politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting money’s going on the Commons approving the deal
Options
Comments
-
Does it really matter ?kle4 said:
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actionsTissue_Price said:
At the end of the day, a majority of parliament can trump a Speaker's ruling (as Bercow himself explicitly recognised this afternoon regarding MV3).
Bercow has put Parliament back in charge of what happens next (if it can make its mind up).
The alternative is making Parliament the plaything of the executive, even when it doesn't command a majority on the issue in question.0 -
Agent Bercow reveals why he stayed on longer than promised as speaker..... seek Brexit off and then retire?
Listening to a furious Brexiteer on way home just now on R5 wanting to support MV3 now.....
Heart of stone.0 -
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.0 -
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.0 -
Not really you can use a standing order . Bercow said the Commons can do that . If there’s a majority for the deal then the majority can vote to change the standing order which then allows the vote .Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the way I see it and TM is probably quietly pleased as it has stopped the MV hastle this week so she can go to the EU and see where it takes her.SouthamObserver said:My hot take on Bercow’s ruling: it makes very little practical difference, but does provide a lot of cover for a lot of people to justify decisions they were going to make anyway.
Sky saying that it had also stopped a second referendum and indeed if an attempt was made to bring it back Bercow's ruling would make it inadmissable as it has already been voted on
In truth Bercow may have trumped both no deal ERG members and remainers in one ruling0 -
As long as it stops Brexit he won't care,he'll get the hero status he wants.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.0 -
It really is as simple as that.kle4 said:
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actionsTissue_Price said:0 -
It is unlikely they have the power to do so.anothernick said:
If the government does nothing parliament will certainly do something. If it comes to it, it will send Bercow to Brussels bearing a revocation letter.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
0 -
It doesn't matter on this particular issue (as you say there are ways around what he has decided), but it does matter generally because he is demonstrating that he will selectively choose when to follow precedent and when he won't (last time admitting he had not thought about any longer term implications) for his own political ends.Nigelb said:
Does it really matter ?kle4 said:
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actionsTissue_Price said:
At the end of the day, a majority of parliament can trump a Speaker's ruling (as Bercow himself explicitly recognised this afternoon regarding MV3).
Bercow has put Parliament back in charge of what happens next (if it can make its mind up).
The alternative is making Parliament the plaything of the executive, even when it doesn't command a majority on the issue in question.0 -
Of course, there is one other way of keeping her WA alive. Forgive me if this has already occurred to everyone else.
She brings it back to the House with the clause that it will go to a people's vote. Labour might support that especially if Remain is the other option.0 -
Is having a name which sounds like a bizarre sex act a help or hindrance in US politics? I’d know the answer in the British Isles.AlastairMeeks said:Also in the US Democratic nomination race, the Buttigieg call is being answered. He was last matched at 40 and looks to be set to shorten from there.
0 -
No, that's not what it has done.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the way I see it and TM is probably quietly pleased as it has stopped the MV hastle this week so she can go to the EU and see where it takes her.SouthamObserver said:My hot take on Bercow’s ruling: it makes very little practical difference, but does provide a lot of cover for a lot of people to justify decisions they were going to make anyway.
Sky saying that it had also stopped a second referendum and indeed if an attempt was made to bring it back Bercow's ruling would make it inadmissable as it has already been voted on
...
The same referendum motion could not be brought back, but a substantially different one could.
That is considerably less of a barrier than that to holding MV3, which literally means doing the MV thing all over again.
But in reality, either require a majority in the House to have any meaning.
0 -
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?kle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?0 -
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delayNigelb said:
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June0 -
It's as simple as I explained it yes. Something can be an ok call but still troubling. Bercow makes calls that please plenty of people (this one I find less pleasing but I thought beforehand that he had plenty of justification to make that call), but he should not make decisions based solely on advancing his own aims, which he clearly does.Nigelb said:
It really is as simple as that.kle4 said:
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actionsTissue_Price said:0 -
I will excuse your ignorance as you clearly don't follow things very closely. But I am not in favour of No Deal.Mysticrose said:
Keep telling yourself it.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
Eventually the penny will drop.
