politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s phantom majority: why we’re heading for a Christmas
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s phantom majority: why we’re heading for a Christmas election
Boris Johnson has a problem and it’s not the one that most of the Westminster Village spent yesterday pondering. It is, however, one that gives the lie to the aphorism of the PM’s namesake, the 36th president of the United States, that “the first rule of politics is that its practitioners need to be able to count”. It’s not: that’s the second rule. The first rule is that its practitioners need to understand the rules.
Comments
-
This day is call'd the feast of the MV.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Brexit.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors,
And say "To-morrow is the anniversary of the MV."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on MV day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Boris the King, Gove and the Moggster,
Flint and Kinnock, Rory and Clarke-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And the anniversary of the MV shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in Derry now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon MV day.
1 -
Second, like Remain.
Sadly they still haven't realised it....1 -
On topic, great, reasoned header from David. But I totally disagree.
The weariness with which the public express their desire to 'get Brexit done' combined with a desire amongst Labour Leave MPs, who are generally also moderates, to keep their seats in the next election, means Brexit will pass before the end of the month, or soon after. I'm not entirely sure we're likely to have an election before spring next year....
The Letwin amendment is an abomination. I truly hope it is rejected on the basis that it wrecks the whole purpose of the main motion. But suspect it won't be....0 -
As usual a very good piece David. My real concern is that if MPs do not pass Boris' deal today, whether by an indicative vote or a binding vote, something tragic will happen in the weeks ahead. People are so fed up with politicians and so angry at their failure/refusal to carry out the decision in 2016 that I can see "Joe Cox Mark II" and we will see an MP or his/her family/staff/constituency offices subjected to criminal violence. I know that had I been in the room of the Liberal Party supporters who accused me of being "too thick, too rich or too poor" to understand what I was doing in voting for Brexit, I would have been very tempted to "punch out their lights".0
-
The important thing is we must not have a November election. A few weeks ago, I cashed out a huge green position on November, and could not stand the buyer's remorse (or seller's remorse, or something).
I am no longer active in any of the Brexit markets, being too busy recently to follow closely developments. This experience makes me deeply sceptical of any of the polls.0 -
On topic the Letwin amendment is a wreaking amendment and should really not be allowed by the Speaker. The point of this first Saturday sitting since 1982 is to have a meaningful vote in terms of s13 (1) (b) of the European Withdrawal Act 2018 which provides:
"the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,"
A resolution amended by the Letwin amendment will not meet that criteria which means that a decision has once again been avoided. That is unacceptable and defeats the purpose of this special meeting.0 -
I didn't think there were any Liberal Party supporters who posting here. Tories, Labour, ScotNat, LibDems, yes, plus some undeclared and/or voters, yes. But no Liberals.NorthCadboll said:As usual a very good piece David. My real concern is that if MPs do not pass Boris' deal today, whether by an indicative vote or a binding vote, something tragic will happen in the weeks ahead. People are so fed up with politicians and so angry at their failure/refusal to carry out the decision in 2016 that I can see "Joe Cox Mark II" and we will see an MP or his/her family/staff/constituency offices subjected to criminal violence. I know that had I been in the room of the Liberal Party supporters who accused me of being "too thick, too rich or too poor" to understand what I was doing in voting for Brexit, I would have been very tempted to "punch out their lights".
2 -
-
Has Bercow actually accepted the Letwin amendment yet? I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a wrecking amendment. It should be thrown out. But....it is so much easier for him to say "let the House take that decision".0
-
If Britain becomes that, it is dead.NorthCadboll said:As usual a very good piece David. My real concern is that if MPs do not pass Boris' deal today, whether by an indicative vote or a binding vote, something tragic will happen in the weeks ahead. People are so fed up with politicians and so angry at their failure/refusal to carry out the decision in 2016 that I can see "Joe Cox Mark II" and we will see an MP or his/her family/staff/constituency offices subjected to criminal violence. I know that had I been in the room of the Liberal Party supporters who accused me of being "too thick, too rich or too poor" to understand what I was doing in voting for Brexit, I would have been very tempted to "punch out their lights".
0 -
Of course where David is undoubtedly right is that even if Boris can get his unlikely coalition over the line today he also has to hold it together for the approval of the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill which would be tabled on Monday. That is quite an ask. It is very likely that the government will have given undertakings that that Bill will commit the UK to retaining EU employment and environmental standards to satisfy enough Labour MPs but it may also face amendments to have a confirmatory vote in the country (God knows when) and a series of other wreaking amendments. For a PM yet to win a single vote in the Commons since he was elected this is going to be challenging.
