Mr. Pulpstar, isn't that a daft amendment to allow, though? It's contrary to the withdrawal agreement.
Ordinarily I'd say yes, but we're a long long way past worrying about that on all sides now (Hard Remain, Hard Brexit, Gov't). There's value in the amendments that would ordinarily be a nonsense to test the will of the house for various options.
Morning all. Big big day! And how is this for commitment? My MP, Tulip Sadiq, has delayed giving birth in order to vote ‘No’. That is how eager she is to reject an orderly exit from the European Union on time and in accordance with the 2016 referendum. She is clearly far from alone in that sentiment. It does appear that the fact of defeat is certain, only the margin is a suitable topic of debate, on which btw I note no market from the pussies at Sporting Index, and of course what Plan B is going to be.
A word of caution from me, however, to those heavily invested, financially or emotionally, in there NOT being a smooth and timely exit from the EU. Consider the example of that other big ‘EU’ vote, one of my favourite events of the year, the Eurovision Song Contest. When that comes around all people of sound mind and good character are aware that it is a MASSIVE advantage to be the final act up. Why? Because your contribution is freshest in the minds of the electorate when they vote. So long as your contribution is strong you have an excellent chance of winning.
So who has the golden position in the MV debate? Who is slated to wind up? It’s a certain Theresa May, our Prime Minister, and what Eurovision teaches is that she can swing it if her speech is so powerful that it blows the House down. That is therefore the challenge for Mrs May. She needs to be Abba’s ‘Waterloo’ rather than, as has sadly been the case with her thus far, Gina G’s ‘Ooh Aah Just A Little Bit’. Can she deliver? Unlikely, but the possibility that she can, and hence the prospect of a negotiated exit from the EU on time and on budget and in accordance with the 2016 referendum, should not be discounted entirely.
I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings I'm all tied up to you But where's it leading me to?
Anything much happening to day. I heard there is some insignificant business in the HoC, but other than that, not much. How about a discussion on boxed wine instead?
Very dangerous stuff in my experience. Far too easy to just have another glass. It is a saving for me that bottles have a bottom that is not too far from the top.
On wine, as a teetotaler I know nothing - but the Good Lady Wifi say that the M&S Japanese 2016 Sol Lucet Koshu Kurambon Wine is immensely quaffable.
Mark, have you never drunk or is being teetotal a decision you made later in life?
Just a life-long faddy. Can't stand the taste or worse - the smell. Have a real violent reaction to it. Same with tea and coffee. Since I was a kid.
I think it is a weird thing in my genes. My father couldn't be in the same room as cheese. The smell again....
Made it easy going to dry countries. Until my hosts showed me their extensive drinks cabinets - and got slightly alarmed that I might be with the secret police when I said I didn't drink.
Great to see a fellow weather fan on here. Yes, the euro run last night was a picture. Shame that that killjoy Trumpton appears to have spiked the GFS!
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
What's the worst that happens if May stands up and effectively says "nothing has changed"? Her Government gets held in contempt of Parliament? Again?
Two options: the majority of MPs who evidently lack confidence in her government are able to take sufficient control of house business to instruct the government to do something different to avoid no deal. In which case they do that. Or they are unable to do so, in which case Tories who can’t accept her current approach have a choice between [resigning from the party and] voting no confidence as the only remaining sanction, or admitting that they don’t actually care about it quite enough to jeopardise their careers.
Great to see a fellow weather fan on here. Yes, the euro run last night was a picture. Shame that that killjoy Trumpton appears to have spiked the GFS!
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
The amendment is an opportunity for MPs to vote for a No Deal Brexit, nothing more.
It is an opportunity for MPs to highlight that there is a particular aspect of the current deal that is preventing them from supporting it.
We know that already. Those supporting it are supporting a No Deal Brexit. Presumably it’s an attempt to pin the blame on the EU27 for the consequences. I doubt it will work. That ship has sailed.
Mr. Pulpstar, isn't that a daft amendment to allow, though? It's contrary to the withdrawal agreement.
Ordinarily I'd say yes, but we're a long long way past worrying about that on all sides now (Hard Remain, Hard Brexit, Gov't). There's value in the amendments that would ordinarily be a nonsense to test the will of the house for various options.
The House has already voted to Leave on March 29th. So it's Deal or No Deal.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
The amendment is an opportunity for MPs to vote for a No Deal Brexit, nothing more.