What I am stating are the facts. If Parliament does not pass an alternative by 29th March then we will No Deal. The only person who can stop that is May and I am not confident that she will. As it stands Parliament cannot force her to do so. They can only VONC her and at this point even that is too late if she truly decides she will not revoke.
All the votes against No Deal are meaningless if she does not want to revoke.0 -
It’s not new but why is the “tsar” used? Given the fate of the Romanovs, it hardly seems like a happy title. Equally, I’m disappointed that Kaiser or Imperator hasn’t retired to common currency.Pulpstar said:Andrew Yang won't be the nominee, but if he gets a job as perhaps an entrepreneur tsar in say a Biden administration then he can remove some of Trump's base in the General.
It's a very specific part of Trump's base, but I contend it definitely exists.0 -
If that happens I'll share a drink with you Big_GBig_G_NorthWales said:
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delayNigelb said:
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June0 -
I admire your optimism, Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delayNigelb said:
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June
I would hesitate to predict what happens next.0 -
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?kle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.0 -
Yes if they choose that course.eek said:
In breach of Parliament's stated desire last Thursday (not that desire = something that will occur)..Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
0 -
I may well be wrong but again it is an instinctive feeling that once no deal has gone brexiteers will vote for the WDA, amended if necessaryNorm said:
If that happens I'll share a drink with you Big_GBig_G_NorthWales said:
I think no deal will be off the table next week when TM returns from the EU, at which time I expect her to table MV3 with amended detail including the extension delayNigelb said:
You might say that about the entire Brexit saga.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The danger for Bercow is the law of unintended consequencieskle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
He is at least forcing the issue, though I'm not convinced it makes No Deal and more or less likely.
This has been perfect for her as Bercow pulled the vote thereby protecting her from attack that she was kicking the can down the road
I expect MV3 will pass next week and we leave on the 30th June0 -
The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.0
-
Precisely.kle4 said:
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?kle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
Bercow's decision now chimes with what Erskine May and precedent says.
Bercow's decisions recently don't.
A previous speaker making this ruling would be respected. Those are the rules and that's the precedent. Given Bercow's penchant for dispensing with precedent when it suited him, Bercow won't be respected for this. That is entirely his own making.0 -
He's certainly.... interesting:Pulpstar said:Andrew Yang won't be the nominee, but if he gets a job as perhaps an entrepreneur tsar in say a Biden administration then he can remove some of Trump's base in the General.
It's a very specific part of Trump's base, but I contend it definitely exists.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18256622/andrew-yang-2020-president-meme-yanggang0 -
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
0 -
Which they obviously won't.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes if they choose that course.eek said:
In breach of Parliament's stated desire last Thursday (not that desire = something that will occur)..Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
I don't think anyone needs to be hit over the head with the rule book that yes yes yes we're due to leave without a deal on March 29th.
Just ain't gonna happen buddy.0 -
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
0 -
Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.0
-
The ERGers seem to have read it wrong .... unprecedented...
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/11076989979663155200 -
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
0 -
I don't disagree, and as soon as we've got a parliament where there's a stable majority for one party or another, he'll be gone.kle4 said:
It's as simple as I explained it yes. Something can be an ok call but still troubling. Bercow makes calls that please plenty of people (this one I find less pleasing but I thought beforehand that he had plenty of justification to make that call), but he should not make decisions based solely on advancing his own aims, which he clearly does.Nigelb said:
It really is as simple as that.kle4 said:
It's not as simple as all that. It's true MV3 looked like it would fail, and Bercow has something to back up his view this time. But it is also true that he doesn't care about precedent when it causes something he wants, so it is also fair to question his actionsTissue_Price said:
In the meantime, despite his annoying idiosyncrasies, and erratic arguments, he does seem to hold fairly fast to the principle of defending Parliament's rights under a minority government.