We're not there yet.1 -
If the DUP were to vote for a referendum, we might have it.Scott_P said:0 -
Leavers threatening violence again and pretending they think it will be tragic. Yawn. If your threshold for violence is so low, calm down, take a few deep breaths and think, see a therapist, or accept the consequences of your actions in a lawful society.NorthCadboll said:As usual a very good piece David. My real concern is that if MPs do not pass Boris' deal today, whether by an indicative vote or a binding vote, something tragic will happen in the weeks ahead. People are so fed up with politicians and so angry at their failure/refusal to carry out the decision in 2016 that I can see "Joe Cox Mark II" and we will see an MP or his/her family/staff/constituency offices subjected to criminal violence. I know that had I been in the room of the Liberal Party supporters who accused me of being "too thick, too rich or too poor" to understand what I was doing in voting for Brexit, I would have been very tempted to "punch out their lights".
0 -
I dont get why it wrecks the purpose of the motion if the the purpose is to approve the deal. Letwin will vote for the deal regardless. Labour MPs are more likely to vote for the deal with Letwin than not.Mortimer said:On topic, great, reasoned header from David. But I totally disagree.
The weariness with which the public express their desire to 'get Brexit done' combined with a desire amongst Labour Leave MPs, who are generally also moderates, to keep their seats in the next election, means Brexit will pass before the end of the month, or soon after. I'm not entirely sure we're likely to have an election before spring next year....
The Letwin amendment is an abomination. I truly hope it is rejected on the basis that it wrecks the whole purpose of the main motion. But suspect it won't be....
The difficulties for the govt with Letwin it seems are 1) It may make the PMs do or die pledge fail, but only technically by a few days, no big deal 2) give time for the ERG to get angry and withdraw their support, possible but unlikely.
Whats the big deal?0 -
In a way it's slightly odd how most people continue to regard France as a very civilised country despite all the violence that has taken place at the Yellow Vest protests. The same is true of Barcelona and the protests that are taking place there at the moment. We note the violence in those places, but we don't really change our fundamental view of Barcelona or France because of them.WhisperingOracle said:
If Britain becomes that, it is dead.NorthCadboll said:As usual a very good piece David. My real concern is that if MPs do not pass Boris' deal today, whether by an indicative vote or a binding vote, something tragic will happen in the weeks ahead. People are so fed up with politicians and so angry at their failure/refusal to carry out the decision in 2016 that I can see "Joe Cox Mark II" and we will see an MP or his/her family/staff/constituency offices subjected to criminal violence. I know that had I been in the room of the Liberal Party supporters who accused me of being "too thick, too rich or too poor" to understand what I was doing in voting for Brexit, I would have been very tempted to "punch out their lights".
0 -
-
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....Scott_P said:0 -
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.MarqueeMark said:
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....Scott_P said:0 -
Well, I'm confused.
It seems like Johnson's deal is both better than May's in that it includes an element of consent for Northern Ireland. But it's also worse, in that it effectively makes the temporary backstop permanent, and that it makes concessions designed to make a (frankly unlikely) UK-US FTA happen quicker.
Despite my misgivings, I'd vote for it.
But it appears that... Well... I don't really understand. What is going on?1 -
0
-
So my view is that Letwin will pass as will the now amended motion.
That motion will no longer approve the deal.
Their Wil be carnage on the Betfair market. Far, far worse than the May exit date debacle.0 -
Well if so, it is No Deal then, as the EU aren't in the mood to allow us to fuck about any more.AndyJS said:
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.MarqueeMark said:
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....Scott_P said:0 -
The problem is the absolute lack of trust on all sides - which is of course the reason for Letwin’s amendment.noneoftheabove said:
I dont get why it wrecks the purpose of the motion if the the purpose is to approve the deal. Letwin will vote for the deal regardless. Labour MPs are more likely to vote for the deal with Letwin than not.Mortimer said:On topic, great, reasoned header from David. But I totally disagree.
The weariness with which the public express their desire to 'get Brexit done' combined with a desire amongst Labour Leave MPs, who are generally also moderates, to keep their seats in the next election, means Brexit will pass before the end of the month, or soon after. I'm not entirely sure we're likely to have an election before spring next year....
