If we got out of the EU but remained in the Customs Union even I as a “Diehard Remainer” ((c) HYUFD 2016-2019) would be content. While I can understand (while disagreeing) the issues people had with immigration I don’t comprehend the obsession with trade deals. That ultimately will undo Brexit, I just don’t understand it. People on the ground clearly and obviously care about immigration - but do they really care who negotiates our trade deals? It would solve the NI issue too. I simply don’t get it.
If there are many more lengthy delays (for GE, referendum, both, something else) then it won't be too long before Johnson's deal and no deal departure are indistinguishable, given the ever declining length of the transition period.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
Whether that one passes or not I do not know, but it is things like that which will test the Labour rebel support, and make the WAIB unpalatable to the ERG. Letwin is either a genius or drafted his amendment poorly. Probably the latter as his support for the deal is genuine.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
Arguably what should come first is a Scottish independence referendum, because their answer will have a huge influence on the course of Brexit for the other nations.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paper
My default expectation from here is that Brexit will take place, substantially on the latest terms secured by Boris Johnson, after a short delay. Boris Johnson might not, however, be the Prime Minister at the time.
How short is a 'short delay'. Tim Shipman talks of months more misery, and I could believe it - I think any extension that is granted will see all the time used up. 1 month extension, 1 more month to agree something. 3 month extension, 3 more months to agree something. And if the EU are observant they will know that a couple of weeks may not be enough, so will stick with Jan 20 to be safe.
I'm amused to see sore losers accusing Letwin of being stupid, when he seems to have run rings around everyone else. How stupid must Boris be?
More seriously, I think the answer to that question is that Boris has been very stupid. What the hell was he doing being so petulant and childish about complying with the Benn Act? He was within grasp of pulling off a major, almost impossible, coup: meeting his do-or-die pledge with a deal and taking us out of the EU in an orderly fashion on October 31st. All he needed to do last night was to comply in spirit as well as form with the Benn Act, send the letter (signed), and provide a covering note telling the EU that he was hopeful that a deal would be agreed by parliament next week. The EU wouldn't have responded to the request until after parliament had had time to ratify, so he'd have lost nothing but gained trust.
Instead, he has again acted in a way which maximises the suspicion which MPs have about his trustworthiness and good faith. That in turn makes it harder for him to get his deal next week. He might just make it still (although probably now with an extension he didn't need to have accepted), but the probability is less than it would have been if he'd acted more sensibly.
From here, the opposition’s main priority should be tabling amendments to the withdrawal legislation on workers’ rights, consumer protections and the environment. Tory rejections of them will be helpful when the election comes.
They would all pass. This government is a long way short of a majority. The risk for Boris is that it gets to the point the ERG says we are not backing the bill. To me the loss of momentum as a result of Letwin's imbecilic behaviour yesterday is likely to prove fatal. Only a refusal to extend by the EU can save Boris now.
And this to me is the great mystery.
Why is Olly Letwin still a Conservative MP.
He has a trail of fuckwitted disaster going back to his 'disco and drugs' thoughts in 1985 yet at no point the Conservative party have taken him to one side and said "Sorry about this Oliver but I'm afraid you're not up to the job".
Do we really need to go through a whole list of current Conservative MPs who should have been taken to one side a long, long time ago?
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
We elected individual MPs who made promises that they have now broken. You are trying to blame the victim for the crime.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paper
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
Quite. Everyone needs to dial it down a notch or two, but it's impossible to see that happening before we get a Brexit resolution.
Several government ministers needed police escorts home on Saturday afternoon, as there were a few bad tempered in the crowd demonstrating outside Parliament - even if the vast majority were well behaved, it only takes a few bad apples to upset the cart.
Hopefully MPs see sense and pick someone like Lindsay Hoyle as the next Speaker, a man from a very different mould to the incumbent. He would set the tone of debate in a very different way to Bercow.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paper
Spoiling your ballot?
Somebody still gets elected. Probably even if no valid votes are cast!
From here, the opposition’s main priority should be tabling amendments to the withdrawal legislation on workers’ rights, consumer protections and the environment. Tory rejections of them will be helpful when the election comes.
They would all pass. This government is a long way short of a majority. The risk for Boris is that it gets to the point the ERG says we are not backing the bill. To me the loss of momentum as a result of Letwin's imbecilic behaviour yesterday is likely to prove fatal. Only a refusal to extend by the EU can save Boris now.