It is an opportunity for MPs to highlight that there is a particular aspect of the current deal that is preventing them from supporting it.
We know that already. Those supporting it are supporting a No Deal Brexit. Presumably it’s an attempt to pin the blame on the EU27 for the consequences. I doubt it will work. That ship has sailed.
No - there are some who would support the deal if there was an end date or unilateral notice period.
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
What's the worst that happens if May stands up and effectively says "nothing has changed"? Her Government gets held in contempt of Parliament? Again?
Two options: the majority of MPs who evidently lack confidence in her government are able to take sufficient control of house business to instruct the government to do something different to avoid no deal. In which case they do that. Or they are unable to do so, in which case Tories who can’t accept her current approach have a choice between [resigning from the party and] voting no confidence as the only remaining sanction, or admitting that they don’t actually care about it quite enough to jeopardise their careers.
The latter, without doubt. Most MPs in most parties are career politicians. That, above all else, is why we’re heading to No Deal.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Mr. Pulpstar, isn't that a daft amendment to allow, though? It's contrary to the withdrawal agreement.
Ordinarily I'd say yes, but we're a long long way past worrying about that on all sides now (Hard Remain, Hard Brexit, Gov't). There's value in the amendments that would ordinarily be a nonsense to test the will of the house for various options.
The House has already voted to Leave on March 29th. So it's Deal or No Deal.
Well, Betfair now implies a probability of only 18% that we'll leave by March 29.
So if you're right, you'll be able to make a killing.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Depends which order the votes are held.
That amendment could be voted on after the vote on May's deal..
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Plus it specifically creates a side-deal to the deal which means that the govt would be negotiating and ratifying the deal (if it did) in bad faith.
So who has the golden position in the MV debate? Who is slated to wind up? It’s a certain Theresa May, our Prime Minister, and what Eurovision teaches is that she can swing it if her speech is so powerful that it blows the House down. That is therefore the challenge for Mrs May. She needs to be Abba’s ‘Waterloo’ rather than, as has sadly been the case with her thus far, Gina G’s ‘Ooh Aah Just A Little Bit’. Can she deliver?
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Depends which order the votes are held.
That amendment could be voted on after the vote on May's deal..
Does that work procedurally? I didn’t think the house could reject something, then amend it and accept it. Would the government have to reintroduce it with the amendment?
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Functionally that’s probably true but many of those backing it would genuinely believe it’s a vote to use the threat of no deal to get the EU to cave on the point that’s preventing agreement.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
Yep, and they’ll, be delighted to point to the withdrawal deal that they’ve already offered us and invite us to sign it.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
Functionally that’s probably true but many of those backing it would genuinely believe it’s a vote to use the threat of no deal to get the EU to cave on the point that’s preventing agreement.
Yep, I am sure they would. The levels of delusion around Brexit are vast and never-ending.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
For the government its better to have a no deal with the EU having rejected flexibility than a no deal without the EU having done so...
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
The road to WTO Brexit is a dead end a mile and a half short of an actual WTO Brexit.
Just not going to happen. I know it's easy and fun and makes people feel good to give it the "fuck 'em, that'll show them" kind of attitude and it is in any case typical of internet chatrooms where people often vent their fantasies about what they want to happen rather than what might happen.
But a moment's contemplation of what a WTO/No Deal Brexit would actually mean should lead sane types to understand that it ain't going to happen. Or at least ain't with the HoC as currently constituted.
If we had 650 John Redwoods then perhaps things would be different.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I would like to think so but remember an A50 extension can only come from TM and she is opposed to it (at present)
I fully agree with Mike's post. I don't like Bercow personally, but he is right to defend the House against a Prime Minister who has tried to marginalise it and has insulted it
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
I can't see May surviving as PM if her vote goes down and her first move is to ask for an extension unless there is a clear route to a deal - ie some of the backstop amendments being close to passing.
As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Bercow might decide he wishes to be perhaps the most significant parliamentarian since Cromwell and tilt real power away from the Gov't to the House though. The whole revoking Art 50 through a backbench bill/opposition day motion might not be far off the mark...
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
The road to WTO Brexit is a dead end a mile and a half short of an actual WTO Brexit.
Just not going to happen. I know it's easy and fun and makes people feel good to give it the "fuck 'em, that'll show them" kind of attitude and it is in any case typical of internet chatrooms where people often vent their fantasies about what they want to happen rather than what might happen.