The Letwin amendment is an abomination. I truly hope it is rejected on the basis that it wrecks the whole purpose of the main motion. But suspect it won't be....
The difficulties for the govt with Letwin it seems are 1) It may make the PMs do or die pledge fail, but only technically by a few days, no big deal 2) give time for the ERG to get angry and withdraw their support, possible but unlikely.
Whats the big deal?
That it is obvious that Letwin backs the deal, as will many others who back the amendment isn’t enough.
As David’s excellent header points out, reluctant backers of the deal are understandably unwilling to give Johnson a blank slate, particularly if it leaves open the possibility of No Deal. And Johnson doesn’t want anything less.
0 -
Do people (well, MPs) actually understand the amendment. The words 'withhold approval'. They've either not read it, or don't understand.Alistair said:So my view is that Letwin will pass as will the now amended motion.
That motion will no longer approve the deal.
Their Wil be carnage on the Betfair market. Far, far worse than the May exit date debacle.
And why is Letwin going around saying it supports the Deal, when clearly it does not?1 -
Opposition MP's are basically putting their own political interests first.rcs1000 said:Well, I'm confused.
It seems like Johnson's deal is both better than May's in that it includes an element of consent for Northern Ireland. But it's also worse, in that it effectively makes the temporary backstop permanent, and that it makes concessions designed to make a (frankly unlikely) UK-US FTA happen quicker.
Despite my misgivings, I'd vote for it.
But it appears that... Well... I don't really understand. What is going on?
They dont want Boris to have a "win".1 -
If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.0 -
Anyone who claims to know the answer to that has clearly not been giving the matter sufficient attention.rcs1000 said:Well, I'm confused.
It seems like Johnson's deal is both better than May's in that it includes an element of consent for Northern Ireland. But it's also worse, in that it effectively makes the temporary backstop permanent, and that it makes concessions designed to make a (frankly unlikely) UK-US FTA happen quicker.
Despite my misgivings, I'd vote for it.
But it appears that... Well... I don't really understand. What is going on?0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. JS, that's my suspicion too.
This Parliament should be called the Indecisive Parliament. Or the Faffing About Parliament.1 -
Letwin's Deal actually is Johnson's Deal if you read it in full, it just wants the legislation for the Deal passes in full before the meaningful voteAndyJS said:
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.MarqueeMark said:
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....Scott_P said:0 -
The backstop has become a front stop ! And you’re right re an FTA with the USA but this also speeds up getting one with the EU. In Mays deal you would have effectively have to be guided by trying to remove the backstop which would have been very complicated .rcs1000 said:Well, I'm confused.
It seems like Johnson's deal is both better than May's in that it includes an element of consent for Northern Ireland. But it's also worse, in that it effectively makes the temporary backstop permanent, and that it makes concessions designed to make a (frankly unlikely) UK-US FTA happen quicker.
Despite my misgivings, I'd vote for it.
But it appears that... Well... I don't really understand. What is going on?
The EU never liked the UK wide backstop . Checks at ports and airports are much less intrusive , I really don’t see any other solution . I wanted the UK to remain but I’d take the deal now . Not sure what’s going to happen with the Letwin Amendment though , there’s still a chance that might be pulled , it’s trying to be all things to all people .
I can understand there’s no trust between the ERG and the Tory rebels . I certainly don’t want to risk a no deal if they start playing games .
Perhaps the government might find a creative solution to assuage those concerns and put something forward to allow the amendment to be pulled .0 -
-
The numbers are there now I think to pass the Boris Deal with the support of Tory rebels and Labour MPs from Leave seats.
The numbers are not there though for Boris to survive a VONC however as the DUP will now vote his Government down over their opposition to the terms of his Deal for NI.
Which also means likely a December general election0 -
That is its intention. Boris and his supporters should accept that he has to do the detail in order to get his win.HYUFD said:
Letwin's Deal actually is Johnson's Deal if you read it in full, it just wants the legislation for the Deal passes in full before the meaningful voteAndyJS said:
Letwin has probably sunk Johnson's deal IMO.MarqueeMark said:
Well at least they are onboard with the idea that Letwin is intended to give a chance to still fuck things up.....Scott_P said:0 -
I think it is the type of media, in which the results were originally reported, determine if just a point forecast or an interval is given. The science areticles were probably first released in an journal article or conference paper, many of the economic forecasts publish the margin of error/confidence interval but as the info is first relased to the press, they are not included in the press release.MyBurningEars said:
An old joke.MikeSmithson said:
Q: Why do economists put decimal points in their forecasts?