And this to me is the great mystery.
Why is Olly Letwin still a Conservative MP.
He has a trail of fuckwitted disaster going back to his 'disco and drugs' thoughts in 1985 yet at no point the Conservative party have taken him to one side and said "Sorry about this Oliver but I'm afraid you're not up to the job".
He's not a Conservative MP. He's now an Independent MP. Remember?
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
Quite. Everyone needs to dial it down a notch or two, but it's impossible to see that happening before we get a Brexit resolution.
Several government ministers needed police escorts home on Saturday afternoon, as there were a few bad tempered in the crowd demonstrating outside Parliament - even if the vast majority were well behaved, it only takes a few bad apples to upset the cart.
Hopefully MPs see sense and pick someone like Lindsay Hoyle as the next Speaker, a man from a very different mould to the incumbent. He would set the tone of debate in a very different way to Bercow.
The rot starts at the top with a Prime Minister who accuses his opponents of collaboration.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
We elected individual MPs who made promises that they have now broken. You are trying to blame the victim for the crime.
That’s debatable but we agree that we elected it. You have the choice to kick them out at the next election for breaking their promises. That’s the way it works. Unfortunately a decision of the equally democratically elected 2010-15 Parliament means that such an opportunity may not come as soon as many would like.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
I'm amused to see sore losers accusing Letwin of being stupid, when he seems to have run rings around everyone else. How stupid must Boris be?
Two separate points there. Running rings around everyone to get the amendment through is one thing, but Letwin says it was in support of the deal, and if it leads to the deal being rejected then he will have been smart and stupid at the same time, since he will have secured an outcome he does not want. Boris's own stupidity is unaffected by that.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Irrelevant to whether people believe they might, or can say the believe it might as a way of not backing the deal whilst saying they still back leaving in theory. And Boris's success counts against him there as he proved they might reopen things.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
From here, the opposition’s main priority should be tabling amendments to the withdrawal legislation on workers’ rights, consumer protections and the environment. Tory rejections of them will be helpful when the election comes.
They would all pass. This government is a long way short of a majority. The risk for Boris is that it gets to the point the ERG says we are not backing the bill. To me the loss of momentum as a result of Letwin's imbecilic behaviour yesterday is likely to prove fatal. Only a refusal to extend by the EU can save Boris now.
And this to me is the great mystery.
Why is Olly Letwin still a Conservative MP.
He has a trail of fuckwitted disaster going back to his 'disco and drugs' thoughts in 1985 yet at no point the Conservative party have taken him to one side and said "Sorry about this Oliver but I'm afraid you're not up to the job".
He's not a Conservative MP. He's now an Independent MP. Remember?
Is that an attempt at the most pointless comment of the day ?
Letwin has been in significant positions in the Conservative party from 1983 onwards, his fuckwittery didn't start last month.
I'm amused to see sore losers accusing Letwin of being stupid, when he seems to have run rings around everyone else. How stupid must Boris be?
More seriously, I think the answer to that question is that Boris has been very stupid. What the hell was he doing being so petulant and childish about complying with the Benn Act? He was within grasp of pulling off a major, almost impossible, coup: meeting his do-or-die pledge with a deal and taking us out of the EU in an orderly fashion on October 31st. All he needed to do last night was to comply in spirit as well as form with the Benn Act, send the letter (signed), and provide a covering note telling the EU that he was hopeful that a deal would be agreed by parliament next week. The EU wouldn't have responded to the request until after parliament had had time to ratify, so he'd have lost nothing but gained trust.
Instead, he has again acted in a way which maximises the suspicion which MPs have about his trustworthiness and good faith. That in turn makes it harder for him to get his deal next week. He might just make it still (although probably now with an extension he didn't need to have accepted), but the probability is less than it would have been if he'd acted more sensibly.
Sorry Richard but this is just naïve. The Remainers will never trust Boris or any other Leaver to do things they way they want. But equally no Leaver will now trust any current Remain supporting MP to behave in an honourable or reasonable manner. They forfeited the right to that trust when they reneged on their pledges to carry through the referendum result at the last election.
There is no trust and there never will be now. Boris is neither here nor there on this.
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
The amended motion which said the opposite of the original motion.
What I think the government should have done was the inverse of what they did: agree to send the Benn letter in return for the deal being approved, on the basis that the Benn letter would be of no effect unless something when wrong with the ratification of this 'great' deal.
