Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The WA Vote ReDux

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/01/2019 23:01

Tuesday is scheduled to be the date of the Withdrawal Agreement Vote.

The current expectation is it will fail to pass. Badly.

If this is the case then May will have to report to the HoC about what her Plan B is within 3 sitting days under Grieve IV - by the end of Monday 21st January (which was the original date that Grieve III set).

Its being reported that if it fails that May will make some sort of statement either late on Tuesday or Wednesday before flying to Brussels in order to try and calm the markets.

This weekend has been full of politicking to position to get the WA to pass. Some of this is to push those who think that May will revoke or extent which will endanger leaving and some of it is to push those who fear no deal. Nothing is likely to be exactly what it appears.

The feeling is that No10 is currently working more to keep the defeat as small as possible in order to keep alive the possibility of representing the WA to parliament at a later date.

This week has seen big announcements from the car industry; none of which have been unexpected and some of which were connected to technology change and were likely to have been an inevitability to some extent, but the timing the week before the vote should also focus some minds.

We've had the news that 4000 civil servants from the following departments - Defence, International Development, Work and Pensions and the Education department - being lined up to handle no deal brexit, with secondments of up to 6 months. (The idea that staff from W&P might be moved with all the problems with UC is mind boggling).

We've also had the rumour that May has spoken to the Tory MEPs to inform them that if there is a chance of extending a50 and this means the UK would take part in June's European Elections. Many of the newspapers have been reporting this weekend that there is a high chance that the UK will not leave the EU on the 29th March as scheduled leading to the pound rising to its highest level in 7 months.

Dominic Grieve has stated the following, and I think its worth keeping an eye on.

Jack Maidment @jrmaidment
Dominic Grieve: Govt should immediately remove Brexit date from domestic law if it loses on Tuesday.

"without doing that there is no point in going to the EU and asking for an extension because we would still be crashing out and that would have to be, I think, a top priority"

It has been somewhat misinterpreted in some quarters as Grieve suggesting we change the UK's exit date. Its not. Its a reference to how UK law has a date set in it, so even if we did get an extension UK law would in effect automatically exit us legally on a domestic level, even if on an international level we were still members. This creates a bit of an issue whereby parliament would have to vote to make this change somehow, which would need to be facilitated by the government in some way - which means coming from the PM which obviously will be somewhat problematic for the cohesiveness of the Tory Party.

Indeed The Sunday Telegraph is tonight reporting that the Tories are on the brink of an historic split, with Brexiteers and Remainers both threatening to 'torpedo the Government if they do not get their way on Brexit'.

Pro-EU Mps are claiming that a third of the Cabinet would resign if May pursued a no deal Brexit and that several senior minsters want May to immediately open talks with Labour MPs about a compromise involving a permanent customs union if her deal is defeated by a large margin.

Steve Baker is warning that this would risk a split in the party 'akin to the schism prompted by Robert Peel's repeal of the corn laws'. And Bernard Jenkin has said that any attempt to change the exit date or strike a deal with the Labour Party would destroy the Conservative Party. For once, its hard to argue with either of them and say they are completely wrong.

Of course this also doesn't seem to fit with Labour's plans. The Observer is reporting that Corbyn plans to table a dramatic vote of no confidence in May as early as Tuesday evening in an attempt to force a GE. This is, to put it bluntly, fucking ridiculous. He would only need 7 Tory / DUP rebels (on top of the rest of the house) or some abstainers but it remains to be seen who these would be. A three line whip for Tuesday night, including for all unwell MPs is in effect for Labour.

Both the Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times lead with similar stories about changing the rules of the HoC in order to effectively sideline the PM. The Mail refers to it as a plot between Grieve and Bercow, but the Times is much more broad stating:

A cross party group of senior backbenchers - including former Tory Ministers - plan what one senior figure branded a "very British coup" if May loses the crunch vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday

At least two groups of rebel MPs are plotting to change Commons rules so motions proposed by backbenchers take precedence over government business, upending the centuries old relationship between executive and legislature.

Downing Street believe that would enable MPs to suspend article 50, putting Brexit on hold, and could even lead to the referendum result being overturned - a move that would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

The funny thing about all this news is at no point have I seen discussed whether we could extend a50 as it stands - as thats down to the EU. And at no point have I seen anything about how the EU would facilitate ratifying the WA at the eleventh hour if we have to go for round 2.