A: To prove they've got a sense of humour.
(It would be nice if, like scientists, they stuck more error bars on things, but even that's more useful for collected data than for projections, where much of the uncertainty is inherently in the modelling methodology itself rather than in, say, sampling error.)
0 -
THe big one today, though, is Australia v England1
-
Former Ulster Unionist party leader Lord Trimble has backed the Boris Brexit Deal.Alistair said:https://twitter.com/dempster7/status/1185297459137990656?s=19
Joyous relief in Northern Ireland.
I prefer his view given it was Trimble who did the hard work for peace on the Unionist side in NI not the DUP who attacked him at every turn for betrayal, sound familiar?
Plus the UUP has historically been the sister party of the Tories, if the DUP now want to be the sister party of the Brexit Party after Paisley spoke at their rally yesterday that is up to them
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1185143273565966336?s=20
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1185267521647198208?s=200 -
It’s definitely not approval . It removes almost all the government motion . I don’t want to be arguing with a trained lawyer but I really can’t see how Letwin can say this approves the deal .DavidL said:If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.
0 -
What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?0
-
Good morning and happy Sitting Saturday PB!
0 -
I can’t say I understand Letwin’s Amending Bill.
However, it is surely right that MPs, media, and the public actually have some time to consider the detail of Boris’s Deal.
Otherwise you are basically just saying that Boris’s ego is paramount.0 -
I agree. It is a wreaking amendment that defeats the purpose of this sitting. It should be ruled out of order. If people wish to oppose the deal they should oppose the principal motion. We have had more than enough prevarication.nico67 said:
It’s definitely not approval . It removes almost all the government motion . I don’t want to be arguing with a trained lawyer but I really can’t see how Letwin can say this approves the deal .DavidL said:If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.1 -
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
0 -
How many times have you vosted Lib-Dem by post?MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
0 -
Good morning all.
The Letwin amendment in its own words withholds approval of the Boris deal which is now the central point of his government. He could not be blamed if he tells the HOC today that if Letwin passes he will resign on Monday and advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to try and form a government.1 -
-
That is our current guiding principle.Gardenwalker said:I can’t say I understand Letwin’s Amending Bill.
However, it is surely right that MPs, media, and the public actually have some time to consider the detail of Boris’s Deal.
Otherwise you are basically just saying that Boris’s ego is paramount.0 -
David, where do you think the majority for a referendum is coming from? People's Vote seem very sheepish.0
-
The 2018 Act provided for a minimum of 5 days to consider the WA before the MV. I am slightly surprised more is not being made of that given that this is a different deal from the one that Parliament has discussed before.Gardenwalker said:I can’t say I understand Letwin’s Amending Bill.
However, it is surely right that MPs, media, and the public actually have some time to consider the detail of Boris’s Deal.
Otherwise you are basically just saying that Boris’s ego is paramount.0 -
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night0 -
That is an interesting point.DavidL said:
The 2018 Act provided for a minimum of 5 days to consider the WA before the MV. I am slightly surprised more is not being made of that given that this is a different deal from the one that Parliament has discussed before.Gardenwalker said:I can’t say I understand Letwin’s Amending Bill.
However, it is surely right that MPs, media, and the public actually have some time to consider the detail of Boris’s Deal.
Otherwise you are basically just saying that Boris’s ego is paramount.0 -
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?HYUFD said:
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night0 -
Letwin should withdraw his amendment. It's completely unnecessary in its intended role, and will simply be hijacked in a way entirely contrary to Letwin's expressed views.humbugger said:Good morning all.
The Letwin amendment in its own words withholds approval of the Boris deal which is now the central point of his government. He could not be blamed if he tells the HOC today that if Letwin passes he will resign on Monday and advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to try and form a government.0 -
Deselected Tory MP Antoinette Sandbsch says she will vote for the Kyle amendment and EUref2 but will only vote for the Boris Deal if the Letwin amendment passed but she sees the Boris Deal as worse than the May Deal0
-
This line is so ridiculous. It's not about having tine to discuss *brexit*, it's about having time to discuss *this specific deal*. They haven't had plenty of time to discuss that, they've had like literally a day, including a grand total of zero hours getting the relevant people in front of the committees whose job it is to question them about it and make sure nobody's missed anything important.CarlottaVance said:
The Tories have spent the best part of three and a half years negotiating it with themselves, it's not unreasonable for the people who are supposed to be scrutinizing it to ask for a couple of weeks.1 -
The amendment says “ this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed “.