Not so much a warning shot as a promise. The government is committed to its deal now, it is laying the legislation so can hardly change anything, so the DUP are saying they will back a referendum. After a week of leave's rising momentum, it might suddenly pitch the other way.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
Bercow says not
Says not to what? I wasn't watching, did he not say "the question is as on the order paper, as amended. As many of that opinion say "aye" the contrary "nay", the aye's have it".
And what difference does it make anyway? Even if the MV had passed unamended, you would have still got people trying to amend the legislation.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
Sorry Richard but this is just naïve. The Remainers will never trust Boris or any other Leaver to do things they way they want. But equally no Leaver will now trust any current Remain supporting MP to behave in an honourable or reasonable manner. They forfeited the right to that trust when they reneged on their pledges to carry through the referendum result at the last election.
There is no trust and there never will be now. Boris is neither here nor there on this.
Doesn't alter the fact that the petulance and childishness of Boris only makes it worse, and served no purpose whatsoever. We are talking about a situation where losing the support of just two or three MPs could make the difference.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
The amended motion which said the opposite of the original motion.
What I think the government should have done was the inverse of what they did: agree to send the Benn letter in return for the deal being approved, on the basis that the Benn letter would be of no effect unless something when wrong with the ratification of this 'great' deal.
They would have got no where with that. You know as well as I do that the Remainers would have countered that the Benn letter was not a negotiating point but a legal requirement. And the point of the Benn letter is not primarily to ensure No Deal but to humiliate the PM and so reduce support for him at the forthcoming GE.
FT reckons a maj for 'the deal' of around 4-5. I reckon at least a couple each of lab and ex cons will switch on certain amendments, meaning government defeat.
And if the WAIB looks likely to pass the DUP will support a VONC and bring the whole thing crashing down. They will never accept an Irish Sea border. Never never never.
If the WAIB looks likely to pass unamended I think sufficient labour and ex con votes would prevent a VONC from succeeding as part of committing to the deal.
However I dont think it will pass unamended.
The remainers will seek to amend the WAIB to the point that the ERG finds it unacceptable. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
FT reckons a maj for 'the deal' of around 4-5. I reckon at least a couple each of lab and ex cons will switch on certain amendments, meaning government defeat.
And if the WAIB looks likely to pass the DUP will support a VONC and bring the whole thing crashing down. They will never accept an Irish Sea border. Never never never.
If the WAIB looks likely to pass unamended I think sufficient labour and ex con votes would prevent a VONC from succeeding as part of committing to the deal.
However I dont think it will pass unamended.
The remainers will seek to amend the WAIB to the point that the ERG finds it unacceptable. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
A comma in the right place would probably do it.
That the bill will be amended looks pretty certain. In what way and how significantly is the key.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
Parliament is not doing its job. If it were doing so we would now be well into a GE campaign. What they are doing is trying everything they can to frustrate the result of the referendum and eventually overturn it and/or seeking their own political advantage out of the current chaos. Neither of these is 'doing their job'.
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
The amended motion which said the opposite of the original motion.
What I think the government should have done was the inverse of what they did: agree to send the Benn letter in return for the deal being approved, on the basis that the Benn letter would be of no effect unless something when wrong with the ratification of this 'great' deal.
They would have got no where with that. You know as well as I do that the Remainers would have countered that the Benn letter was not a negotiating point but a legal requirement. And the point of the Benn letter is not primarily to ensure No Deal but to humiliate the PM and so reduce support for him at the forthcoming GE.
No, the purpose of the Benn Act and the Letwin amendment was to try to guarantee, as far as it is within the UK's power, that we avoid the catastrophe of crashing out with no deal. Quite right too, that is the number one priority. Even Boris seems to agree, given that he caved in so completely to get a deal.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
Parliament is not doing its job. If it were doing so we would now be well into a GE campaign. What they are doing is trying everything they can to frustrate the result of the referendum and eventually overturn it and/or seeking their own political advantage out of the current chaos. Neither of these is 'doing their job'.