But a moment's contemplation of what a WTO/No Deal Brexit would actually mean should lead sane types to understand that it ain't going to happen. Or at least ain't with the HoC as currently constituted.
If we had 650 John Redwoods then perhaps things would be different.
If we had 650 John Redwoods then Brexit would be the least of our problems
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
In which case it doesn't pass - I've been told constantly that there's no majority for no deal.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
How does that work practically? As you said earlier, and I probably agree, the one thing that career politicians won’t do is vote no confidence in their own party’s government. The DUP aren’t interested in a GE unless it’s their only way of stopping a deal they don’t like. There can’t be a leadership challenge for 11 months. So how can May be finished off?
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I would like to think so but remember an A50 extension can only come from TM and she is opposed to it (at present)
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
It's certainly true that, to get anything done, we need the government and the Commons to agree on a course of action. It really is sailing into uncharted waters if they don't.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
One could argue the government is showing flexibility in a negotiation by exploring options.
I understand as a remainder you don't like potential solutions to enable Brexit to proceed but the wider electorate will be sympathetic.
As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Bercow might decide he wishes to be perhaps the most significant parliamentarian since Cromwell and tilt real power away from the Gov't to the House though. The whole revoking Art 50 through a backbench bill/opposition day motion might not be far off the mark...
I floated this idea a week or so ago. Obviously all public bills traditionally come from the government but a back bench bill which the House voted to give time to would be competent, I think, and I don't see any problems with the HoLs which has even more Euro fanatics than the Commons. Really, really difficult to see how a government could possibly survive this though.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
Not at all. In extremis she will have no other option.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I would like to think so but remember an A50 extension can only come from TM and she is opposed to it (at present)
As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Bercow might decide he wishes to be perhaps the most significant parliamentarian since Cromwell and tilt real power away from the Gov't to the House though. The whole revoking Art 50 through a backbench bill/opposition day motion might not be far off the mark...
I floated this idea a week or so ago. Obviously all public bills traditionally come from the government but a back bench bill which the House voted to give time to would be competent, I think, and I don't see any problems with the HoLs which has even more Euro fanatics than the Commons. Really, really difficult to see how a government could possibly survive this though.
The DUP wouldn't support it. Nor would the vast majority of the Con party. Similar arithmetic to a VONC.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
I don't think we can assume it will be approved just because we ask for it. But equally, if the majority think it's necessary to avoid No Deal, it's difficult to see anyone vetoing it. The consequences of No Deal would be damaging to the 27 as well as to the UK, and very damaging to some of them.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
Yes, that's true. However, the general feeling in the EU seems to be that the European Parliament issue would be a nuisance but not an insurmountable problem.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
It is completely contrary to her entire strategy which is to run the clock down until there are no choices. Any application for an extension will be after she has gone.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Yes. It's not their problem, as such - just as long as something happens before the European Parliament elections (or that elections are managed via an EU-UK agreement somehow).
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I agree with this. It’s procedurally stupid, and the EU won’t accept it, but it would be the first time that the U.K. had a clearly stated view that would pass the House...
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
One could argue the government is showing flexibility in a negotiation by exploring options.
I understand as a remainder you don't like potential solutions to enable Brexit to proceed but the wider electorate will be sympathetic.
I want a deal because a No Deal is an absolute and unmitigated disaster for this country. As much as I hate it, I want May's deal to be approved for that reason. The EU will not agree to a time limit on the back stop because it is not a back stop if there is a time limit. And the EU will not negotiate with the UK full stop if it does not trust us.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
That is July. Now, I accept that it isn't the five to ten years necessary to conclude a trade agreement but it will do in the interim. And it certainly gives enough time for a second referendum.
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I agree with this. It’s procedurally stupid, and the EU won’t accept it, but it would be the first time that the U.K. had a clearly stated view that would pass the House...
What’s the last date that a VONC could lead to an election before 29th March?
For an Election on the 28th March Parliament must be dissolved before midnight on the 21st Feb. Working back from that you need a VONC on 6th Feb latest..
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Bercow might decide he wishes to be perhaps the most significant parliamentarian since Cromwell and tilt real power away from the Gov't to the House though. The whole revoking Art 50 through a backbench bill/opposition day motion might not be far off the mark...