Am I missing something ! On what planet can this be seen to approve the deal .
I totally understand that MPs are concerned about passing the deal then the ERG playing games when it gets to the WAIB .
The concern for the government is that a majority today might not be there in a few days or weeks . And of course there will be more time for MPs to add on amendments .
I’d like to see a way of definitely stopping a no deal by accident and don’t trust the ERG but not sure what you do . Because the only legally binding thing to do that at the moment is the Benn Act staying in place for a while longer .0 -
The ERG are not going to be the problem today. Boris has held onto them. The problem is the DUP and/or getting more than 15 Labour MPs (assuming one or two of the whipless ex tories vote against such as Dominic Grieve).HYUFD said:0 -
-
Bugger. Ids is on r4 supporting the deal.0
-
Provided the Government gets 10+ Labour MPs and the few Independents like Austin and Field who voted for May's Deal (to makeup for lost DUP votes) it should pass by 1 or 2 votes if the vast majority of Tory MPs and ex Tory MPs vote for itDavidL said:
The ERG are not going to be the problem today. Boris has held onto them. The problem is the DUP and/or getting more than 15 Labour MPs (assuming one or two of the whipless ex tories vote against such as Dominic Grieve).HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185273048351543297?s=200 -
I think it’s all falling apart . As I suspected many of the Tory rebels will not vote for the deal now until they have that extra insurance policy . And Hammonds comments will really concern the government.
And I’m sure the Tory MP John Barons comments will come back to haunt the government .0 -
You could amend the Benn Act so that the letter has to be sent if the WAIB is not approved by next Friday. Seems a much easier way to resolve this but it may be too late.nico67 said:The amendment says “ this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed “.
Am I missing something ! On what planet can this be seen to approve the deal .
I totally understand that MPs are concerned about passing the deal then the ERG playing games when it gets to the WAIB .
The concern for the government is that a majority today might not be there in a few days or weeks . And of course there will be more time for MPs to add on amendments .
I’d like to see a way of definitely stopping a no deal by accident and don’t trust the ERG but not sure what you do . Because the only legally binding thing to do that at the moment is the Benn Act staying in place for a while longer .1 -
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.alex. said:
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?HYUFD said:
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Machines and computers do not go on strike0 -
Of course it's not approval. According to Letwin, it's meant to signify that approval isn't being given now, but will be forthcoming when the legislation has been passed.DavidL said:If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.
No doubt if Letwin had wanted to say that explicitly he would have done. No doubt the reason he didn't was that he quite rightly doesn't trust Boris Johnson an inch, and was afraid that people like you would pop up and say that the Benn Act didn't apply because saying you will approve something in the future is tantamount to approving it now.
Despite the endless whining about this, the only practical effect is to trigger the Benn Act. Implementing the agreement can go ahead precisely as it would have done without the amendment, except that (if there is a majority for the deal) the meaningful vote will be done at the end of the process rather than the beginning.
Johnson will be legally obliged to request an extension, but of course the EU is at liberty to delay its answer until it's clear whether the WAIB is likely to pass. Even if they do offer an extension, if the legislation has been passed by the deadline we'll leave the EU this month. (If the legislation isn't passed by the deadline, all the sane ones among us will be fervently thanking Oliver Letwin for his foresight!)0 -
The problem is I’m not sure MPs can get through all the legislation in just 5 days but you have a good point . Perhaps Benn could offer this to the government but it still doesn’t help today because there wouldn’t be time to do that .DavidL said:
You could amend the Benn Act so that the letter has to be sent if the WAIB is not approved by next Friday. Seems a much easier way to resolve this but it may be too late.nico67 said:The amendment says “ this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed “.
Am I missing something ! On what planet can this be seen to approve the deal .
I totally understand that MPs are concerned about passing the deal then the ERG playing games when it gets to the WAIB .
The concern for the government is that a majority today might not be there in a few days or weeks . And of course there will be more time for MPs to add on amendments .
I’d like to see a way of definitely stopping a no deal by accident and don’t trust the ERG but not sure what you do . Because the only legally binding thing to do that at the moment is the Benn Act staying in place for a while longer .