Indeed the growing feeling does seem to be largely that one way or another the WA is dead in the water if it has a large defeat. The question is perhaps now, what will the ERG do in this context? Will they plough on trying to persue No Deal? Because that too would surely lead to a split in the Tory party in some way.

A cross party group referred to the 'Norway Group' (Boles, Letwin, Morgan and Kinock) are apparently planning according to Boles, to make No Deal illegal.

So to put it mildly, next week is looking absoluetely mind blowingly crazy and likely to be explosive in some way or another.

And finally. Here's a handy tool for you.
How Many Days Until Brexit Timer

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 13:57

{I'd be happy in the short term to see that, but the end result would be a Tory headbanger got voted in and invoked A50 again.}
Once revoked the chances of invoking again for many years is unlikely especially as the UK has not been acting 'in good faith' over the last 2 1/2 years.

1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:00

{borntobequiet}
Sorry to hear of your loss.
I would volunteer to take her place but the telly would need to go off!

1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:06

{May's government has made practically no effort to secure the consent of those who voted Remain}
Had the UK been negotiating properly from the word go, the EU would have helped to get a workable 'deal' set up and if the UK negotiators were paying attention they would have realised that the concept of leaving, while is of course possible, is bloody difficult. Deliberately setting impossible red lines and dancing around insulting all and sundry by the UK, I have every respect for the EU team to keep sane over all this time. How they managed to go into the (rare) meetings with DD and Raab without wanting to hit them is a mystery.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:11

Reportedly the UK politicians - when they attended - were very rude to the EU side, not holding to the usual diplomatic courtesies

Our pols - presumably DD & Raab - would deliver nationalist rants for 20-30 minutes, then bugger off back home.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:16

Tony Connellyy@tconnellyRTE*

"This exchange of letters is out there, it followed contacts between the two sides....
we shall not engage in interpreting the interpretation, or clarifying the clarification,"
says @MargSchinas EU Commission spokesperson

DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:16

Reportedly the UK politicians - when they attended - were very rude to the EU side, not holding to the usual diplomatic courtesies

As the MN mantra goes: "When somebody shows you who they are; listen."

PestymcPestFace · 14/01/2019 14:18

Had the UK been negotiating properly from the word go, the EU would have helped to get a workable 'deal' set up and if the UK negotiators were paying attention they would have realised that the concept of leaving, while is of course possible, is bloody difficult. Deliberately setting impossible red lines and dancing around insulting all and sundry by the UK, I have every respect for the EU team to keep sane over all this time. How they managed to go into the (rare) meetings with DD and Raab without wanting to hit them is a mystery.
Totally agree Clerc

I like the EU, they are totally into open and transparent government. The UK lot seem to be into bias and NDAs. They are only on a withdrawal agreement at the moment, how are they going to cope with working out a deal?

The EU has already made so many plans with generous transitions (even in the event of no deal). Plus I can look them up, read them and decide for myself. europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/brexit_en

DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:19

we shall not engage in interpreting the interpretation, or clarifying the clarification

cf. "Brexit means Brexit"

well I know Brexiteers won't pick up on this, but I am sure quite a few Remainers have been smiling to themselves at the EUs occasional flashes of humour.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:20

Well, if the UK does Revoke, there would have to be at least a GE before reinvoking, because I can't see this HoC voting to invoke A50 a second time

Of course, if Corbyn pisses off Labour remain voters sufficiently, then there could be a large Tory majority and

  • especially if Tory & possibly Labour Remainers are deselected -
we could expect all sorts of hard right dreams being put into action, including reinvoking and possibly just walking out for No Deal immediately until the EU gives them a unicorn (which the EU won't, of course)
1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:22

{Reportedly the UK politicians - when they attended - were very rude to the EU side, not holding to the usual diplomatic courtesies}
I am pretty sure had DD or Raab gone and said 'we would like to leave but have bitten off more than we thought' they would have had masses of help. At those stages anything can be discussed, good ideas or bad to get a grip on what is possible. To be so disrespectful is so far beyond embarrassing.

DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:24

I like the EU, they are totally into open and transparent government.

How else could you keep 27 countries happy with each other ?

