politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mitch McConnell’s failure to back Trump on Syria should be worrying for the White House
The total focus on Brexit over the past few days has taken the attention away from United States politics where the ongoing saga in relation to Donald Trump is becoming even more perilous for the 73 year old.
I like you think trump will not do a second term and have never thought he would. Trump is a businessman first not a career politician. He wants to use the contacts he has made to build his business. There is little added value to this from a second term and a lot of risk.
Would it be cynical to suggest that maybe some Russian business associates were not unhappy with American retreat from Syria.
That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.
That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.
This is an odd saga. Because when you get away from it all, most US public opinion probably falls into two overlapping camps:
We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.
I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October - a second referendum - No Deal - making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for: - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
“The last five minutes of the test match epitomized this team. We were down by 20-odd... but we showed a never-die attitude and an ability to keep on getting up,” said Joseph, who revealed the influential Tamura had been playing with broken ribs for much of the match....
On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October - a second referendum - No Deal - making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for: - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.
A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.
All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October - a second referendum - No Deal - making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for: - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.
A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.
All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
Corbyn wants an election as soon as possible as long as we don't leave on 31st October. I think that's still his position.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
Yes, the constitutional duty of the opposition to help the government pass legislation that it disagrees with and for which the government cannot assemble a majority is a novel one, but frequently cited on PB. Chiefly by people who would scream bloody murder if it were the other way round.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?
Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
More worrying is the asymmetric part of it - the only CU that’s available to non-members is a real Turkey of a deal.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?
Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
More worrying is the asymmetric part of it - the only CU that’s available to non-members is a real Turkey of a deal.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
Jolly glad that's the case. Corbyn's outright opposition is screwing Labour good and proper. Long may it continue. Hey we might even get a Lib Dem Govt....
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
Presumably all those MPs understand that staying in the customs union would potentially mean an asymmetrical tariff structure for the UK with respect to third countries?
That is to say, the UK would have to allow tariff and quota free imports if that is what the EU decided, but would not necessarily have the right to export tariff and quota free to the same country? Much less to have the UK's prized services industries given any prominence at all in future trade talks?
Can't you see that this would leave the UK as the bargaining chip in all future EU trade negotiations? What's even more absurd given this is Labour policy, is that this is effectively what May negotiated (a Backstop with a view to permanent customs union). And yet Labour voted it down, even though it also had Level Playing Field conditions in the legally binding section of the treaty (now shifted to the non-binding Pol. Declaration of course).
Labour's customs union policy is pig-headed and designed for a single purpose - maximum short term political chaos over an issue that few people on the street will understand the implications of. While I have some sympathy that tribalism puts pressure on you to toe the line, it's such a disingenuous policy that it does you no credit at all for backing it.
On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October - a second referendum - No Deal - making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for: - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.
A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.
All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
Corbyn wants an election as soon as possible as long as we don't leave on 31st October. I think that's still his position.
If that's the case then we'd be looking at an election being called next week after the extension is granted? That doesn't seem to be the popular view among bettors on this website.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
On topic, Trump's main protection is red state primary voters. It's useful for him to keep the GOP bigwigs on-side, but they're not his last line of defence.
The combination of obvious ongoing crimes and - ahem - unconventional - foreign policy is a little bit dangerous for Trump, but the obvious solution is to fix it at the foreign policy end.
Mr. Brooke, perhaps. Some argue more involvement earlier would've been better.
Turns out the Middle East can be a quagmire.
the Middle East is just best left alone there is little to be gained from meddling and lots to lose. It remains to be seen how things will change given the US no longer has a need for ME oil in any great quantities.
Aside from a long standing commitment to the Saudis, the US has little to gain in the region. It is simply protecting China;s oil flows and for that matter the EUs. Those dependent on the oil may need to make thie own arrangements in future.
Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
Rather than playing these games which are putting the economy and people's lives on hold, isn't it more elegant to just put this to voters in a snap election and get a quick answer?
BPE: No Deal CON: The Deal LIB/SNP: Revoke LAB: People's Confirmatory Second Referendum on Remain vs Labour's Non-Tory Pro Jobs Brexit including a Customs Union, in which Labour would campaign for Remain except maybe some MPs in Leave seats if Momentum hasn't thrown bricks through their windows, as well as the Dear Leader who would not formally express a public opinion because that would go against his constitutional role but if asked outside his allotment by a well wisher would tell them that the "country should think carefully about the future".
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back. The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back. The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
What I want to know is if the Labour rebels will stick with the Government throughout the WA legislative process, come what may.
Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?
They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.
I think Boris will pull it if a referendum or customs union passes and call on the EU to provide the extension for a GE
A GE would be risky of course. And do either he or Cummings do risk? Seems to me that, like bullies and their like everywhere, he only moves when he either has to, or is sure he's going to get some advantage.Part of the reason we're in this mess is because he chickened out of a Tory leadership after Cameron resigned.
Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back. The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing
Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office
Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back. The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
I believe so.
The point of the Letwin amendment (for Letwin at least) was to ensure that the deal be fully legislated before we left, to avoid the possibility of No Deal.
The MV was intended to satisfy the Benn amendment so that an extension request did not have to be sent, and therefore leave open the prospect of No Deal in order to provide a means of pressuring the opposition. Clearly it has now failed in that, so I’m not really sure what the point of bringing it back is.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
I don’t think the Framers had the plot of Macbeth in mind when they wrote ‘natural born’.
Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
It’s never yet arisen because no actual President has been born outside the US (since ‘natural born’ became the criteria rather than ‘at the time this constitution is adopted’).
But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.
Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
I don’t think the Framers had the plot of Macbeth in mind when they wrote ‘natural born’.
Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
It’s never yet arisen because no actual President has been born outside the US (since ‘natural born’ became the criteria rather than ‘at the time this constitution is adopted’).
But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.
Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
There’s considerable speculation a suitably picked SC might rule otherwise. Though there’s also a dispute over whether it falls within their jurisdiction... which is probably why no one has yet tried.
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ? I’d be mildly surprised.
TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November
And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
That was the plan. Any bets it might change ?
maybe somebody can take him to court to force him to resign.
That is one of the things on which they won’t rule. If a majority of the Commons wants rid of him, he’ll have to go... but is not entirely clear that they will while the current WA is being debated.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing
Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office
Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
Independents are irrelevant if you can get Labour to tacitly support it.
Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
I see, you're expecting them to give in. Fine, but that's not going to happen. As David Herdson said on Saturday, this only resolves itself after a GE (and that might not do the job).
Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
Do any of the other Customs Union members (which technically included the microstates plus Turkey) pay fees?
Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing
Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office
Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
Independents are irrelevant if you can get Labour to tacitly support it.
The numbers are not there if the independents and lib dems do not back it
Indeed you cannot assume all of labour will support it even on a 3 line whip
Remember the government had 306 votes on Saturday v 322 so only 8 to change sides and both Letwin and Rudd committed to the deal yesterday.
Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
Do any of the other Customs Union members (which technically included the microstates plus Turkey) pay fees?
Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
If you think we can have the CU for free......there's a city in Belgium full of people who will quickly disabuse you of that!
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
I see, you're expecting them to give in. Fine, but that's not going to happen. As David Herdson said on Saturday, this only resolves itself after a GE (and that might not do the job).
I’m expecting them to want Brexit. But apparently securing their form of Brexit is more important than securing an agreed form of Brexit.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.
But then - we would Brexit.
Yep Lady Nugee, that's where we are. It's where we have been since the Remainers had a toddler tantrum in aisle three when the voters told them in the referendum that no, you can't have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
That's a meaningless truism.
A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
Rather than playing these games which are putting the economy and people's lives on hold, isn't it more elegant to just put this to voters in a snap election and get a quick answer?
BPE: No Deal CON: The Deal LIB/SNP: Revoke LAB: People's Confirmatory Second Referendum on Remain vs Labour's Non-Tory Pro Jobs Brexit including a Customs Union, in which Labour would campaign for Remain except maybe some MPs in Leave seats if Momentum hasn't thrown bricks through their windows, as well as the Dear Leader who would not formally express a public opinion because that would go against his constitutional role but if asked outside his allotment by a well wisher would tell them that the "country should think carefully about the future".
... except of course people vote on other issues or out of habit/tradition. Plus the fact that many votes will be for candidates that don't win due to FPTP.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?
Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
It’s been Labour policy since just after the last election, maybe the referendum. It’s not as if it has been sprung out of nowhere and given your glorious leader is relying on Labour votes to get this thing through, he could perhaps have prepared for this eventuality?
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
That's a meaningless truism.
A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
It is not Remainers' ambition to secure Brexit. It is for Leavers to consider how they are going to do that. It's not a meaningless truism to note that there are viable Brexit options that Leavers are spurning in pursuit of much more extreme versions.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
That's a meaningless truism.
A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
That’s just not true . It’s not just hardline Remainers who want a deal . Most of the Tory party bar the ERG want to leave with a deal .
