Westminstenders: May plays Sale of the Century

[RedToothBrush]

Theresa May is currently in the midst of a campaign to sell her deal to the public. Unfortunately she appears that there are only 649 people she needs to sell it to, and that's not going so well.

She attempted a sales pitch to potential Labour rebels and succeeded in getting them to actively decide to vote against her.

There are currently 100 backbench tories who have stated they will vote against it, which makes parliamentary maths very difficult.

There is a rising support for plan b in the form of Norway Plus. This may make Remainers less likely to vote for a deal but persuade some leavers to back May.

The ECJ A50 Court case has been heard. Judgment has not been given yet. Its due 'soon'.

Next week the Withdrawal Agreement will be debated in Parliament with the vote due at 7pm on Tuesday 11th December.

Expect a rough couple of weeks.

Grieve appears to be arguing that parliamentary rules are so archaic that they aren't worth the paper they are written on and therefore their use is an abuse.

also seizing on the unclear what the motion is about argument.

Grieve appears to be arguing that parliamentary rules are so archaic that they aren't worth the paper they are written on and therefore their use is an abuse.

To which the rebuttal is that had parliament so desired, it would have reformed the rules, so their continued existence is intended.

Remember: parliament is sovereign, and parliament is infallible.

(You'd think a barrister would know that )

ugh, Mogg on now,

JRM is using that precise argument DRG - that he thinks 11th Nov was wrong but as the government were compelled at that point to issue the legal advice, it therefore should be issued.

oh, but he is arguing that the government could table an argument to overturn that previous decision .

and he says the motion lacks specificity and should state who exactly is being deemed to be in contempt.

but he supports the governments amendment.

JRM is using that precise argument DRG

Is this the same JRM who also insists that parliament is not supreme ? Or are there two twats with those initials ?

it's exactly the same twat.

I'm not quite sure how they are going to decide enough debate has been had.

I'm not quite sure how they are going to decide enough debate has been had.

Until someone dies ? Or is that the House of Lords ?

Kenneth Clarke reiterates the idea that a redacted version should be issued.

Speaker points out that after this debate there is still a protected 8 hour debate to go today afterwards.

I think there should be a 'lock in' like they do for selecting a new pope. Leave them all locked up until a decision has been reached.

There's been no substantial argument against the actual idea that the idea that the government were in contempt of parliament. It's mostly regrets about waving the motion through in November.

Silly sods.

Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes
No10 facing big headache

MPs to be asked TODAY - before TM stands up to open 5 days of debate on her brexit sea - to vote on a Dominic Grieve amendment.

If gvt loses, ANY future motion on Withdrawal Act is amendable (not only those in neutral terms / ie meaningless). Gulp.

Important because - Today becomes a critical vote, on top of contempt - Dominic Grieve’s (clever) amendment ALSO keeps TM’s deal in tact (unlike Benn’s whose killed it) - This means Tories who want to be loyal to TM but ALSO want to rule out no deal can support in good conscience

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
Big news: Dominic Grieve has asked for this amendment to be voted on tonight, Speaker is deciding. If it wins, Parliament will have wrestled control of Brexit's direction back from Govt if meaningful vote is lost.

And that, incredibly ironically, could help the PM win over a few more Brexiteer MPs, who will shudder at the thought of that.

Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak
Forget the contempt vote later, what really has govt insiders worried is the attempt by Dominic Grieve and others to change the terms of what happens if there is a second vote on the Brexit agreement (assuming for a moment the first one is defeated)

Grieve wants to change the rules so that MP s could not just give verdict on what govt proposing to do at that point, but to instruct them instead - if amendment is chosen its likely to pass as more than a dozen Tories have signed up to it

One Tory MP tells me ‘if this gets thro that’s the end of proper brexit’ - assumes MPs would propose and vote for customs union type arrangement if May’s plan falls next week

So Labour has to get its house in order and get its MPs to this vote. Same for the LDs. And the SNP. And the few independent MPs.

Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar
Key developments: This Tory rebel remainer amendment has been accepted by the Speaker. PLUS Labour has said it will back it. Means almost certain defeat for the PM: if she loses meaningful vote, Parliament wrestles back control of Brexit.

Uh oh. Parliament take back control? Surely not.

Meanwhile, in Australia ...

seems www.bareallcleaning.com/ have added naked (male) gardeners to their list of services.

These trade deals are starting to make sense now. If you were wondering how the UK could make money out of a load of old cobblers ?

(www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/04/naked_women_cleaning_biz_smashes_patriarchy_by_introducing_naked_bloke_gardening_service/)

Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor
An MP gets in touch ... “Junior Gov whips approaching Tory backbenchers in the library asking how they’ll be voting in the contempt motion. ‘I’m listening to the debate’ says one. Whip asks if MP ‘wants to speak to the Chief’. A firm no in response.”

Asa Bennett @asabenn
Been sent this spectacularly timed shot of a Brexit bus zooming onwards despite the road ahead being closed

Tell me this is photoshopped.

Junior Gov whips approaching Tory backbenchers in the library asking how they’ll be voting in the contempt motion.

reminiscent of the NUS bouncers that were checking voting intentions back in 1984 when there was a vote on whether to discontinue the sit ins or not ... anyone who suggested they weren't going to vote to continue was turned away. Until the Rugby Soc. got word ... a few prop forwards turned up and ensured free passage for all.

(I sat in. I marched. All for nowt)

The debate has totally deteriorated to farcical strawmen.

Dom Walsh @DomWalsh13
As the Brexit debate starts, the amendments come rolling in. This one is potentially significant. Signed by 16 Conservative MPs- including 'usual suspects' such as Grieve/Soubry, but also more surprising names such as Oliver Letwin + Nick Boles. What does it mean? Quick thread

1. The amendment: "the provisions of Standing Order No. 24B" will not apply to any ministerial motion "pursuant to any provision of section 13 of the European Withdrawal Act." Confused? Bear with me, this gets quite technical...

2. S.O. 24B states that votes "in neutral terms" cannot be amended. Votes in neutral terms don't express an opinion ("this House has considered..") Section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act provides for several motions in neutral terms, which become amendable if 24B is disapplied.

3. So which are the motions which the Conservative MPs above want to make amendable? The most significant is that under Section 13(6)(a) of the EU Withdrawal Act. It relates to what happens if (when?) the Government loses the upcoming 'meaningful vote' on the Brexit deal.