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.

DGR 'What did they say would happen if there was no WA vote ?'

I'm keen to see speculation on this.

I don’t think she can pull it again. It would be a tacit admission she can’t get it through.

I still remain to be convince it will happen (in the full knowledge that what spotty little herberts like me say on the internet is worthless ...)

Nothing will have changed about the WA since last time it was scheduled for a vote. So given that, why would the outcome change ? Indeed I'd throw back your "tacit admission" from May ... if the WA was set to lose a vote last month, but a month later can win with absolutely no changes then there's some serious explaining needed from someone.

To give the DUP their due, they've made no secret of their position. Which is the same as last month. They won't vote for it.

If she avoids a vote she avoids Grieve .

Some light relief, and a timely example of why "the will of the people" really needs to be filtered through "the sieve of reality". Because I don't care how "sneery" it sounds, I refuse to accept that I have to respect the views of twatbadgers like this with the same weight as (say) Vernon Bogdanor

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-46808170/man-calls-999-over-cheating-partner

Man calls 999 over 'cheating' partner

A man phoned 999 to request a DNA test because he feared his partner was "sleeping around".

During the call, the spurned lover asks for an ambulance to be sent to his home to perform the test on his "cheating" partner.

An exasperated operator can be heard informing him that the number should only be used for emergencies.

The North West Ambulance Service released the recording to remind people to use the number to report life-threatening situations and not domestic disputes.

This is not a deal. It's an options paper (Starmer)

I’ll be fancinated to see what Jeremy comes up with tomorrow.

Freudian slip ?

So given that, why would the outcome change

Because the landscape is slightly different now than before Christmas as the headbangers can see the opposition to No Deal. They may choose to vote for some form of Brexit rather than risk losing Brexit altogether. And potentially fac NCV/GE, losing their seats etc.

Fancinate is fabulous.
I fancinate Keri, Ken and Dominic.
Jezzer? Nah.

Because the landscape is slightly different now than before Christmas as the headbangers can see the opposition to No Deal. They may choose to vote for some form of Brexit rather than risk losing Brexit altogether. And potentially fac NCV/GE, losing their seats

By definition the headbangers don't give a shit what or who opposes their deal. Or rather that's my take on 2017-2019. They really don't. So far they've had a willing MSM at their backs, willing to call people traitors, and "enemies of the people" to shout down any form of debate or criticism. So I don't think a languid couple of weeks of sherry and mince pies is going to change their views.

I take the reverse view. The ERG-headbanger opposition to the WA shows all they ever wanted was a no-deal Brexit - the last thing they want is for the WA to pass as it effectively castrates their vision of Brexit forever. They know there's no way the UK - or what's left of it - will ever allow parliament another bite of the cherry until we are all long dead.

So no vote, or a defeated WA are equally acceptable to the headbangers.

MPs only ever worry about their seats in the 4 weeks before an election. The other 4 years 48 weeks, they can do whatever they like. In fact it's a testament to the public service ethos that more don't.

I fancinate Keri, Ken and Dominic.

Quite a 3some you've lined up there. Who's the lucky Keri ?

British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Article 50 amid fears a Brexit deal will not be completed by March 29, the Telegraph can reveal.

Three separate EU sources confirmed that UK officials had been “putting out feelers” and “testing the waters” on an Article 50 extension, even as the Government said it had no intention of asking to extend the negotiating period.

The discreet diplomatic contacts, described by one source as officials “just doing their homework” emerged as a minister broke ranks for the first time to raise the possibility of extending the talks.

But the bombshell is this. For Art. 50 to be extended the EU must be satisfied that the UK will seek a final deal compatible with the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. This must mean that Theresa May is on the point of rejecting No Deal specifically and clearly at last and calling the Brexiteers bluff inside her cabinet and party.

sluggerotoole.com/2019/01/07/the-dup-are-the-crucial-dominoes-in-mays-bid-to-win-a-second-meaningful-vote/

red I'm worried that if May calls a vote on a GE, that Corbyn would support it.
That's how we got the 2017 GE, after all

Then that's potentially 5 weeks lost, out of the 11.5 remaining
So MPs would only have 6 working weeks from now to try to avoid No Deal.

For those wondering why the vote on the WA might change:

It's not just the ERG panicking in case it's No Brexit
Some of the softer / not genuine ones and some Remainers will be panicking in case it is No Deal

This is why May reportedly plans to keep bringing back the WA to be voted on until it eventually passes.

BUT Bercow may in that case stick to precedent (!) and Erskine May

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-no-deal-vote-commons-repeat-parliament-jeremy-corbyn-a8714241.html

On repeat votes, Erskine May [HoC "bible"] says:

“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

It says a decision on whether “verbal alterations” amount to real changes are “a matter for the judgment of the chair [the Speaker, John Bercow]”.

British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Article 50 amid fears a Brexit deal will not be completed by March 29, the Telegraph can reveal

That was "news" yesterday (I like the "bombshell" bit. Only to the terminally thick). It was also immediately dismissed by the EU as being inappropriate since the WA hadn't been agreed. Because any "extension" could only come after the UK signed up to the WA.

Clearly Telegraph readers are thicker than I thought (makes note for any future interviews ...)

in substance

"forthright"

if the fate of the country is going to rest on arcane English definitions, we're fucked.

"forthwith" even
That our future should depend on this exact meaning 🤯

This is not how a modern democracy should work
Well, we knew we didn't have one of those

DG - I’d love you to be right, but I’m a pessimist by nature. I fear the WA may scrape in for fear of the alternatives. If the headbangers had to choose between WA and No Brexit I think they would choose former.

I still need to buy flour.

Looks like a house on our ideal street is due to come on the market at the end of Jan...

Arrrgghhh.

The BBC seem to be (trying to) write Bercow's political obituary 🤔😡

Sam Coates Times@SamCoatesTimes

NEW

BBC Mark D’Arcy reports a motion of no confidence in the Speaker “looks pretty certain”
....
“Mr Bercow’s turbulent tenure in the Commons chair is coming to an end” - BBc

It's worse than that. It's how JRM thinks forthright should potential be defined versus how John Bercow thinks it should be defined. It's not even the government or parliament as a whole.

Since our chances of Revoke or PV are looking low, I would settle for a WA
and then work in transition to Rejoin, or at least get SM+CU etc

Placemat King.

Îf the WA gets voted down, then the HoC need to demand a PV
If they can't do that, then haul back the bloody WA and vote on that.

No Deal would be horrendous

Place cat king

It's worse than that. It's how JRM thinks forthright should potential be defined versus how John Bercow thinks it should be defined. It's not even the government or parliament as a whole.

In law, unless explicitly defined the the legislation, words are taken at their "everyday" meaning.

If that helps.

No not really as we don't have time for a court case to decide the every day meaning.

Which just leaves it as the legal opinion of whichever lawyer there happens to be to hand. Which could just lead to multiple versions from different sides which resolves precisely nothing.