Indeed if you ask the public aswell what their preferred outcome is a no deal is very much a minority opinion .
If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.
That doesn't solve the problem.
BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
And if the EU acts as a bunch of complete c***s in the commercial negotations? Any other position than being able to walk away means we have no negotiating position - and must eat whatever shit they put on our plates for ever. Use the Euro? Join the EU army? That's the price, guys. And oh, you can't veto it. Because Scott_P said we had to stop the "headbangers"
The hard decision has to be made once we have negotiated the deal. That was always just reality slapping you upside the head.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
Comments
Would it be cynical to suggest that maybe some Russian business associates were not unhappy with American retreat from Syria.
The real problem is that it would require Trump both to run and to win in 2020.
We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.
I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
- a second referendum
- No Deal
- making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for:
- the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
- a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201910210014.html
Japan battled on, despite a couple of players carrying injuries, including props Jiwoon Koo, Keita Inagaki and flyhalf Yu Tamura.
“The last five minutes of the test match epitomized this team. We were down by 20-odd... but we showed a never-die attitude and an ability to keep on getting up,” said Joseph, who revealed the influential Tamura had been playing with broken ribs for much of the match....
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.163014027
A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.
All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.
Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?
They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.
That is to say, the UK would have to allow tariff and quota free imports if that is what the EU decided, but would not necessarily have the right to export tariff and quota free to the same country? Much less to have the UK's prized services industries given any prominence at all in future trade talks?
Can't you see that this would leave the UK as the bargaining chip in all future EU trade negotiations? What's even more absurd given this is Labour policy, is that this is effectively what May negotiated (a Backstop with a view to permanent customs union). And yet Labour voted it down, even though it also had Level Playing Field conditions in the legally binding section of the treaty (now shifted to the non-binding Pol. Declaration of course).
Labour's customs union policy is pig-headed and designed for a single purpose - maximum short term political chaos over an issue that few people on the street will understand the implications of. While I have some sympathy that tribalism puts pressure on you to toe the line, it's such a disingenuous policy that it does you no credit at all for backing it.
Mr. Brooke, perhaps. Some argue more involvement earlier would've been better.
Turns out the Middle East can be a quagmire.
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
The combination of obvious ongoing crimes and - ahem - unconventional - foreign policy is a little bit dangerous for Trump, but the obvious solution is to fix it at the foreign policy end.
Aside from a long standing commitment to the Saudis, the US has little to gain in the region. It is simply protecting China;s oil flows and for that matter the EUs. Those dependent on the oil may need to make thie own arrangements in future.
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
BPE: No Deal
CON: The Deal
LIB/SNP: Revoke
LAB: People's Confirmatory Second Referendum on Remain vs Labour's Non-Tory Pro Jobs Brexit including a Customs Union, in which Labour would campaign for Remain except maybe some MPs in Leave seats if Momentum hasn't thrown bricks through their windows, as well as the Dear Leader who would not formally express a public opinion because that would go against his constitutional role but if asked outside his allotment by a well wisher would tell them that the "country should think carefully about the future".
The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
I’d be mildly surprised.
Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office
Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
The point of the Letwin amendment (for Letwin at least) was to ensure that the deal be fully legislated before we left, to avoid the possibility of No Deal.
The MV was intended to satisfy the Benn amendment so that an extension request did not have to be sent, and therefore leave open the prospect of No Deal in order to provide a means of pressuring the opposition.
Clearly it has now failed in that, so I’m not really sure what the point of bringing it back is.
But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.
Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
he helped create them. going will clear the air.
Any bets it might change ?
Though there’s also a dispute over whether it falls within their jurisdiction... which is probably why no one has yet tried.
If a majority of the Commons wants rid of him, he’ll have to go... but is not entirely clear that they will while the current WA is being debated.
Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
Resistance is clearly futile.
Indeed you cannot assume all of labour will support it even on a 3 line whip
Remember the government had 306 votes on Saturday v 322 so only 8 to change sides and both Letwin and Rudd committed to the deal yesterday.
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
More importantly she refutes adding a custom union to the deal but does want a referendum
But then - we would Brexit.
Yep Lady Nugee, that's where we are. It's where we have been since the Remainers had a toddler tantrum in aisle three when the voters told them in the referendum that no, you can't have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Its fine as it is.
Indeed if you ask the public aswell what their preferred outcome is a no deal is very much a minority opinion .
The hard decision has to be made once we have negotiated the deal. That was always just reality slapping you upside the head.
A week is a long time in politics.