At the moment, that is no bad thing.
0 -
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.0 -
Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.0 -
Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?0
-
Because Parliament has refused to ratify the deal and doesn't want to crash out with no deal so this is all that is left.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.0 -
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.0 -
Absolutely. He has abused precedent too many times for this to be anything other than him playing politics.Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.kle4 said:
As I have said, Bercow's call was not unjustified under the rules, I cannot criticise him for making it. I retain concerns because he picks and chooses based on his personal politics which rules he wants to follow.Peter_the_Punter said:
Isn't he just singing from the Brexiteer Hymn Book?kle4 said:
Yes, that's probably right. He is fortunate to be in a position where most people won't really know whether there are any complexities he has ignored (or not) to suit his own ends, and the only people who will care are in parliament, and over half will always back him up over the government anyway.Mysticrose said:It's interesting that across the internet there's surprisingly little anger directed at Bercow on this occasion.
I think it's because, let's face it, this was an unloved deal. For just about everyone.
The result of the Referendum must be respected, the Leavers say. So the result of the Meaningful Vote must be respected, no? You can't keep presenting the same question until you get the answer you want, can you?
But it also doesn't make the comparison between parliamentary votes and referenda any less silly. The two are not comparable in scale or type.
Bercow's decision now chimes with what Erskine May and precedent says.
Bercow's decisions recently don't.
A previous speaker making this ruling would be respected. Those are the rules and that's the precedent. Given Bercow's penchant for dispensing with precedent when it suited him, Bercow won't be respected for this. That is entirely his own making.0 -
0
-
The only things she listed at the despatch box as an alternative to the deal were revocation and a second referendum, so if she's going to request an extension, it can only be for a referendum.AlastairMeeks said:
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.0 -
The nuclear response to that might just be the formation of a government of national unity for the sole purpose of revoking A50 before a general election...RochdalePioneers said:Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?
0 -
To kick the can down the road some more ! Only, now there is no can.AlastairMeeks said:
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.0 -
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
0 -
I'm sorry, but has no one in No. 10 wargamed Bercow doing this? There was talk of it last week!!!!!williamglenn said:0 -
To be fair, ministers probably have no idea about No 10's plans.rottenborough said:
I'm sorry, but has no one in No. 10 wargamed Bercow doing this? There was talk of it last week!!!!!williamglenn said:0 -
I'm sure he isn't... But law of unintended consequences, etcScrapheap_as_was said:The ERGers seem to have read it wrong .... unprecedented...
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1107698997966315520
0 -
"Absolute shock " is a telling phrase. It obviously has not been even discussed, let alone war gamed, despite it being raised numerous times as a possibility on here and by MPs.williamglenn said:
Shambolic in every way.0 -
How anyone could accuse the Conseratives of being a danger to national security when the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me.DougSeal said:Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.
0 -
It is as though they have until now not been aware that any plan they might come up with requires a majority in Parliament.rottenborough said:
I'm sorry, but has no one in No. 10 wargamed Bercow doing this? There was talk of it last week!!!!!williamglenn said:
That has not changed.0 -
In the circumstances I’d expect other parties to block it, though watching JC whip his MPs to have confidence in HMG would be amusing.RochdalePioneers said:Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?
0 -
The question is, does No. 10?williamglenn said:
To be fair, ministers probably have no idea about No 10's plans.rottenborough said:
I'm sorry, but has no one in No. 10 wargamed Bercow doing this? There was talk of it last week!!!!!williamglenn said:0 -
Still, at least we'll discover what happens when a bloody difficult woman encounters a bloody difficult man.0
-
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
0 -
IF TM can pass a deal surely she can pass a motion directing the chair to allow the vote?
Is the Speaker not bound by the wishes of the House?0 -
Yes, grovelling for mercy should do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Because Parliament has refused to ratify the deal and doesn't want to crash out with no deal so this is all that is left.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.