I think to be honest the whole thing has been rushed , I also blame the EU here in trying to railroad MPs into voting something through with so little time to scrutinize the legislation. Everything really goes back to Johnson’s pledge , he’s obsessed with it , I really don’t think it’s a big deal for a couple of extra weeks .0 -
Mr. P, if Grieve gets his three-option referendum there'll be endless arguments about making it fair.
So it could well happen, given the Parliament we have.0 -
If you're concerned that a majority for the deal might be there today, but might not last long enough to pass the WAIB, then - unless you're happy with no deal - you should absolutely want the Benn Act triggered!nico67 said:The amendment says “ this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed “.
Am I missing something ! On what planet can this be seen to approve the deal .
I totally understand that MPs are concerned about passing the deal then the ERG playing games when it gets to the WAIB .
The concern for the government is that a majority today might not be there in a few days or weeks . And of course there will be more time for MPs to add on amendments.1 -
Yes of course . I’m totally against no deal .Chris said:
If you're concerned that a majority for the deal might be there today, but might not last long enough to pass the WAIB, then - unless you're happy with no deal - you should absolutely want the Benn Act triggered!nico67 said:The amendment says “ this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed “.
Am I missing something ! On what planet can this be seen to approve the deal .
I totally understand that MPs are concerned about passing the deal then the ERG playing games when it gets to the WAIB .
The concern for the government is that a majority today might not be there in a few days or weeks . And of course there will be more time for MPs to add on amendments.
0 -
The practical effect is that another PM has agreed another deal with the EU that they are not entirely comfortable with and then failed to get it through the House of Commons. There is a real risk at that point that the deal falls apart. The EU will want evidence that this is actually going to happen. A decision not to have a decision yet is not that.Chris said:
Of course it's not approval. According to Letwin, it's meant to signify that approval isn't being given now, but will be forthcoming when the legislation has been passed.DavidL said:If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.
No doubt if Letwin had wanted to say that explicitly he would have done. No doubt the reason he didn't was that he quite rightly doesn't trust Boris Johnson an inch, and was afraid that people like you would pop up and say that the Benn Act didn't apply because saying you will approve something in the future is tantamount to approving it now.
Despite the endless whining about this, the only practical effect is to trigger the Benn Act. Implementing the agreement can go ahead precisely as it would have done without the amendment, except that (if there is a majority for the deal) the meaningful vote will be done at the end of the process rather than the beginning.
Johnson will be legally obliged to request an extension, but of course the EU is at liberty to delay its answer until it's clear whether the WAIB is likely to pass. Even if they do offer an extension, if the legislation has been passed by the deadline we'll leave the EU this month. (If the legislation isn't passed by the deadline, all the sane ones among us will be fervently thanking Oliver Letwin for his foresight!)
As I said it would have been better if it had been possible to amend the Benn Act but that would require primary legislation for which there is not time.0 -
-
Well, if there is a majority for the deal, they'll get that within a day or two when the WAIB is first voted on.DavidL said:
The practical effect is that another PM has agreed another deal with the EU that they are not entirely comfortable with and then failed to get it through the House of Commons. There is a real risk at that point that the deal falls apart. The EU will want evidence that this is actually going to happen. A decision not to have a decision yet is not that.Chris said:
Of course it's not approval. According to Letwin, it's meant to signify that approval isn't being given now, but will be forthcoming when the legislation has been passed.DavidL said:If the Letwin amendment passes, and I fear it will, I think we are at risk of heading back to the courts yet again to determine whether the amended motion meets the criteria of s13 (1) of the 2018 Act that I quoted down thread. Is it approval or is it not? I don't think it is but Letwin claims otherwise.
Either way we have yet another mess. Really best avoided.
No doubt if Letwin had wanted to say that explicitly he would have done. No doubt the reason he didn't was that he quite rightly doesn't trust Boris Johnson an inch, and was afraid that people like you would pop up and say that the Benn Act didn't apply because saying you will approve something in the future is tantamount to approving it now.
Despite the endless whining about this, the only practical effect is to trigger the Benn Act. Implementing the agreement can go ahead precisely as it would have done without the amendment, except that (if there is a majority for the deal) the meaningful vote will be done at the end of the process rather than the beginning.
