Westminstenders: What The Hell Happens Next?!

[RedToothBrush]

John Bercow has just spent over at an hour dealing with a Points of Order, in which he has argued that he is defending the soverignty of the House of Commons and that is his duty, not to simply to be a cheerleader for the executive.

Taking back control seems to have rather upset ERG Brexiteers.

As Jess Phillips astutely pointed out:
"People only care about procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they don't like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen and never when it is going in their favour."

And given what we have seen the Executive do over the last few months in terms of trying to use procedure for its own political gain, this is quite a fair point.

There are however certain constitutional questions this is all raising. And we have a very real constitutional crisis here.

Bercow has ruled that he CAN allow an amendment (because the previous vote had prevented only a motion and a debate) put forward by Grieve to go to a vote.

This amendment would - if it is passed by the house - require May to report to the house within 3 days if the WA fails to pass next week.

This would be a significant victory, if it passed because at present the position is where May can delay reporting back to the house until it start to get to the point where politically the opposition can't influence things, and a 'meaningful vote' will in practice be more like a gun to the head by the Executive, rather than the House of Commons acting in a sovereign manner and being free to make its own decisions rather than be forced into a corner by Parliamentary Procedure and the politicking of Parliamentary Procedure to undermine the independence of the HoC.

Allowing more time for the opposition to hold the government to account, does not necessarily change anything. It just means the executive can not just run down the clock in the way it perhaps has been intending.

The HoC could of course, vote against the amendment.

The WA is to come to the HoC next week.

And we have no idea what the hell is going to happen next.

@mathanxiety. My view is that this US administration is doing no more and no less than I would expect any American administration to do, looking after America’s interests. “It’s going to be America First, America First” i believe the President said. I would expect nothing less from him, nor indeed from any occupant of the Oval Office.

As I said, I don’t beleive that America has, or intends to renege on commitments under NATO to common security for NATO alliance members. What I think the administration are sick off, and they are right to be, is European NATO members failing to meet the spending requirements for their own defence and relying on America to bail them out, at the expense of America’s taxpayers.

I don’t beleive that there is anything “special” about the UK which will afford it any more protection than other nations have, from the consequences of America pursuing its interests on the international stage.

The UK and Europe, have however benefitted hugely from the presence of American service personnel on our shores for the last 70 plus years. I see no reason why that wouldn’t continue under any future president, Republican or Democrat. IMO It remains in US strategic interests to have bases, personnel and materiel in Western Europe and I can’t honestly foresee a day when that interest will cease.

The alleged preference and admiration for Putin and other dictators are designed for the consumption of his core voters, BigChoc. They appeal to the sense this core that the masculinity of the American male is under threat by the forces of feminism and egalitarianism that the Obama administration embodied, and that Trump will make it safe for men to be men once more in the US. Safe, that is, for white men with little or no education to occupy a privileged place that they should have no right to. Trump is willing to say anything to get him votes.

Ultimately, the aim of the US is hegemony over the Russian Federation and its vast natural resources, which will in turn put the squeeze on China.
Seeing the improvement of Russian-German under the leadership of Gerhard Schroeder (see LNG pipeline and increasing economic ties) the US has sought to undermine the developing relationship. It has used conflict in Ukraine that it engineered (among other ploys, including shrill bleating from Baltic states about Russian intentions in that area, and cozying up to rightist Polish politicians friendly to the idea of US missiles on Polish soil) to effect this result. Forces within the US administration or military command have now apparently got the President's ear wrt Syria, so a confrontation between RF and US over Iran seems ever more likely, perhaps within Syria. The US wants Iran for itself.

Another means of damaging the EU is of course picking up politicians with lower than average IQ like Andrea Leadsom and providing all expenses paid trips to events in the US sponsored by vulture capitalists, and sponsoring the Leave side in the referendum, providing intellectual pressure in the form of think tanks and funding for their output, direct financial support. (Has the origin of the money distributed to Steve Baker by the Constitutional Research Council or the money provided to the DUP ever been identified?) Then there is of course and above all the Robert Mercer intervention in the form of Cambridge Analytica.

