Westminstenders: Break it or make it.

[RedToothBrush]

We have a deal on the table. In reality it does not answer the question the result of the referendum posed: what type of deal do we want? The progress we have actually made in 2 years is to say, 'we want to leave' but nothing more. Or as its been termed: 'Blind Brexit' in which we exit but without knowing what comes next.

Even this is controversial. There are apparently some 88 Conservative back bench MPs (or half the Conservative back bench MPs) who are intending to vote against approving the deal. Some are remainers and some are hard leavers. Each side believing there is still everything to play for; whether that be no deal or no brexit. We are still as divided as ever.

The stumbling block, as ever, is largely the NI backstop. With many still arguing that it should be time limited. This fails to understand that the backstop is the GFA to all intents and purposes. And this is why Ireland and the EU will never agree to have a time limited backstop.

And once again we have this fundamental misunderstanding that the withdrawal agreement is anything more than merely the mechanism to leave, not the final deal, which is hampering all discussion of the subject.

There is talk that May will try to push the deal through and if she fails she will try for a second time. This might work, if this wasn't being anticipated. The trouble is the element of surprise is gone. This has now been denied by a No10 spokesperson. And has the possibility of a second referendum. Though the door on that, seems to be more open than less, with May's official declaration of a Blind Brexit. The whole effectiveness of a TARP style situation and a second vote on the deal in the HoC is the guilotine effect, where MPs look over the cliff and go 'shiiiiiitttt'. If the hope is alive for another way out for either the ERG or Remainers, then the plan is dead anyway. The a50 ECJ case is also still on; the latest government appeal to kill it was blocked.

Not only this, but there is the first tangable rumblings of discontent within the EU towards the deal. Spain has talked about voting the deal down. Whether this is anymore than talk, remains to be seen. Spain can not veto the deal at this stage anyway - but it might be able to cause trouble further down the line and thats the danger.

Meanwhile Labour are still promising unicorns and a total renegotition of the deal. This still focuses on the backstop.

Sunday's EU summit does still seem to be on though, despite Merkel suggesting that she wouldn't turn up.

And remember, as it stands, on 29th March we will leave the EU without a deal. The power to stop this lies with the Government and EU as far as we know at present, pending the outcome of the ECJ case.

May still has everything to do to make a deal happen and there are so many forces and people working to break it. We have still not made any real progress to Brexit, apart from get closer to it, through the mere ticking of the clock.

The EU Commission and the EU Council will - like the UK govt - argue that revocation is not unilateral.

How do you know what their position will be? Their papers haven’t been released.

The ECJ would really be "brave" - in the Yes, Minister meaning ! - if they go against the political establishments of both the EU and the UK.

The ECJ isn’t a political court, it’s fully independent, and made up of senior judges from the member states. This is like saying the UK’s Supreme Court would be brave to go against the UK government (they do, all the time!).

jas Do you read other threads on MN ?

Labour get the blame - or at least Tories avoid the blame^- for many of the problems posters grumble about
such as NHS treatment, housing, ZHC etc

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46318445

Even as I type, it seems medical implants aren't subject to EU scrutiny.

Just another illustration of why being in a bloc is better for all ...

missMoon The Commission have said many times that they think revocation can only be with unanimous agreement

For them it is vital, to stop disruptive countries invoking and revoking A50 all the time, to force concessions, or just cause trouble.
They are concerned particularly atm that Italy would try this, if revocation is judged unilateral

If they have changed their opinion, that would be a dramatic change

I have read that the next treaty update will include a revamping of A50, which will include specifically a clause that revocation can only be with unanimous agreement.

If you think courts are immune from politics, then you are very trusting 😇

Courts usually hate cases where they have to go against the political policies of governments, especially if it is other politicians bringing the case, rather than a member of the public who has been damaged.

Here, several EU governments, as well as the Commission, would be quite cross if the ECJ hands the UK govt - & especially other disruptive govts - this power.

The ECJ has to be particularly wary, because it can override national courts, which can be very controversial.
The UK Supreme Court is at least a British court, if it has to rule against the British govt.

Thank you BigChocFrenzy

BCF, they ve a point, you dont get to a housing crisis in 8 years, lab built sod all social housing and did nt introduce legislation to outlaw ZHC, which are nothing new at all.
Failure to train nurses or sufficient Radiographers or GPs lay in the Blair years.

But voting through the WA now means we have for want of a better phrase - a blind brexit is assured.
Vote it down and the UK and the EU will need a different option and one that will command support in the HoCs.

btw, whats the HoLs roll in this WA ?

It seems there are several Brexit court cases coming soon. Here’s a good roundup of them all:

mobile.twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1066669837739540480

So much of what's been happening lately has convinced me that stuff like this needs to be taught as a matter of course in our schools books.google.co.uk/books/about/Critical_Thinking.html?id=6Xg4DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

(and of course, it's probably self evident why it isn't already!)

jas re your query:
Just imo, but I don't expect the HoL to override the HoC in any significant way at this stage
Brexit was in both party manifestos

Voting down the WA repeatedly does not mean the UK & EU would have to get together
Sometimes, you just reach the end of the road and crash

The EU cannot force the HoC to ask to revoke or extend - that must come from the PM, not the HoC
If the PM makes no such request, then it is Brexit: either the WA or No Deal

The EU Commission has stated will not offer further concessions
Also, they will not accept the NI backstop being removed or watered down

So, it all depends on the HoC votes:

• Chaos factor: The DUP said they would bring the govt down if the WA passes - would they do this if they calculate the WA would probably pass the next vote ?

• The ECJ decision could change the balance of power in the HOC, but probably won't be in time for the 1st vote, just in January for the remaining time.

^+ The serious political analysts claim the WA will probably pass at the 2nd attempt, especially if Sterling & the Markets slide badly after the first attempt
Let's see.

• if it fails the 2nd attempt, which would be in January, then there may be a cross-party attempt to gain support for Norway++
  but we don't know how serious those newspaper stories are - and they would have to persuade May & Corbyn.^
  It beomes feasible if the DUP agree - because noone wants a GE now
  Even Norway++ would take 3-4 years negotiation AND would still require a backstop

• analysts currently don't take seriously any amendments that would try to Revoke, or call a PV,
  but let's see what happens during the various WA bills - if Remainers don't chicken out again.

• May could bring back the WA in February and in March, really trying to pressure the HoC and also to deflect blame for No Deal onto the HoC
  She is exceptionally stubborn

a Tory party civil war that splits the party into 2 is certain annihilation under FPTP

I live in hope - if it keeps them out of power for 30 years then I am unlikely to see a Tory government again. Although I don't vote Labour, they are usually better for things I value like health and education.

Only 6 Brexit legal cases in motion?

The tsunami hasn't begun then.

Brexit proof job? Work for a law firm.

mother I was just replying to a question about why I expected the submissions from the Commission would agree with the UK
and why they would also argue that revocation cannot be unilateral.

A "blind" brexit is not at all the same as No Deal
The WA can't be worse than No Deal and has a chance of a Norway++ or Rejoin

Our ruling classes will not suffer from No Deal and I don't assume they give a damn if lesser mortals suffer
The HoC bars & restaurants won't go short
May will get her insulin

Are you expecting them to blink ?
Not much incentive
The ERG mob will be on very nice earners and they will achieve their ideological dream of Singapore-on-Thames

Some of them, like some Tory / Leave donors, may make 100s of millions each on No Deal.
I saw the figures somewhere for Redwood, Mogg and was quite shocked
Any Westministender have that link ? 🤔

Absolutely, red - the right kind of law firm

Re the markets, apparently they price these things in, so big falls wouldn't be expected as the WA IS expected to fail!

As i understand it, or rather a parliamentary expert said, the WD cannot just be sent back un-amended time and time again until MPs approve it, that isn't how the HoC works.

Yes May is v v stubborn but 48 votes don't have to come from the ERG.

I ve always maintained that no PM would take the UK out on a no deal, the eco downturn would be immense, there is also NI.

Been out most of the day and have spent some quality time with DH today. Just catching up.

By far my most favourite story of the day is the Facebook one.

Ian Lucas MP @ ianclucas
Facebook said: “The materials obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protective order of the San Mateo Superior Court restricting their disclosure. We have asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and to return them to counsel or to Facebook.” Too late.

I just love that FB had the nerve to turn around and suggest that a poxy local court where FBs headquarters are located has jurisdiction over the British government.

It's actually funny.

As for the announcement by the EU today. Beyond formally putting something on the table, I am jumping up and down at the news. It means little if May is unable to get it through parliament in the context of preventing no deal. It means a lot in terms of creating a political narrative about the EU and frankly the EU has every right and need to do what it thinks best every bit as much as the UK, so I don't want to engage too much in that one tonight. It's a neutral development in my mind. What matters is what comes next.

jas convention is that a PM doesn't keep sending the same bill back to the HoC

• it would normally prompt a Vote of No Confidence -

but I've not seen any actual rule quoted about this.

Easy enough to change the wording slightly, without changing the meaning at all.

red For the EU, politically - within the E27 - that WA shows the Commission have done all they could to avoid Brexit being a disaster

They've gained a lot of credit for the professionalism of Barnier and his team in the face of astounding stupidity & ignorance, even sometimes personal rudeness from UK negotiators (Raab & DD, not Robbins)

It's amazing that Barnier's team managed to create the text of a massive new WA within a few weeks, after May suddenly changed her mind and demanded a CU Brexit.

The Commission have minimised any internal flak if this ends in No Deal;
the overwhelming view in Germany - and afaik in the other EU countries - is that the EU has definitely gone the extra mile
and that No Deal will entirely be the fault of the chaotic, squabbling British govt

mother I have no faith in the intelligence, courage or sense of duty of the HoC;
although a few individual MPs have shone, most seem to be hacks & spivs

Brexiters turning to Norway deal in transition, hence WA ?

Nick Boles MP‏Verified account @NickBoles (Brexiter Tory MP)

I agree with this.
We will need to sign up to the Withdrawal Agreement in full and make an indefinite not temporary commitment to the EEA in the Political Declaration.
Once we are in EEA/EFTA and the new customs arrangement, the backstop will fall away.

< this is Barnier's fav Norway++ that Boles has suddenly discovered himself >

BCF How can she or anyone else change the wording? its been signed off! surely, it would requirement amendments agreed with the EU and they ve said no chance!

John Bercow would refuse any new vote unless there was a change.

jas She can change trivial wordling of the bill that proposes to approve the WA
She can't change the WA

However, I still haven't seen the HoC rule that says she can't keep sending the same bill to sign

Political analysts have said May will keep sending the bill
None so far have said anything about Bercow having the power to refuse this

Have they all missed something ?
Or is another MP talking through his arse about the rules of the HoC ?
(both possibilities are feasible !)