I floated this idea a week or so ago. Obviously all public bills traditionally come from the government but a back bench bill which the House voted to give time to would be competent, I think, and I don't see any problems with the HoLs which has even more Euro fanatics than the Commons. Really, really difficult to see how a government could possibly survive this though.
The DUP wouldn't support it. Nor would the vast majority of the Con party. Similar arithmetic to a VONC.
I tend to agree. It seems much more likely to me that Corbyn would get his election than us proceeding down that path. The government would have fallen.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
How does that work practically? As you said earlier, and I probably agree, the one thing that career politicians won’t do is vote no confidence in their own party’s government. The DUP aren’t interested in a GE unless it’s their only way of stopping a deal they don’t like. There can’t be a leadership challenge for 11 months. So how can May be finished off?
There can be a leadership challenge if the rules are changed. And the rules are very easy to change, as I understand it.
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I agree with this. It’s procedurally stupid, and the EU won’t accept it, but it would be the first time that the U.K. had a clearly stated view that would pass the House...
...but it’s still a view involving unicorns.
A second referendum is not a unicorn, though.
It isn’t. It’s a donkey from an animal rescue centre near Brighton with a Waitrose organic carrot attached to its head.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
That is July. Now, I accept that it isn't the five to ten years necessary to conclude a trade agreement but it will do in the interim. And it certainly gives enough time for a second referendum.
And if the result was to revoke and remain - then the entire election is a problem as the other countries have additional MEPs in our seats (for example France had 74 in 2014 but will have 79 in 2019)?
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
It's certainly true that, to get anything done, we need the government and the Commons to agree on a course of action. It really is sailing into uncharted waters if they don't.
And that is the problem in a nutshell whilst there is a clear majority against everything. The Commons needs to work out what it is for, not what its against. I see very little sign of that to date.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
It's certainly true that, to get anything done, we need the government and the Commons to agree on a course of action. It really is sailing into uncharted waters if they don't.
And that is the problem in a nutshell whilst there is a clear majority against everything. The Commons needs to work out what it is for, not what its against. I see very little sign of that to date.
Hence why these Con backbench amendments are very useful barometers.
What’s the last date that a VONC could lead to an election before 29th March?
For an Election on the 28th March Parliament must be dissolved before midnight on the 21st Feb. Working back from that you need a VONC on 6th Feb latest..
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Why when an extension requires all 27 EU countries to vote for it is everyone so sure that 1 country won't veto it...
There's no certainty, but on the relatively minor question of an extension, there would be a very strong wish in the EU to remain united, and so the probability is that it would pass (assuming there's a good reason for it). But no guarantee, of course.
Given that any extension beyond mid May would leave us as members of the EU as the European Parliament is subject to election I'm really not as sure as other people are about that.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
That is July. Now, I accept that it isn't the five to ten years necessary to conclude a trade agreement but it will do in the interim. And it certainly gives enough time for a second referendum.
And if the result was to revoke and remain - then the entire election is a problem as the other countries have additional MEPs in our seats (for example France had 74 in 2014 but will have 79 in 2019)?
I think in the scheme of things these are relatively trivial. If there weren't half a dozen EU apparatchiks working on it as I type then I would be amazed.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
And? At some point in this someone is going to have to tell May the game is up
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
And? At some point in this someone is going to have to tell May the game is up
Imagine May's deal goes down by 200, the Con amendment goes down by just say 50..
That sets the narrative - and the ball back in the Barnier's side of the court.
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I agree with this. It’s procedurally stupid, and the EU won’t accept it, but it would be the first time that the U.K. had a clearly stated view that would pass the House...
What’s the last date that a VONC could lead to an election before 29th March?
For an Election on the 28th March Parliament must be dissolved before midnight on the 21st Feb. Working back from that you need a VONC on 6th Feb latest..
Thank you sir!
I wonder, whether, as a Witham constituency resident, whether in that case there'd be a 'May's Deal Conservative' up against Priti Patel. And which would be the Official Conservative candidate.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
This amendment makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone explain it?
It’s an attempt to deal with the EU’s reluctance to negotiate further until the U.K. has a unified position that will pass Parliament. If the amendment passes, then it wrecks the Bill, which means the Bill could pass because it no longer implements the WA. May can then say ‘look, the backstop really is the only problem, can’t you get rid of it?’