Wrt speculation that it is Deutsche Bank that is in the Mueller radar, it might also be www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2018/11/19/509641.htm the Danish-Estonian Danske Bank, with ripples extending into the US and UK.

A Deutsche Bank spokesman confirmed in a statement to Reuters the lender acted as a correspondent bank for Danske in Estonia.

“Our role was to process payments for Danske Bank. We terminated the relationship in 2015 after identifying suspicious activity,” the spokesman said.

Wilkinson said two U.S. banks were also involved in handling dollar payments for Danske in Estonia, without identifying them. Alongside Deutsche, JPMorgan and Bank of America cleared dollar transactions for Danske‘s Estonian branch, sources have told Reuters.

JPMorgan ended the correspondent banking relationship with Danske in 2013 on grounds that transactions did not comply with anti-money laundering rules, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Bank of America declined to comment.

Authorities in Denmark, Estonia, Britain and the United States are investigating payments totalling 200 billion euros ($228.5 billion) made through Danske Bank’s tiny Estonian branch between 2007 and 2015 in a growing global scandal.

“I would guess that $150 billion went through this particular bank (the large European bank) in the U.S.,” the Briton told a Danish parliamentary hearing.

“No one really knows where this money went. All we know is that the last people to see it was these three large banks in the U.S. They were the last check, and when that failed, the money was into the global financial system,” Wilkinson said...

...Danske Bank has acknowledged that its money laundering controls in Estonia were insufficient, but in a report issued in September said its board, chairman and chief executive had not breached their legal obligations.

“In April 2014 it became clear that the bank didn’t intend to do anything,” the former Danske Bank employee said, referring to earlier whistleblower reports. “There was a curious lack of interest at senior management level.”

Wilkinson said that at the start of January 2014 he had looked at the three most profitable accounts involving British limited liability partnerships (LLPs).

“They were all fake. Not just that, they all basically looked the same. And it turned out they all had the same registered office in a suburb in North London … I passed those on. By April none of the accounts … had been closed down.”

@mathanxiety, by way of evidence to support what I wrote about America’s desire for a more equitable sharing the NATO defence burden cost wise. Here is the BBC’s write up of the 2018 NATO summit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44799027

LouiseCollins28
My view is that this US administration is doing no more and no less than I would expect any American administration to do, looking after America’s interests. “It’s going to be America First, America First” i believe the President said. I would expect nothing less from him, nor indeed from any occupant of the Oval Office.

It is very easy to sit back and enjoy the 'pax Americana' and believe the benign state of affairs that has existed up to 2016 will always exist. You are not sitting on the sideline watching some interesting drama unfold. You are standing in the path of a tsunami.

Your theory of ongoing peace and security comes apart when you start asking what appeal a strong Europe has for the US. The answer to that is that there is no appeal for the US whatsoever in a strong Europe, a Europe that could intervene in the Middle East, that could support Palestine, that could court China or the Russian Federation, or India. A Europe that can keep American agricultural imports out. It hasn't been such an issue until the rise and rise of China and the self inflicted damage to the US economy caused by the Iraq war.

The EU is a middle man the US cannot completely control. NATO is also a middleman the US cannot completely control. The antipathy of the US for both has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the American taxpayer. It is all about frustration with the EU and with NATO requiring an equal place at the table with the US when it comes to policy. The bottom line of the US is that it will never share unless it is in its own very obvious and immediate self interest to do so. The bigger the EU becomes, the more it is perceived as a threat by its supposed benign patron.

It would be very wise to look at what happens when hedge funds are allowed to run amok in an economy, as in the US itself. The north of England since the era of Thatcher should offer salutary lessons too. Again, I hope the truth of 'America First on steroids' won't dawn on you after it is too late.

Thanks RTB. Almost made it on to page 20 but my iPad lost charge just as I got to the end of my post.

I know more informed posters than I (notably BCF) believe a PV could not be held without No Deal being on the ballot paper. However, given that, as we all agree, No Deal would be a major catastrophe for the country, surely it could be legitimately excluded as an option, with a full and frank explanation of the reasons for doing so. Whatever anyone says now, Leave voters voted for Brexit, not for a specified version of Brexit. The choice now should be between a deal to leave (May’s deal or another perhaps another deal the EU has already mooted such as EFTA) or sticking with the deal we currently have as a member of the EU.

