which forces parliament to vote through the deal.
2. We get a short extension which forces parliament to vote through the deal.
3. Either of 1 or 2 happen but parliament doesn't vote through the deal which leaves revoke?
4. A long extension without a resolution consequently arriving at the same point as now.
5. A long extension and parliament votes through a new referendum.
6. Extension followed by VoNC and a GE.
7. Extension but no VoNC but the government resigns forcing a GE.
What else could happen?