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
Yep - it’s a vote for a No Deal.
No it isn't. There will be an A50 extension if it looks like no deal is getting anywhere close.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
May will never ask for an extension. That would finish her off.
How does that work practically? As you said earlier, and I probably agree, the one thing that career politicians won’t do is vote no confidence in their own party’s government. The DUP aren’t interested in a GE unless it’s their only way of stopping a deal they don’t like. There can’t be a leadership challenge for 11 months. So how can May be finished off?
There can be a leadership challenge if the rules are changed. And the rules are very easy to change, as I understand it.
I had heard the opposite, but can’t find the link. Could be more than a month I think. A normal politician would surely resign if say two-thirds of their MPs expressed no confidence in writing but I think May’s response would make Corbyn’s 2016 performance look flexible and collegiate.
Of course what the Withdrawal Act and now the Grieve amendment require is a statement from a minister about what they intend to do next. It is possible, I suppose, that that statement will amount to, well, we will have another chat with the EU, see what we get and try again.
Provided that the government does not lose a VonC there are limits to what the HoC can do.
No, the Grieve amendment specifies more than just a statement, there has to be a motion tabled within three days (and that motion can, I think, be amended). So parliament will have the opportunity to actually decide something, should it so wish.
But as even Bercow conceded a motion does not override a statute. Suppose the HoC voted for a second referendum in an amendment to the motion. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 would continue to apply. Furthermore such a referendum would itself require primary legislation and funding. As I said, short of bringing the government down, there are limits to what the HoC can do.
Demonstrating a majority in the House for such a motion would, however, present May with an effective ultimatum - and give the lie to the claim that there is no majority for any alternative to May's deal. At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
I agree with this. It’s procedurally stupid, and the EU won’t accept it, but it would be the first time that the U.K. had a clearly stated view that would pass the House...
...but it’s still a view involving unicorns.
A second referendum is not a unicorn, though.
But like a unicorn it gives you the horn?
Unicorns; famously overly protective of their horns. 🦄 🦄 🦄
Note the heavy overlap of signatories with my list of uncommitted MPs. This looks like a list of MPs who would like to be loyal but are struggling to do so.
Useful thing for May to stick under Mutti's nose.
"There is a way out, Angela....."
I think that these soft Brexiteer amendments are the key metric to watch tonight.
The number of switchers who vote down May's deal but support these amendments (assuming Bercow allows them to proceed to vote) could show the most likely way forward.
All roads lead to WTO Brexit which then allows for parallel negotiations with the EU of a Withdrawal Deal and a Free Trade Deal.
The road to WTO Brexit is a dead end a mile and a half short of an actual WTO Brexit.
Just not going to happen. I know it's easy and fun and makes people feel good to give it the "fuck 'em, that'll show them" kind of attitude and it is in any case typical of internet chatrooms where people often vent their fantasies about what they want to happen rather than what might happen.
But a moment's contemplation of what a WTO/No Deal Brexit would actually mean should lead sane types to understand that it ain't going to happen. Or at least ain't with the HoC as currently constituted.
If we had 650 John Redwoods then perhaps things would be different.
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
And? At some point in this someone is going to have to tell May the game is up
Imagine May's deal goes down by 200, the Con amendment goes down by just say 50..
That sets the narrative - and the ball back in the Barnier's side of the court.
Who asks May with whom he ought to negotiate in order that the UK can agree to something!
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
So then the EU should wave us off into the sunset....
Of course, the government’s support for the Murrison amendment - tacit or overt - shows precisely why the EU feels the backstop is necessary. The UK cannot be trusted to stick with agreements it has made.
Any agreement between Barnier and Robbins is made with the assumption that it has to be agreed by Parly.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
The government has agreed. It is now seemingly supporting an amendment that would render what it had agreed to void. It cannot be trusted.
The government can agree - but it can't sign up until the House has given its consent.
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
The government can make clear it opposes the amendment.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
Which takes us back to the UK not being a trustworthy party with which to negotiate.
Only in your mind.
A government that signs an agreement and then backs amendments in the House of Commons that render the agreement void is a government that cannot be trusted. That's just a matter of simple fact.
Mr. Gate, democracy degrading into anarchy was one of Polybius' (I think) criticisms of it. Hence the mingling of monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic aspects in both Rome and Sparta, for stability (to see off the negative cycle of monarchy giving way to tyranny, being overthrown by aristocracy which becomes oligarchy, and is in turn supplanted by a democracy that degrades into anarchy, leading to monarchy, and so on).