Johnson will be legally obliged to request an extension, but of course the EU is at liberty to delay its answer until it's clear whether the WAIB is likely to pass. Even if they do offer an extension, if the legislation has been passed by the deadline we'll leave the EU this month. (If the legislation isn't passed by the deadline, all the sane ones among us will be fervently thanking Oliver Letwin for his foresight!)
I cannot for the life of me see why people are making so much fuss about the Letwin amendment. If there is a majority for the deal, we shall be leaving the EU very soon. Perhaps by 31 October, perhaps a week or two later.
If there isn't a majority but if - as people seem to think - Johnson essentially has the support of his whole party, then we need to have an election first and I think he will win it decisively, and then we shall leave soon after the election. (I say that as someone who really doesn't want Johnson to win an election!)
0 -
-
Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.0 -
-
You are quite right. Letwin is not about preventing no deal. It's about delaying Brexit in the hope that something turns up to stop it altogether.DavidL said:Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.1 -
ERG support is nailed on. Its the Labour MPs willing to vote for the deal that are key and they seem to be pretty quiet at the moment. TCTC.Scott_P said:0 -
With a great start from England!MikeSmithson said:THe big one today, though, is Australia v England
0 -
Typically sleepy start by the convicts but on the matches to date they will improve. This is not over yet.0
-
What date goes on a postmark if letters are late in being collected from postboxes?HYUFD said:
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.alex. said:
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?HYUFD said:
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Machines and computers do not go on strike
1 -
Mr Herdson fails to recall the statement in an interview with Mr Letwin in these pages, that there will probably be no election until the Brexit question is settled. One thing is certain, Letwin has mucked up the the Government's strategy good and proper. The bill must be withdrawm and plan B, a clean break Brexit reintroduced. Immediately after the 31st the bill would probably sail through anyway.0
-
Good morning
Looks as if most of the conservative party and independent conservative mps have come together and it is going to be a close vote. However, if the numbers are there why would those mps vote to wreck it with Letwin0 -
If the vote passed and then the ERG wrecked the legislation Johnson would probably send the extension letter regardless of whether he was required to. And go for an election. The ERG would lose the whip.0
-
Machines do not empty post boxes people do, post boxes get sealed in a strike the only solution would to take an injunction out but I Think the CWU would pullthe strike.HYUFD said:
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.alex. said:
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?HYUFD said:
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Machines and computers do not go on strike1 -
What is this clean break brexit that you talk about? I know of no such thingVinny said:Mr Herdson fails to recall the statement in an interview with Mr Letwin in these pages, that there will probably be no election until the Brexit question is settled. One thing is certain, Letwin has mucked up the the Government's strategy good and proper. The bill must be withdrawm and plan B, a clean break Brexit reintroduced. Immediately after the 31st the bill would probably sail through anyway.
0 -
We don’t need a third option now the ERG and Leave EU are backing the deal.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, if Grieve gets his three-option referendum there'll be endless arguments about making it fair.
So it could well happen, given the Parliament we have.0 -
The argument (from those who are not wreckers) seems to be thatpassing the vote will negate the Benn Act. But legislation would still have to pass both Houses to avert no deal. And therefore the insurance would be lost. Don’t think it really holds together as an argument.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
Looks as if most of the conservative party and independent conservative mps have come together and it is going to be a close vote. However, if the numbers are there why would those mps vote to wreck it with Letwin0 -
This is correct. To be fair, this is a fight to the finish between two sides where only one can win and at the moment the Remain side mostly can't self identify as such. At this moment the only public weapon Remain have got is delay, and, to the surprise and shock of nobody, they are using it. Neither side is fighting under Queensbury rules - Boris is out defending that which recently he traduced with regard to NI; the ERG is doing the same because they can see that much further delay will abort their entire operation. Loads of Remainers are denying their real intention. Lots of Remainers voted for TMs deal as along as they knew it would lose, and so on and on. Remain are getting closer to succeeding every moment time passes and every time finality is deferred.humbugger said:
You are quite right. Letwin is not about preventing no deal. It's about delaying Brexit in the hope that something turns up to stop it altogether.DavidL said:Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.
0 -
Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.0 -
Grieve’s argument was that you can’t leave off an option that has substantial support, but that’s no longer the case.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.0 -
Remainers are terrified no deal is on the ballot and it is shameful that you think any referendum can be twisted and loaded in favour of remainwilliamglenn said:
We don’t need a third option now the ERG and Leave EU are backing the deal.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, if Grieve gets his three-option referendum there'll be endless arguments about making it fair.