To be fair, I'm a massive fan of the US Federal Government (when it works). The appear to have this ludicrous notion that if the US taxpayer is funding a body, then that body needs to be transparent. To that end has anyone noticed a lot of Wiki photos are in the public domain because they were taken by a federal employee in the course of their duties ? That includes pretty much anything NASA has done. And the CIA (anyone read their field manual on the UK ? )

Compare and contrast with "Fuck off" in the UK. Although to be fair it can be strung out as "FOI request. Fuck off. Court order. Fuck off again. Oh, we've lost it."

1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:26

{we shall not engage in interpreting the interpretation, or clarifying the clarification,"}
Memo from EU to Mrs May, written in 28 languages:
Please send someone who can understand and speak any of these languages'.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:26

Yes, the EU have been open, courteous and stuck to international laws & their own treaties - which the UK helped create

Brexiters have called this "punishment" - not being treated as special

May is a control freak who wanted to keep the entire negotiations secret for 2 years until the actual HoC vote.
She and the Brexiters were furious at the EU for publishing all non-confidential data

  • but the EU have done this for all treaty negotiations etc for several years, in response to requests from the EU public
DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:28

Moving on ...

Assuming the UK did crash out with no deal on the 29th, what step(s) could/would a UK-less EU be able to take that require a unanimous vote in the Commission ? And what could these step(s) mean for a future UK-EU relationship.

I wonder if that's the first time that question has been articulated ? Because I suspect no one in Westminster has thought of it.

1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:30

{I like the EU, they are totally into open and transparent government.}
I am not so naive to think all is roses but they at least try to aim for their stated goals.
There is a bit of unrest over the a new honcho which is a bit worrying although as the rest of the setup is more democratic things should work out OK.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:34

Noone forced the Uk to sign the GFA and both Labour & Tory voted for it at the time

  • well I suppose you could say that the IRA and the US Congress both forced us, but the UK could have resisted this pressure

Anyway, it assumed both the UK and RoI would always be EU members, because this was before the rise of teh batshit Tory right.
No other country leaving the EU would have this kind of backstop
because only the UK is chained to a colonial remnant that rules out nearly all its Exit options

Terms of the GFA
https://www.britishirishcouncil.org/about/british-irish-agreement

In the preamble before article 1:

"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours
and as partners in the European Union"

DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:36

I am pretty sure had DD or Raab gone and said 'we would like to leave but have bitten off more than we thought' they would have had masses of help.

I'm not so sure.

The bottom line - as pointed out again (and again, and again, and again, ancora, encore, bis ...) is that it was the UKs decision to leave, so (bleeding obvious, you'd think) it was up to the UK to decide how to leave. It wasn't the EUs place to suggest or offer anything until the UKs position was clear. As Barnier said (well, I was listening) there wasn't any shade of Brexit which wasn't in some way detrimental to the EU, and the EU isn't in the business of advancing ideas that would hurt it.

Incidentally, I saw a brief note that The Sun has continued making losses - for quite a while now. Not sure if that has any bearing ?

prettybird · 14/01/2019 14:41

Mother - that is the way that the MSM is reporting it Sad, but Salmond's beef is with Lesley Evans, who is a Scottish Office employee, ie the WM Administration, not with the SNP (political) Scottish Government.

And Nicola Sturgeon has reported herself as she has been simultaneously (by the same person Hmm) been accused of colluding with and impeding the investigation Confused - which itself was acknowledged by the lawyers for Government (administration) to have been performed illegally, which is why they did not defend the case that Salmond had raised against them (although they waited until the court was actually sitting to state this Confused).

Confused? You will be Wink

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 14:41

DG After a crash out, any trade deal would require unanimous agreement by every EU member and by the regional Parliaments that some of them have.

The WA only required QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) from the EU for approval

Also, after No Deal, there would be no transition retaining Britain's EU trading, travel, agency terms
because transition is only legally possible as part of a WA

So the UK would be negotiating with its economy sliding further down the cliff every week
i.e. from a far weaker position than before Brexit
with foreign & UK exporters flooding out of Britain to the EU

However, we'd never get as far as even negotiating a trade deal until the UK had signed up to the 3 prerequisites in the WA:
the backstop, expat rights, exit bill

So, we'd not have gained anything from No Deal, just seriously damaged our negotiating position and our economy.

DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 14:46

DG After a crash out, any trade deal would require unanimous agreement by every EU member and by the regional Parliaments that some of them have.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of trade deals, more of internal EU procedures and regulations that the UK could have vetoed/was vetoing that are now open for reconsideration ????