Who is the most obsequious Minister to send?0 -
That's the point. It's unanswerable. Unless she says she will take it to the people ...Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.
Can't see any other way the WA remains alive?0 -
To get a positive spin, it has to be Bercow crashing an otherwise likely to pass deal.rottenborough said:
I'm sorry, but has no one in No. 10 wargamed Bercow doing this? There was talk of it last week!!!!!williamglenn said:0 -
Had not the EU already said that they must be convinced that a majority of Parliament will back any plan behind A50 extension, as a condition of agreeing it ?AlastairMeeks said:
She has to come up with a new plan before she gets there. So whatever that new plan is will be her answer.Pulpstar said:Rutte has said that he is going to ask her WHY she is requesting the extension.
How the hell does she answer that one.
In effect Bercow has simply reinforced that message.0 -
But the Government still exists until another one is appointed right?numbertwelve said:
In the circumstances I’d expect other parties to block it, though watching JC whip his MPs to have confidence in HMG would be amusing.RochdalePioneers said:Nuclear option for the ERG. No confidence in HMG. If there is no functioning government who will push through the SI's needed to delay Brexit?
0 -
-
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.Fishing said:
How anyone could accuse the Conseratives of being a danger to national security when the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me.DougSeal said:Since Sir John Gorst resigned the whip in December 1996, depriving John Major of his majority, the Conservative Party have held a majority in the House of Commons for a grand total of two years. In those two years what achievements have they shown? They (1) instituted a referendum with no plan of what to do if one option won, and (2) triggered Article 50 with little or no plan of what to do at the end of the 2 year period it mandated. That's what happens when you put this shower in charge. The organisation is a danger to national security.
0 -
"Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes."numbertwelve said:IF TM can pass a deal surely she can pass a motion directing the chair to allow the vote?
Is the Speaker not bound by the wishes of the House?0 -
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.0 -
That's the point - she can't so in reality he is granting her an element of mercy...numbertwelve said:IF TM can pass a deal surely she can pass a motion directing the chair to allow the vote?
Is the Speaker not bound by the wishes of the House?0 -
It looks like the only company Farage's marchers have along their route is from Led By Donkeys. They've been left in the lurch by the Brexit leaders.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11076449882660372480 -
Yes but you're not listening. They're not going to suspend the s.o. simply to bring back the same motion they already kicked out by 230 and 149 majoritiesFreggles said:
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
The HoC hates the wretched deal and Bercow has just helped them not have to vote on the darned thing ever again.
Unless she attaches a referendum ...0 -
Especially as we know the same he’ll is inevitable... as a Catholic JRzm should appreciate that: purgatory followed by limboRichard_Nabavi said:
Not if we come back to the same hell, which seems near-certain.Jonathan said:
On the contrary, escaping this current hell sounds cathartic.Richard_Nabavi said:I think this might end up with an extension and an election. Unfortunately that probably won't resolve anything.
0 -
Well if she can’t do that she can’t pass her deal anyway so it’s a completely moot point. If she thinks she can she can bring the motion.eek said:
That's the point - she can't so in reality he is granting her an element of mercy...numbertwelve said:IF TM can pass a deal surely she can pass a motion directing the chair to allow the vote?
Is the Speaker not bound by the wishes of the House?0 -
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
0 -
She might not thoughMysticrose said:
Yes but you're not listening. They're not going to suspend the s.o. simply to bring back the same motion they already kicked out by 230 and 149 majoritiesFreggles said:
No. He has said that Parliament can vote to suspend that standing order.Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
The HoC hates the wretched deal and Bercow has just helped them not have to vote on the darned thing ever again.
Unless she attaches a referendum ...
0 -
Hilarious some Tory MPs are saying he robbed them of a chance to vote yes to the deal . More faux outrage !0
-
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.0 -
Johnny Bercow. Legend.