Parliament isn't a monolithic entity but a democratic body elected by a public with differing views on this question.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Scenario. The WIAB is amended to the point at which it has to be rejected. The EU grants an extension. The Government says we will carry out no further negotiation in that period (what would be the point, it will only get rejected by Parliament again). Calls for an election. Opposition rejects it because they think Government will gain a majority.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
That’s going to be tough for IDS, Owen Paterson and J Rees-Mogg, all of whom would fall foul of such a provision.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
Bercow says not
Says not to what? I wasn't watching, did he not say "the question is as on the order paper, as amended. As many of that opinion say "aye" the contrary "nay", the aye's have it".
And what difference does it make anyway? Even if the MV had passed unamended, you would have still got people trying to amend the legislation.
Hansard 19th October Column 652
"Amendment (a) agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in light of the new deal agreed with the European Union, which enables the United Kingdom to respect the result of the referendum on its membership of the European Union and to leave the European Union on 31 October with a deal, this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed."
Coates is simply wrong. There was a vote and the amended motion went through unopposed.
The amended motion which said the opposite of the original motion.
What I think the government should have done was the inverse of what they did: agree to send the Benn letter in return for the deal being approved, on the basis that the Benn letter would be of no effect unless something when wrong with the ratification of this 'great' deal.
They would have got no where with that. You know as well as I do that the Remainers would have countered that the Benn letter was not a negotiating point but a legal requirement. And the point of the Benn letter is not primarily to ensure No Deal but to humiliate the PM and so reduce support for him at the forthcoming GE.
No, the purpose of the Benn Act and the Letwin amendment was to try to guarantee, as far as it is within the UK's power, that we avoid the catastrophe of crashing out with no deal. Quite right too, that is the number one priority. Even Boris seems to agree, given that he caved in so completely to get a deal.
Perhaps the first bit of amending legislation to be tabled should be one saying that the PM is obligated to request an extension to the transition period 1 month before the expiry date should no new final agreement be in place. That would be a good way of reassuring the worries about the deal being a stepping stone to no deal, and we will then see how true to their word the ERG types are about abandoning no deal. Considering that no deal was supposed to only be a threat to the EU to get a better deal, and we now have that 'better deal' it can surely be removed for good from the table.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
And Liverpool FC were formed after Everton had a row over rent at Anfield Stadium in 1891.
Perhaps the first bit of amending legislation to be tabled should be one saying that the PM is obligated to request an extension to the transition period 1 month before the expiry date should no new final agreement be in place. That would be a good way of reassuring the worries about the deal being a stepping stone to no deal, and we will then see how true to their word the ERG types are about abandoning no deal. Considering that no deal was supposed to only be a threat to the EU to get a better deal, and we now have that 'better deal' it can surely be removed for good from the table.
Which then allows Parliament to refuse to ratify any deal ever and so effectively end Brexit. If they want to do that they should have the courage to do it openly and face the consequences. Of course none of them are actually brave enough top do that.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
They have lost their minds. This is Brexit derangement syndrome at a whole new level.
Scenario. The WIAB is amended to the point at which it has to be rejected. The EU grants an extension. The Government says we will carry out no further negotiation in that period (what would be the point, it will only get rejected by Parliament again). Calls for an election. Opposition rejects it because they think Government will gain a majority.
What happens when the next extension point nears?
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Surely that bangs up BoZo too for his second letter..
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
Don't be silly. I didn't take any of my children to political meetings, although one or two of them may have occasionally helped with leafleting. Did, though, once take my teenage daughter with me (on a Take your Daughter to Work Day) when I went to the House of Commons to meet with the then (female) MP for Thurrock. Said MP discovered that daughter's grandmother, my mother, had been a professional woman running her own business, and spent the time talking to daughter about women's rights. Barely got time to raise the matter I was supposed to be taking to her about!
There’s one thing supporting the deal for Labour MPs however supporting the government in a VONC is totally unacceptable.
That would be immediate withdrawal of the Whip . Even if MPs have been reselected removal of the whip means the party can find another candidate for the GE.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
Parliament is not doing its job. If it were doing so we would now be well into a GE campaign. What they are doing is trying everything they can to frustrate the result of the referendum and eventually overturn it and/or seeking their own political advantage out of the current chaos. Neither of these is 'doing their job'.
No. They are upholding the result of the 2017 GE. The only party that campaigned on the possibility of leaving without a deal in 2017 failed to secure a majority, and even they said “no deal is better than a bad deal” - expressly accepting that bad deals might exist. What was left in Parliament after the 2017 GE were a number of differing interpretations of what a deal should be. Each MP (save for those who ran on a platform expressly opposed to Brexit like the SNP and the LDs) is attempting to get what, in their judgement, is the best deal for the country. Why should Parliament accept any old deal put in front of it in the name of “respecting” a vote that was superseded by their own mandate?