Had to look that one up. And, OK, I agree. No chance. Which is great because I am as keen as the next man to see what Plan B will be. I suspect something along the following lines:
"My people. They have only gone and done it. MPs have rejected the best and only negotiated exit from the European Union. It's a damn shame but nothing has changed. I am still your Prime Minister and I am still resolved to deliver on the referendum instruction that we leave the EU. It is my duty. So I will go to Brussels and obtain some further assurances, then I will give parliament a second and final chance to vote on it, knowing that if they reject it again we are nonetheless leaving on 29th March. If colleagues wish some other outcome, and bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition is as keen as I am that we honour the referendum, then they need to turn their fancy talk of replacing my government with some sort of Grand Unity Coalition into reality. I bet they can't. In the meantime we go back to work. Thank you."
Comments
There's value in the amendments that would ordinarily be a nonsense to test the will of the house for various options.
Then I'll lose on the swings
In or out, there is never a doubt
Just who's pulling the strings
I'm all tied up to you
But where's it leading me to?
I think it is a weird thing in my genes. My father couldn't be in the same room as cheese. The smell again....
Made it easy going to dry countries. Until my hosts showed me their extensive drinks cabinets - and got slightly alarmed that I might be with the secret police when I said I didn't drink.
The House has already voted to Leave on March 29th. So it's Deal or No Deal.
Which isn't a no deal Brexit.
Dropping the backstop would get the DUP and some Conservatives back on board, but other MPs would still vote against for one reason or another.
May would take that - shifts all the blame onto the EU...
If that cunning plan works, it also means we never see how badly the WA is defeated, which in turn means that the EU say ‘but you haven’t voted on our agreement, so we’re not doing anything else until you have that vote.’
So if you're right, you'll be able to make a killing.
That amendment could be voted on after the vote on May's deal..
Oh, as I see @Southam has noted also.
So there is no agreement to be broken - yet.
Not sure how many times this can be said but no deal is an impossibility.
Just not going to happen. I know it's easy and fun and makes people feel good to give it the "fuck 'em, that'll show them" kind of attitude and it is in any case typical of internet chatrooms where people often vent their fantasies about what they want to happen rather than what might happen.
But a moment's contemplation of what a WTO/No Deal Brexit would actually mean should lead sane types to understand that it ain't going to happen. Or at least ain't with the HoC as currently constituted.
If we had 650 John Redwoods then perhaps things would be different.
"A managed ‘no deal’ is a fantasy - we would face immediate delivery shortages, disruption, additional costs and uncertainty."
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
You can wilfully ignore this but its always an overt rule of the negotiation.
At an absolute minimum, it reframes the debate.
At any other period during an European Parliament I could understand it but I suspect the timing makes it harder than it would otherwise be,.
I understand as a remainder you don't like potential solutions to enable Brexit to proceed but the wider electorate will be sympathetic.
...but it’s still a view involving unicorns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-the-trump-white-house-for-comment-and-you-might-get-a-nondenial-denial/2019/01/14/e607120a-1780-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
Government announces considering raising the speed limit.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-minister-says-that-80kph-speed-limit-could-revert-back-to-90kph-if-it-does-not-save-lives
Democracy in action.
It could but given it's obvious that the deal as is cannot pass the house that a would be dog in a manger stuff.
That sets the narrative - and the ball back in the Barnier's side of the court.
350 more than enough......
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1085121753729388544
The Mann amendment and change on the backstop would get enough support to squeak May's deal through, IMHO.
Again, it's a no.
This is can kicking again.
"My people. They have only gone and done it. MPs have rejected the best and only negotiated exit from the European Union. It's a damn shame but nothing has changed. I am still your Prime Minister and I am still resolved to deliver on the referendum instruction that we leave the EU. It is my duty. So I will go to Brussels and obtain some further assurances, then I will give parliament a second and final chance to vote on it, knowing that if they reject it again we are nonetheless leaving on 29th March. If colleagues wish some other outcome, and bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition is as keen as I am that we honour the referendum, then they need to turn their fancy talk of replacing my government with some sort of Grand Unity Coalition into reality. I bet they can't. In the meantime we go back to work. Thank you."