That is all 0 -
I can’t see how it’s over any more than it was earlier today.Mysticrose said:
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.
If she can pass a deal she can pass a vote allowing for a vote on the deal. MPs would just have to march through the lobbies twice rather than once.
If she can’t (and it looks like she can’t at this stage) then she won’t be able to, but I don’t see the seismic change.0 -
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.Mysticrose said:
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.0 -
Hypothetically if the EU votes to extend Britain's membership to 31 December 2020, but change the Deal to us leaving by 30 June 2019 if we ratify the Deal on time, then the No Deal clock would be automatically extended to 31 December 2020 but we would be able to exit still in June. Article 50 says a deal takes precedence over the 2 years/extended time period.Mysticrose said:
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.
Once that is done, a majority might (just might) be found to take the deal now rather than wait until 31 Dec 2020.0 -
It doesn't have to be a change to either the WA or the PD, it could be a change to the Standing Orders.CarlottaVance said:
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.Mysticrose said:
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.0 -
Pity the poor Brexiteers who got flak for their 'betrayal' and now won't even get chance to vote for the deal.0
-
Corbyn a preferred optionCarlottaVance said:
It doesn’t have to be the WA (which won’t change) - it can be to the PD - which can easily change.Mysticrose said:
I get that but that's the point. May won't get any change to the deal out of the EU.Nigelb said:
No. Simply that Bercow is right in not allowing time to be wasted on a third vote on a motion which is not going to pass.Mysticrose said:
Hang on. So you're suggesting a deal which the house has already rejected by 230 and 149 strong majorities (the 1st and 4th greatest ever defeats for a government) would be voted back to the house by the house?Nigelb said:
Did you not read what Bercow said this afternoon ?Mysticrose said:
No she can't. That's what Bercow's ruling meant. She cannot table the Withdrawal Agreement again unless it is substantially different.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She can if the HOC votes for it and it is the only way a referendum amendment could be madeMysticrose said:
But that still doesn't alter his point: even after the EU summit she can't bring it back to the house unless it has changed. Simply extending our departure isn't an alteration to her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It makes sense to be fair. Why vote before the EU meetings this week and risk it falling again. Bercow has given TM cover to let the HOC decide after the EU have had their saykle4 said:The most annoying thing is really just that it pushes back the nonsense a few more days.
Unless, for instance, it then includes a referendum pledge.
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
So, if (and only if) there is a majority to back it in the House, there is also a procedure to bring it to the vote.
All I can say is ... lol.
If May can change that, then he will.
It's over.0 -
How very British of the Marchers and LBD to find some compromise on seating!williamglenn said:It looks like the only company Farage's marchers have along their route is from Led By Donkeys. They've been left in the lurch by the Brexit leaders.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11076449882660372480 -
Sorry don't mean to sound patronising but I don't think this is being thought through. Mind you, it's not surprising given the flux we're in.
We already know the EU won't change the deal. The chances of them sending back the WA to the HoC are zero. Why would they?
Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
So please please forget the technical capability of the HoC to suspend the standing order. Right:
So what are the alternatives?
The EU grant an extension with new terms e.g. the HoC has to hold indicative votes. Or the WA Brexit needs 'softening' to a customs union. Or that it must go to a referendum.
Or
Mrs May herself says she will take it to the people in a referendum.
On those grounds the EU might grant an extension.
The power now lies mainly with the EU.
Unless of course we just revoke Article 50.0 -
Two procedural questions:
Does Mrs May have the power to unilaterally:
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first;
b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.0 -
It's not relevant. Famously the EU does not deal with parliaments, it deals with member states. The only person allowed to sign treaties is the PM (acting on authority delegated by the Crown). The actions have to be in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state, and the UK Parliament does not have the authority to invoke nor revoke article 50.anothernick said:
If the government does nothing parliament will certainly do something. If it comes to it, it will send Bercow to Brussels bearing a revocation letter.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
0 -
Is that all there are? Seven people?williamglenn said:It looks like the only company Farage's marchers have along their route is from Led By Donkeys. They've been left in the lurch by the Brexit leaders.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11076449882660372480 -
There are a few more.JosiasJessop said:Is that all there are? Seven people?
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11076692783319900170 -
Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?0
-
It’s all over, isn’t it?0
-
Like everything the PMs powers are disputable - the government did not believe it needed parliament to approve triggering Art 50 but the SC thought differently, by a majority.RobinWiggs said:Two procedural questions:
Does Mrs May have the power to unilaterally:
a) agree an extension without going back to parliament first;
b) revoke A50 without going back to parliament first?
It seems to me that Speaker Bercow has strengthened her hand for the deal passing next week after the EU summit - as the ERG/Labour Leavers will know exactly the options and conditions for extension - and anything other than a short extension to pass WA/PD and necessary legislation is likely to be long and brutal. If so, the odds of MV3 passing must have increased today.
No deal has surely decreased as if a) is correct, then no deal is stopped by parliament VONCing the government and installing a new PM to extend if it looked like Mrs May was trying to no deal us on 29th.
But probably parliament is not required to approve revocation or extension (IMO) because it does not involve changing our current rights and arrangements.
0 -
0
-
Because the alternative means an economic shock, when the EU (and the UK) are already not far off a recession. No benefit to refusing really, even if there isn't a clear path forward atm.Mysticrose said:Which begs the question, why would the EU grant an extension? Well, not for her WA that's for sure.
After the third or fourth extension they might put their foot down .....
0 -
If someone had told me at the start of today that the much disliked Bercow and Fracois would essentially work together to make no deal more likely and May's deal and a 2nd referendum less likely I wouldn't have believed them. We are living through very strange times.0
-
Excellent idea, Baldrick. Here, have some of my rat sandwich.viewcode said:Cunning plan. May goes to Brussels on the 29th, signs the deal at 5pm.The AG argues in court that the meaningful vote has been held as specified by the court (although no conclusion has been reached) so she has fulfilled the constitutional requirements. By the time anybody gets opposition sorted it's 11pm, we've left, a deal is signed, and the Remainers and pure blood Leavers can go fuck themselves. The courts have to recognise the departure and nobody will unsign the deal because chaos. Sound good?
0 -
If the only two options were Revoke or Leave with No Deal, i really don't know which one she would choose.Richard_Tyndall said:
I will excuse your ignorance as you clearly don't follow things very closely. But I am not in favour of No Deal.Mysticrose said:
Keep telling yourself it.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government does not have to propose no deal. It simply has to do nothing and No Deal happens on 29th March.anothernick said:
Possibly yes. But the government will not propose no deal, it will be either revocation or delay. And in either case May will have to go I think. She could be forced into the humiliating position of asking the EU for a delay so she can resign and a successor can try and come up with a new plan.AlastairMeeks said:
I expect the Speaker would allow a reprise of a proposal previously voted upon if it now had the endorsement of the government and it didn't previously. The new circumstance would be that this represented a change in government policy.anothernick said:
I don't think a proposal to leave with no deal would pass the Bercow test. The House convincingly rejected that last week.AlastairMeeks said:As for next steps, Mrs May is going to have to try something different. She can propose leaving with no deal, she can propose offering her deal for further consideration but only if ratified by a referendum or she can propose to revoke for a further heated debate all round. Perhaps she can think of something different but she hasn't been marked by imagination up to this point.
Eventually the penny will drop.
What I am stating are the facts. If Parliament does not pass an alternative by 29th March then we will No Deal. The only person who can stop that is May and I am not confident that she will. As it stands Parliament cannot force her to do so. They can only VONC her and at this point even that is too late if she truly decides she will not revoke.
All the votes against No Deal are meaningless if she does not want to revoke.0
This discussion has been closed.