So it could well happen, given the Parliament we have.
I do not agree with much Dominic says but on this he is spot on and it just demonstrates that any referendum with not be a walk in the park but it has to be honest0 -
What is this clean break brexit that you talk about? I know of no such thingVinny said:Mr Herdson fails to recall the statement in an interview with Mr Letwin in these pages, that there will probably be no election until the Brexit question is settled. One thing is certain, Letwin has mucked up the the Government's strategy good and proper. The bill must be withdrawm and plan B, a clean break Brexit reintroduced. Immediately after the 31st the bill would probably sail through anyway.
0 -
The leavers are also coming together. The self indulgent nonsense that had the ERG opposing May's deal has gone. But this is a remainer Parliament. Always has been despite the lies they told at election time. TCTC.algarkirk said:
This is correct. To be fair, this is a fight to the finish between two sides where only one can win and at the moment the Remain side mostly can't self identify as such. At this moment the only public weapon Remain have got is delay, and, to the surprise and shock of nobody, they are using it. Neither side is fighting under Queensbury rules - Boris is out defending that which recently he traduced with regard to NI; the ERG is doing the same because they can see that much further delay will abort their entire operation. Loads of Remainers are denying their real intention. Lots of Remainers voted for TMs deal as along as they knew it would lose, and so on and on. Remain are getting closer to succeeding every moment time passes and every time finality is deferred.humbugger said:
You are quite right. Letwin is not about preventing no deal. It's about delaying Brexit in the hope that something turns up to stop it altogether.DavidL said:Let's test this a little bit further. Let's suppose that the ERG vote for the MV today but then decide to vote against the WAIB next week so as to artificially create a no deal scenario with no extension requested. That would not stop Boris sending a letter anyway. But there is no trust. So remainer MPs have to back the WAIB so that it passes regardless. But what if the government refused to move the bill if, for example, a confirmatory referendum was added? Surely the opposition could once again seize control of the order paper and pass it anyway. Enough Tories including the whipless wonders would support that.
I don't see how the ERG can force a no deal here. What would happen is that we would be committed to leaving on the WA. Which obviously sticks in the craw of many remainers.0 -
I do and it is madnessnichomar said:
What is this clean break brexit that you talk about? I know of no such thingVinny said:Mr Herdson fails to recall the statement in an interview with Mr Letwin in these pages, that there will probably be no election until the Brexit question is settled. One thing is certain, Letwin has mucked up the the Government's strategy good and proper. The bill must be withdrawm and plan B, a clean break Brexit reintroduced. Immediately after the 31st the bill would probably sail through anyway.
0 -
There is something delicious in seeing the DUP, having taken the strategically idiotic decision of going for Leave, now being hoist by their own petard and being cut loose by the Tories.
They should have listened to a few Irishmen: “You can’t trust the Brits.
Heart of stone .....2 -
Is Corbyn in the Commons today?
Or is he, on the most important vote since.... well March I suppose... still dicking around in Liverpool?0 -
It’s quite simpleMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Glenn, a legitimate argument, but Grieve's proposal is for a three-option referendum.
Of course, if presented together that would split the Leave vote. And if multi-stage, there'll be arguments about how that works too.
1 do you wish to leave the EU
yes or no
2 if there is a majority vote for leave then do you wish to
Leave with the negotiated deal or
Leave with no deal
0 -
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185467216466206720DavidL said:The leavers are also coming together. The self indulgent nonsense that had the ERG opposing May's deal has gone. But this is a remainer Parliament. Always has been despite the lies they told at election time. TCTC.
0 -
Speaking as a former system administrator, I can tell you that computers do go on strike, generally when you've just arrived somewhere for a holiday and started on the gin. The system adminstrator can generally persuade them to resume operations, but that assumes the system administrators are not themselves on strike...HYUFD said:
Postmarks are now applied digitally by machines, not by hand.alex. said:
Who does the post marking...? In practice I assume the Govt would try to take out an injunction to prevent the strike?HYUFD said:
No they don't as provided votes are postmarked as posted by polling day they still legally have to be counted even if they are only delivered a week later.MikeSmithson said:
The Tories who are most reliant on postal votes get stuffedalex. said:What happens if the Royal Mail go on strike during a General Election?
So just means some close seats may not see a final result for days after election night
Machines and computers do not go on strike2