Mind you, the (very faint) silver lining to having No Deal on the ballot - at least if we got No Deal under those circumstances there’s no way they could blame us Remoaners.

The USA is probably a bit annoyed with the EU in that the EU want to build their own armaments rather than buy it from the USA. The French have, in my view rightly, promoted sourcing within the EU, such as the Eurofighter. Trump wants to up arms spending so that the EU will spend in the USA.

Part of David Lammys speech

SusanWalker
Well that is an excellent start, can we drag him somewhere near where decisions are being taken please?

This is special.

Sam McBride @SamJAMcbride
NI Civil Service documentation issued today seeks volunteers for a crisis fuel rationing system where two staff would man each of 75 "strategic" filling stations. The documents give considerable detail of the contingency plan & list 41 locations.

www.newsletter.co.uk/news/civil-servants-asked-to-volunteer-to-man-75-crisis-filling-stations-across-northern-ireland-1-8765757
Civil servants asked to volunteer to man 75 crisis filling stations across Northern Ireland

The documentation seen by the News Letter does not include the full contingency plan and it is not clear whether there is a proposal to shut every filling station with the exception of the 75 sites run by government or whether it is envisaged that supplies will have already run out at most other sites by that stage.

And

They would be responsible for ensuring that fuel was only going to those with permits identifying them as being on the “priority” list and would also record the amount and type of fuel going out so that Stormont mandarins “can track demand patterns”.

Prospective volunteers are told that “civil servants will not be expected to police the scheme and would normally be positioned behind the sales counter with filling station employees”.

And

A frequently asked questions document circulated to civil servants asks ‘what happens if customers become irate?’ The answer says that confrontation should be avoided and “if required, the PSNI can be contacted to assist in such circumstances”. There is no mention of Army involvement.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sam McBride @SamJAMcbride
Not sure that Sinn Féin's response to this has been thought out. Chris Hazzard MP says "advocates of a no-deal Brexit should be left to staff fuel pumps". That would mean Jim Allister, Ian Paisley Jr & David McNarry deciding who gets petrol, which is not necessarily what SF wants

I know. That's what Corbyn should have said today.

But then Corbyn has peaked now. His supporters are banking on the polls being wrong again like they were last time and Corbyn getting a surge once election campaigning starts but I can't see it happening this time.

David Lammy did an interesting interview on windrush and slavery with Dan Snow on his history hit podcast. He's a very eloquent speaker.

For people living in the poorest ex-industrial areas, maybe on benefits/low incomes, voting Leave was a vote for change (this is just my opinion.) In local or national elections, whoever is in power makes no difference - they still feel poor.
This was an opportunity to actually make a difference and lots of people voted who had maybe never voted in anything before - hence the largest voting figures ever.

It's all very well saying 'things will get worse, a lot worse' etc but an awful lot of people feel that things can't get any worse. In the past I've lived on a low income and watching every penny is soul destroying. If there's a chance for something radical then you probably think there's nothing to lose.

Just my humble opinion though...

{David Lammy did an interesting interview on windrush and slavery with Dan Snow on his history hit podcast. He's a very eloquent speaker.}
Even from that short piece a beautiful measured tone.

With regard to that piece put up by RTB, may I say 'Oh shit' please?

HoyPolloy
I expect most 'remainers' will agree with your thoughts there, as well as leavers. It seems that most know in their minds what was (is) wrong, but the vote to leave the EU was simply backing the wrong horse and some of the lies told did make it quite compelling.
You always have to think and try to work out 'where is the money coming from', and in the case you highlighted, wonder why successive governments have not got to grips with these issues.

@HoyPolloy the tragedy is that under No Deal, things will get a heck of a lot worse. And because it will get worse for people who are now relatively comfortable, the concerns of those suffering the most from austerity will get catastrophically worse and be the last to be addressed. Which suits the disaster capitalists of ERG and the hard leftists of Momentum. And anyone else who thinks they want No Deal is being played by those twats.

I have had a bit of a crush on David Lammy for a while now. I do love someone with a bit of passion and a good speaking voice. I would vote for him any day.

That David Lammy speech really does bring home how much we are all being failed by Jeremy Corbyn.

It is exactly what a leader of a left-wing Opposition should be saying.

The fact that such a discourse is not right out there in a prominent position - is in fact sidelined by the placating lies that the official opposition is mouthing - is nothing short of a disgrace.

God, David Lammy's good.

For people living in the poorest ex-industrial areas, maybe on benefits/low incomes, voting Leave was a vote for change (this is just my opinion

It’s an opinion I share. People aren’t scared about being told they will lose they’re job when they don’t have one.

Everytime David Lammy says anything I find myself nodding along. Really decent politician, wish we had more like him.

Thinking about it I think the Corbyn supporters I know would go for Lammy as Labour leader. He was one of the MPs to nominate Corbyn, has a great profile for his very powerful speeches and work after Grenfell and also his previous Brexit speeches. He is also not afraid to criticise his hard left colleagues, as he does in this speech.

Of course I am in unicorns and fairy land, but if we chucked Corbyn, Lammy could be a unifying candidate for Labour to move to a remain footing.

Though on a sad note I do rather suspect that as a country we are probably just too racist at the moment to vote in a prime minister that isn't white.

I really like David Lammy, for whom I would vote if I could (he's my ex constituency MP), but his name was conspicuous by its absence on the Cooper-Grieve amendment and I would be interested to know why.

That NI stuff is terrifying, no sane person could seriously consider doing this.

LouiseCollins28 said 'The UK and Europe, have however benefitted hugely from the presence of American service personnel on our shores for the last 70 plus years.'

I don't know much about this subject: in what way have the UK and Europe benefited?

arborea
much as we hated the cold war
and living with the threat of the 4 minute warning
having US nukes and troops holding an umbrella over Europe kept the USSR at bay

On the subject of 'things can/ can't get any worse', this came up on the BBC today www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46827360
Despite the Brexit vote, despite people on Mumsnet immediately afterwards saying that they had never realised how little some people had, I think that there are many who live inside bubbles and do not know just how bad things are for how many. There are many other areas of the country across the North and the Midlands that rank as more deprived than Morecambe.

Text from the Labour Party reiterating what Corbyn had to say I presume, I misssd the speech

The Brexit deal Theresa May has negotiated is a bad deal and Labour will vote against it next week.

If the government can't pass its most important legislation then there must be a general election.

The real divide in our country is not between those who voted to remain in the EU and those who voted to leave. It's between the many – who do the work, create the wealth and pay taxes – and the few – who set the rules, reap the rewards and so often dodge taxes.

I put it like this: if you're living in Tottenham, you may well have voted to remain. You've got high bills, rising debts, you're in insecure work, you struggle to make your wages stretch, you may be on Universal Credit and forced to use a food bank. You're up against it.

If you're living in Mansfield, you're likely to have voted to leave. You've got high bills, rising debts, you're in insecure work, you struggle to make your wages stretch, you may be on Universal Credit and forced to use a food bank. You're up against it.

But you're not against each other.

Only Labour can bring people together based on their common interests. Whether they voted to leave or remain, people know that the system isn't working for them.

Because it's a system rigged against the many, to protect the interests of the few – that's the real cause of inequality and insecurity in Tottenham, Mansfield and across the country.

That's why an election is so urgent – and why we must win it. And what will make the difference? Your campaigning and your energy.

So in a speech today in Wakefield, I sent the prime minister a message: if you're so confident in your deal, call the election, and let the people decide.

But if you don't, Labour will table a motion of no confidence in the government, at the moment when we judge it has the best chance of success.

If we can't get an election, then we'll keep all options on the table, including campaigning for a public vote, as our members decided at Conference last September.

But an election is the best outcome because it enables us to tackle the Tories' cuts to public services, their awful Universal Credit, rising homelessness, and all the other issues that are damaging our communities.

Together, we have the chance to transform our country for the many, not the few.