Following the club analogy, once the UK storms out the door, with nothing, what mischief could the remaining members come up with (probably the wrong word, but it conveys the sense) that could materially impact on the UK - particularly if the UK were to reapply somewhere down the line ?

1tisILeClerc · 14/01/2019 14:55

{Following the club analogy, once the UK storms out the door, with nothing, what mischief could the remaining members come up with (probably the wrong word, but it conveys the sense) that could materially impact on the UK - particularly if the UK were to reapply somewhere down the line ?}
Rebuild the Atlantic wall?

{The bottom line - as pointed out again (and again, and again, and again, ancora, encore, bis ...) is that it was the UKs decision to leave, so (bleeding obvious, you'd think) it was up to the UK to decide how to leave}
Like it says on exam scripts, Read it through fully before starting your answers.

Hazardswan · 14/01/2019 14:58

lurking along today and im marking my place Grin

Looks like tomo's drama will go on late. I assume it's designed (or luck) to give May the night to pull herself together if/when she loses before showing her face or publically making any decisions.

RedToothBrush · 14/01/2019 15:14

David Allen Green@davidallengreen
A thread on what will be required from a legal perspective if there is an extension of the Article 50 period. 1.

There are both EU and UK law aspects to this, so a fair bit of legal choreography.

We start with Article 50, of which you may have heard. 2.

Article 50(3) provides, as far as is relevant:

"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State [...] two years after the notification [...] unless the [Council], in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period." 3.

This means that the Article 50 period can be extended beyond two years if all 27 EU states agree, as well as the UK.

So if Spain (or, say, even Malta or Cyprus) says no, no extension. 4.

The reference to "the Member State concerned" probably means it has to come from HMG as represented on the Council (rather than a majority of MPs and the Speaker somehow leapfrogging the PM and turning up in Brussels with desperate faces). 5.

Such an extension would be as formal as, say, the A50 notification itself.

And for how long can the extension be?

Now there is a question. 6.

As long as the extension is for "arrangements for withdrawal" there is no reason in principle it cannot be indefinite.

Only if it becomes the permanent arrangement will it go outside A50. 7.

In practice, however, EU27 are unlikely to agree easily to an extension which goes beyond the European Union parliamentary elections and the start of the new EU budget cycle. 8.

Once a new date is agreed (even if it "to further notice2 then we come to the domestic position.

And here, behold s20(4)(a) of the Withdrawal Act: t.co/h3iUbCZ8Po 9.

^"A Minister [...] may by regulations [...]
amend the definition of “exit day” [...] to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom"^

"exit day" is defined as 29 March 2019. 10.

The reference to "ensure" seems to mean that the A50 extension has to come first. The "exit day" cannot be amended without an agreed A50 extension.

(What is less clear is how s20(4)(a) will work if A50 is revoked altogether, but that is another subject.) 10.

And now come with me to schedule 7 to same Act.

This provides at para 14:

"A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament." 11.

Link: t.co/SDqTmtTA7S

Yes, this means there will have to be actual votes in both Houses.

And if resolutions not passed in time then European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on 29 March anyway, see s. 1:
t.co/fWs7CYEGBo

12.

So any extension will need:

(a) formal notification by UK to EU27 at European Council;
(b) to be temporary in intent;
(c) unanimous EU27 approval; and then
(d) majorities in both Houses for s20(4)(a) amendment to "exit day".

All of which will be fun.

13 and ends.

ps

Section 1 is still subject (it seems afaik) to a commencement order under section 25 for it to be put into effect, but it would still require amendment in any case.

I come back to my point that ANYTHING that is needed to prevent no deal as default in practice on some level requires Theresa May to change her mind and back if her deal fails tomorrow as expected.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 14/01/2019 15:24

I come back to my point that ANYTHING that is needed to prevent no deal as default in practice on some level requires Theresa May to change her mind and back if her deal fails tomorrow as expected.

(Yawn) that's if there's a vote.

RedToothBrush · 14/01/2019 15:32

She will.

She wants to be seen in control. Which now means holding the vote. The control bit, is now following the vote and being seen to manage the defeat. She's going to attempt to snatch victory from the Jaws of defeat in that manner instead.

I'm not feeling a vibe of the vote being pulled at the last minute.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Though I just want to get to Wednesday evening with all this now and bypass the next 48 hrs.

OP posts: