Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit
Original poster

Westminstenders: What The Hell Happens Next?!

996 replies

RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 14:14

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:31

The thing is, parliament is it's own court. So we could see MPs having to vote. Presumably on a range of meanings.

TatianaLarina · 09/01/2019 16:31

DG - that wasn’t the point of the Telegraph quote.

First it indicates that the government is considering extension options irrespective of what they say in public. Second it suggests May may be considering rowing back from No Deal to outwit the Brexiteers.

DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:32

No Deal would be horrendous

So was bombing Hiroshima Sad which (I believe) had to happen....

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:33

Robert Peston@peston
.@Keir_Starmer says he does not believe UK will leave EU on scheduled date of 29 March - and that he and Labour will enter into cross-party talks with an open mind on what comes next, if PM loses vote on her deal next week

In what circumstances will the EU agree to an extension of A50?

That sounds like Labours policy is now to support an extension. Except I'm willing to bet Corbyn isn't in on it.

OP posts:
Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:35

No Deal would be horrendous

So was bombing Hiroshima sad which (I believe) had to happen....

I believe the EU believe there are circumstances in which no deal has to happen. In fact I'm 100% confident of this position and the EU are not bluffing.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:39

DG - that wasn’t the point of the Telegraph ... First it indicates that the government is considering extension options irrespective of what they say in public. Second it suggests May may be considering rowing back from No Deal to outwit the Brexiteers.

But, as I noted, the gift of an extension is not within the UKs remit. It's up to the EU - specifically after an EU27 vote on it. Which I think it's fair to say looks remote at best.

And government saying one thing and doing another is news like it's hot in Africa, or cold in Antarctica ....

I have yet to see any signs that May really has any desire to outwit Brexiteers either.

The only thing talk of an extension might do - for the uneducated - is give some sort of impression we can string things out a bit longer. However current reporting seems to suggest that would merely re-entrench Brexiteers and Remainers equally, rather than trigger a change of heart.

Arguably we're where we are, because for all the guff about "will of the people" etc etc, neither side really had a clue how the Great British Public would react once the referendum was held. The only thing we can all be certain about is that nobody came even close to predicting where we are now.

BlueEyeshadow · 09/01/2019 16:39

What the actual?

@tnewtondunn
"More big Brexit news: No10 confirms the Govt has just accepted the Swire amendment - which gives MPs the power to;

  1. Veto the Irish backstop AND a transition extension in 2020
  2. Limit the backstop to just 12 months
Both completely contradict the current Withdrawal Agreement."
1tisILeClerc · 09/01/2019 16:40

{First it indicates that the government is considering extension options irrespective of what they say in public. Second it suggests May may be considering rowing back from No Deal to outwit the Brexiteers.}
The government can consider dipping themselves in honey but unless the UK presents either WA Revoke or 'no deal' on 29 March No deal is what the UK gets.

TatianaLarina · 09/01/2019 16:40

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

This is just unicorns.

If the gov get the WA through they will work in transition on the FTA which will not produce frictionless borders.

In that period all the JIT manufacturing know they have transition to get out. EU know a this. They just want that business from UK. These businesses have already triggered their plans.

If Corbyn came to power in 2021, 2 years into FTA discussions, then he may say yay to the full CU but he will still reject the SM.

Maugham made the point that there is no clear legal pivot from the WA (barebones CU, leaving the SM) to CU + SM (let alone Rejoin).

A vote for WA is blindfold vote.

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:41

I appear to have gone to overkill stakes with the tomato stash. Oh well at least some are dated until 2020.

Get four and squash. Keep the freezer stocked with meat. Keep the car topped up with petrol. And yeah. I think I'm about as done as I can be without DH going mental. Or he starts to panic. Which I don't think he will. Such is his faith.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:42

I believe the EU believe there are circumstances in which no deal has to happen. In fact I'm 100% confident of this position and the EU are not bluffing.

Make that 2 of us ....

1tisILeClerc · 09/01/2019 16:42

{cold in Antarctica ....}
No, the penguins have a had an Antexit vote and it is going to be sunbeds all the way from now on.

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:43

So the government have just admitted that no deal is the official policy cos the EU will say that's no the WA.

So the vote on the WA is, in effect, completely meaningless and irrelevant if that's the case.

And the EU WILL just let us no deal.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:43

No10 confirms the Govt has just accepted the Swire amendment

If the votes not going to happen, who cares what amendments are passed ?

1tisILeClerc · 09/01/2019 16:45

The EU's Brexit negotiating team's memoirs are going to be one hell of a great read!

umpteennamechanges · 09/01/2019 16:46

RTB....que?

TatianaLarina · 09/01/2019 16:47

^ut, as I noted, the gift of an extension is not within the UKs remit. It's up to the EU - specifically after an EU27 vote on it. Which I think it's fair to say looks remote at best.

Again, that is not the point - the point not what the EU would grant - but what it tells us about the way May is currently thinking. In other words - while saying WA or No Deal or bust, in fact they’re panicking and looking at ways to extend (that the EU won’t grant).

Secondly, while she is very much in thrall to the ERG, she opposes them on the backstop, and she may be ready to call their bluff on No Deal to try to get her way.

She’s fucking devious. And while I have had her down as a No Dealer she may be prepared to ditch that if she can see it will blocked.

golondrina · 09/01/2019 16:47

Marking my (mostly lurking) place to try to catch up later.

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:47

LeClerc, the disappointing thing will be the lack of anecdotes about David Davis. Seeing as the negotiating team never saw him.

OP posts:
LouiseCollins28 · 09/01/2019 16:47

@RTB, sorry, not clear here, are you saying that there will be "no deal" because the EU have said "no" to the Withdrawal Agreement, that they are supposed to have agreed?

DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:49

sorry, not clear here, are you saying that there will be "no deal" because the EU have said "no" to the Withdrawal Agreement, that they are supposed to have agreed?

no, the HoC is trying to change (or has changed) the WA (which has yet to be voted on) ...

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 09/01/2019 16:50

Well the swire amendment is the UK effectively breaking the WA before its signed by the EU. Of course it makes the EU look like its breaking it in the Brexiteer narrative. But its not what the EU agreed with the UK...

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 09/01/2019 16:50

@TatianaLarina

time out Grin ! - need to re-evaluate after the news about the Swire Amendment ....

bellinisurge · 09/01/2019 16:51

Silly fuckers can't change the WA. It has to be agreed by the other side.

1tisILeClerc · 09/01/2019 16:52

{I believe the EU believe there are circumstances in which no deal has to happen. In fact I'm 100% confident of this position and the EU are not bluffing.}
And if this isn't the case they can threaten to put discussions and legal ruling about it on a schedule for another 4 year's time, playing the 'UK' game.

Swipe left for the next trending thread