If Leave had won in 2016 with a specific deal in mind you might, might, have a point. But there is little or no mandate whatsoever for leaving at all costs.
These arguments do go round in circles don’t they?
Perhaps the first bit of amending legislation to be tabled should be one saying that the PM is obligated to request an extension to the transition period 1 month before the expiry date should no new final agreement be in place. That would be a good way of reassuring the worries about the deal being a stepping stone to no deal, and we will then see how true to their word the ERG types are about abandoning no deal. Considering that no deal was supposed to only be a threat to the EU to get a better deal, and we now have that 'better deal' it can surely be removed for good from the table.
We haven't actually got any deal with the EU at all. To the extent that our relationship with the EU can be considered in isolation the only "benefit" of the WA is a transition period on existing terms (in return for cash). A period which is getting shorter by the day. With the exception of Northern Ireland there is nothing in the "deal" which provides any trading relationship with the EU post March 31st 2021 at all!
There will probably come a point at which the models will show that the constant uncertainty and necessity for short term planning will mean that we would have been better off with a crash out no deal a couple of years ago than having any sort of transition period (or extensions eating into that period on effectively the same terms + MEP seats) at all.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty for any extension as it could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty any extension could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say the EU would consider an extension but has to be clear how the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week but any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not ruke until the last minute on the 31st
If the EU Parliament can’t vote in time are we to expect the EU council will chuck the UK out on no deal .
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty for any extension as it could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
Can they actually leave it that long? Doesn't there have to be legislation or standing orders passed in respective Parliaments.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Nice, a British Logan Act. The sole function of the Logan Act is to feed an in-joke on political twitter, nobody's ever actually been convicted under it.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
There is a local story in Lincolnshire that came up a few years ago regarding the local Portuguese workers in Boston.
Back in the Middle Ages Lincoln was the Royal Port of the region for the export of wool. Taxes were levied for the King on the wool as it was put on boats in Lincoln to go down the Witham and out to sea. But all the way down the Witham there are monasteries which were able to get their wool put onto the vessels after the Royal Port and so avoid paying taxes.
Eventually the King got fed up and moved the Royal Port status from Lincoln to Boston. This became a real point of anger between the two towns with Lincoln accusing Boston of having stolen its Royal status. There is a rivalry to this day which of course gets picked up in football.
A few years ago the local TV was in Boston talking to the Portuguese workers there about life in Lincolnshire and football rivalry was mentioned. One of the Portuguese told the reporter that one of the reasons people from Lincoln regarded people from Boston as their rivals was because Boston had stolen Lincoln's wool taxes.
A story that shows both the persistence of these traditions over the centuries and how well the new immigrants into the area had integrated into the community even down to their local rivalries.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Surely that bangs up BoZo too for his second letter..
Andrea Jenkyns is a fucking lunatic . Horrible woman and this type of witch-hunt is going to go down very badly with those Tory rebels .
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Surely that bangs up BoZo too for his second letter..
No, he has the right to negotiate treaties under the royal prerogative. And at no stage does he seek to persuade the EU not to accept parliaments offer, he leaves it up to them
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
Quite. Everyone needs to dial it down a notch or two, but it's impossible to see that happening before we get a Brexit resolution.
Several government ministers needed police escorts home on Saturday afternoon, as there were a few bad tempered in the crowd demonstrating outside Parliament - even if the vast majority were well behaved, it only takes a few bad apples to upset the cart.
Hopefully MPs see sense and pick someone like Lindsay Hoyle as the next Speaker, a man from a very different mould to the incumbent. He would set the tone of debate in a very different way to Bercow.
Is that any Brexit resolution, or did you have a specific one in mind?
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
In return for cash. The reason why many of us were unconcerned about May's UK backstop was that it was a significant compromise by the EU in giving ongoing access to the customs union for free. They did this because, contrary to the media and political spin over here, they did not expect it to be a permanent state of affairs.
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
Very true. Will teach me not to unroll the tree and read what you were replying to.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty any extension could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say the EU would consider an extension but has to be clear how the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week but any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not ruke until the last minute on the 31st
If the EU Parliament can’t vote in time are we to expect the EU council will chuck the UK out on no deal .
Per Bruno Waterfield, the EU Parliament is looking at the deal in committee tomorrow and voting on it on Thursday.
Caveat: Generally speaking Bruno Waterfield is totally full of shit.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty for any extension as it could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
Can they actually leave it that long? Doesn't there have to be legislation or standing orders passed in respective Parliaments.
The EU are not going to wait till then , this is media nonsense .
They haven’t spent 3 years trying to avoid a no deal to take it to the wire in this manner .
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty any extension could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say the EU would consider an extension but has to be clear how the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week but any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not ruke until the last minute on the 31st
If the EU Parliament can’t vote in time are we to expect the EU council will chuck the UK out on no deal .
I presume they would offer a technical extension long enough to get the thing passed by the EU Parliament but only on condition it had already been passed by the UK Parliament.
It would be 'interesting' to see the agreement fall in the EU Parliament based on the votes of the British contingents and particularly the Brexit Party..
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
There is a local story in Lincolnshire that came up a few years ago regarding the local Portuguese workers in Boston.
Back in the Middle Ages Lincoln was the Royal Port of the region for the export of wool. Taxes were levied for the King on the wool as it was put on boats in Lincoln to go down the Witham and out to sea. But all the way down the Witham there are monasteries which were able to get their wool put onto the vessels after the Royal Port and so avoid paying taxes.
Eventually the King got fed up and moved the Royal Port status from Lincoln to Boston. This became a real point of anger between the two towns with Lincoln accusing Boston of having stolen its Royal status. There is a rivalry to this day which of course gets picked up in football.
A few years ago the local TV was in Boston talking to the Portuguese workers there about life in Lincolnshire and football rivalry was mentioned. One of the Portuguese told the reporter that one of the reasons people from Lincoln regarded people from Boston as their rivals was because Boston had stolen Lincoln's wool taxes.
A story that shows both the persistence of these traditions over the centuries and how well the new immigrants into the area had integrated into the community even down to their local rivalries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to build a wall around Lincolnshire and fill it with water.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't. An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I really disagree with this constant blaming of Parliament. Parliament is doing its job - holding the executive to account. Its job is not to just do whatever the PM wants.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
Parliament is not doing its job. If it were doing so we would now be well into a GE campaign. What they are doing is trying everything they can to frustrate the result of the referendum and eventually overturn it and/or seeking their own political advantage out of the current chaos. Neither of these is 'doing their job'.
No. They are upholding the result of the 2017 GE. The only party that campaigned on the possibility of leaving without a deal in 2017 failed to secure a majority, and even they said “no deal is better than a bad deal” - expressly accepting that bad deals might exist. What was left in Parliament after the 2017 GE were a number of differing interpretations of what a deal should be. Each MP (save for those who ran on a platform expressly opposed to Brexit like the SNP and the LDs) is attempting to get what, in their judgement, is the best deal for the country. Why should Parliament accept any old deal put in front of it in the name of “respecting” a vote that was superseded by their own mandate?
If Leave had won in 2016 with a specific deal in mind you might, might, have a point. But there is little or no mandate whatsoever for leaving at all costs.
These arguments do go round in circles don’t they?
Unfortunately they do and neither of us are going to agree with the other on this point.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
Note my use of the indefinite not the definite article. So rewrite the PD to make it point towards Norway+ not Canada- and extract some kind of binding commitment from the Tories not to renege (how this works with a congenital liar like Johnson I don't know, perhaps hold one of his unknown number of children hostage?). That should pass in the HOC.
Comments
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
I notice you had a very hectic period last night on here and do understand just how distressing this all is.
I do not know how this ends but I do hope you can come to terms with it if we do leave
There are lots of more important things than politics
More seriously, I think the answer to that question is that Boris has been very stupid. What the hell was he doing being so petulant and childish about complying with the Benn Act? He was within grasp of pulling off a major, almost impossible, coup: meeting his do-or-die pledge with a deal and taking us out of the EU in an orderly fashion on October 31st. All he needed to do last night was to comply in spirit as well as form with the Benn Act, send the letter (signed), and provide a covering note telling the EU that he was hopeful that a deal would be agreed by parliament next week. The EU wouldn't have responded to the request until after parliament had had time to ratify, so he'd have lost nothing but gained trust.
Instead, he has again acted in a way which maximises the suspicion which MPs have about his trustworthiness and good faith. That in turn makes it harder for him to get his deal next week. He might just make it still (although probably now with an extension he didn't need to have accepted), but the probability is less than it would have been if he'd acted more sensibly.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
Several government ministers needed police escorts home on Saturday afternoon, as there were a few bad tempered in the crowd demonstrating outside Parliament - even if the vast majority were well behaved, it only takes a few bad apples to upset the cart.
Hopefully MPs see sense and pick someone like Lindsay Hoyle as the next Speaker, a man from a very different mould to the incumbent. He would set the tone of debate in a very different way to Bercow.
Then they did.
BoZo for the win...
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1185855618135015424
Look at the Poll Tax for example...
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Letwin has been in significant positions in the Conservative party from 1983 onwards, his fuckwittery didn't start last month.
There is no trust and there never will be now. Boris is neither here nor there on this.
What I think the government should have done was the inverse of what they did: agree to send the Benn letter in return for the deal being approved, on the basis that the Benn letter would be of no effect unless something when wrong with the ratification of this 'great' deal.
And what difference does it make anyway? Even if the MV had passed unamended, you would have still got people trying to amend the legislation.
And in a divided country the fact that Parliament is divided is no surprise. Especially when the executive has done very little to develop and forge a consensus that even the losing side could come to terms with. If MPs have done things which their constituents don’t like then the latter can give their verdict at the next election.
Pretty much everyone from the PM down has made promises they haven’t kept. The idea that backbench MPs are somehow particularly bad in this regard is nonsense.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
The remainers will seek to amend the WAIB to the point that the ERG finds it unacceptable. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
That the bill will be amended looks pretty certain. In what way and how significantly is the key.
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
What happens when the next extension point nears?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
"Amendment (a) agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in light of the new deal agreed with the European Union, which enables the United Kingdom to respect the result of the referendum on its membership of the European Union and to leave the European Union on 31 October with a deal, this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed."
https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1185686033335246848
Did, though, once take my teenage daughter with me (on a Take your Daughter to Work Day) when I went to the House of Commons to meet with the then (female) MP for Thurrock. Said MP discovered that daughter's grandmother, my mother, had been a professional woman running her own business, and spent the time talking to daughter about women's rights. Barely got time to raise the matter I was supposed to be taking to her about!
That would be immediate withdrawal of the Whip . Even if MPs have been reselected removal of the whip means the party can find another candidate for the GE.
If Leave had won in 2016 with a specific deal in mind you might, might, have a point. But there is little or no mandate whatsoever for leaving at all costs.
These arguments do go round in circles don’t they?
There will probably come a point at which the models will show that the constant uncertainty and necessity for short term planning will mean that we would have been better off with a crash out no deal a couple of years ago than having any sort of transition period (or extensions eating into that period on effectively the same terms + MEP seats) at all.
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
JRM on a point of order said they would try and bring back a MV on Monday.
Bercow will rule on that tomorrow, but later seemed to agree they couldn't.
The concern this morning from cabinet is if they are allowed to bring another motion, it will be amended so much they can't vote for it.
Back in the Middle Ages Lincoln was the Royal Port of the region for the export of wool. Taxes were levied for the King on the wool as it was put on boats in Lincoln to go down the Witham and out to sea. But all the way down the Witham there are monasteries which were able to get their wool put onto the vessels after the Royal Port and so avoid paying taxes.
Eventually the King got fed up and moved the Royal Port status from Lincoln to Boston. This became a real point of anger between the two towns with Lincoln accusing Boston of having stolen its Royal status. There is a rivalry to this day which of course gets picked up in football.
A few years ago the local TV was in Boston talking to the Portuguese workers there about life in Lincolnshire and football rivalry was mentioned. One of the Portuguese told the reporter that one of the reasons people from Lincoln regarded people from Boston as their rivals was because Boston had stolen Lincoln's wool taxes.
A story that shows both the persistence of these traditions over the centuries and how well the new immigrants into the area had integrated into the community even down to their local rivalries.
Caveat: Generally speaking Bruno Waterfield is totally full of shit.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1185840407223177216
They haven’t spent 3 years trying to avoid a no deal to take it to the wire in this manner .
It would be 'interesting' to see the agreement fall in the EU Parliament based on the votes of the British contingents and particularly the Brexit Party..