Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
prettybird · 13/01/2019 13:50

May put Revoke back on to the agenda perhaps inadvertantly, perhaps deliberately Confused even before Parliament flexed its muscles (I wouldn't quite go as far yet as saying that it has "taken back control") when she stood in Downing Street (or was it in the HoC?) when making her statement about the WA and stated that unless it was agreed, then we "risked no deal or no Brexit at all" Hmm

BigChocFrenzy · 13/01/2019 14:01

TheGirl My definition of a unicorn is something totally impossible, e.g. legally,
such as the Brexiters' cake of frictionless trade without SM, or even a WA - the EU could not legally grant this without dismantling themselves.

Revoke over the time period of 29 March and a possible extension is at least legally possible,
but politically unlikely

  • I currently rate the total chances at 10%

It is not currently one of the options MPs are considering - in public, anyway,.
However, it is a possibility that after they stay logjammed that they & May could agree a PV, simply because not choosing anything else is automatically No Deal

It is also possible, but less likely, that MPs could agree on Revoke without a PV - some Brexiters regard this as better than the WA and / or better than No Deal -
and possible that May will blink on 29 March, Revoke and hope that the party's fury is used up on her

Hence, I cautiously support voting down the WA the first attempt,
but unless we see real progress towards something better by early March, I would want the MPs to vote for the WA then

  • the EU would give us an extension for the accompanying legislation to the WA.
1tisILeClerc · 13/01/2019 14:02

Importantly Revoke is an EU acceptable outcome. There are only 3, Revoke, WA as it stands, and no deal.
No deal has a bit of a technical detail that it breaks the Belfast agreement, an international treaty but hey.

DGRossetti · 13/01/2019 14:06

Just been reading another article on how the US shutdown is biting.

Comes to something that the most illuminating fact I took away from it was that Trumps nickname in some circles is Twitler - which for some reason I am annoyed I didn't know before now.

DGRossetti · 13/01/2019 14:08

Seems even nature wants to get in on the act ...

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-north-pole-moving-arctic-siberia-canada-earth-navigation-ships-a8724426.html

TatianaLarina · 13/01/2019 14:09

what's on the table now is no deal or existing WA

For how much longer. If Benn’s amendment is accepted - both will be voted on this week. Could take one or other or both off the table.

borntobequiet · 13/01/2019 14:16

A bit late but re town centre polls - if one was held in the nearest town to me I think it would be heavily no deal. But the town centre shopping demographic isn’t really representative, being largely older, poorer, less well educated. The only people out campaigning on a weekly basis before the Referendum were UKIP, and they were speaking to their supporters. I saw people cross the road to avoid them (as did I)...
The area voted Leave, but not by as much as I thought it would.

Thegirlinthefireplace · 13/01/2019 14:23

We have different definitions then. We laugh at leavers talking about renegotiating the WA because EU said they won't, legally there's nothing stopping them going back to the table, but they've said they won't and we believe them.

Legally we can revoke Article 50 but Theresa May has said that she won't, and I believe her (for now).

Thinking someone will do something they have absolutely said they won't is unicorns to me.

Presumably if you think revoke is on the table then you also believe that going back to negotiations on the WA also is? After all, it's legally possible.

Mistigri · 13/01/2019 14:36

You can distinguish between outcomes which are "on the table" and those which are technically possible even if not being promoted by anyone.

May's deal is the only one on the table.

Both revoke and extend are technically possible.

And then there is no deal, which although being widely promoted is not currently technically possible (because there is no time now to put in place the required legislation to make it even marginally workable).

1tisILeClerc · 13/01/2019 14:42

Apart from 3 topic areas the WA is essentially a list of all the things that need negotiating so it is only part of a 'deal'.
Citizens rights, FoM and another that escape me have been 'defined' the rest is up for negotiation during the transition period.
585 pages of legally considered text agreed with much arm twisting by 27 countries is not going to get rewritten just because Mrs May is dancing around her handbag. Skillful negotiation of the WA and PD AFTER the WA is signed off allows a fair amount of leeway in the final outcome and doubtlessly the EU would compromise on some aspects AFTER it is signed. In 3 or 4 years time many world events may have happened so the prevailing conditions behind the WA will probably have changed anyway.
The effects of significant chunks of manufacturing and finance industry will be felt in a year's time, if not before.

1tisILeClerc · 13/01/2019 14:44

Like the MOT on your car, it is only valid for the duration of the test. Anything can change after you have driven your car away from the test centre.

DGRossetti · 13/01/2019 14:45

If Benn’s amendment is accepted

That hinges on the WA vote happening. No WA vote. No amendments of any description.

No WA vote really suits May out of any possible course of action. It's the one thing she can control. The one thing she cannot be forced into (or out of).

I've tried to pay attention to the signal, rather than the noise. My current thinking is that May will pull the vote at the last possible moment (as she did before) with the excuse that all the responses she was "promised by the EU" haven't yet been received, and so it would not make sense to press ahead with a vote without the information being available.

This allows her to pull the vote whilst simultaneously blaming the EU. Blaming the EU is a tried and tested strategy, because it swerves any contact with reality. It allows the Brexiteers to froth and foam, and it also acts as a chilling effect on any Remainers who dare be bold enough to appear to support the enemy EU.

We can then waste a few more days in the HoC arguing over this, that and the other.

Tick tock, Tick tock.

Maybe in a few weeks time, it will be time for the WA vote. Only now the no-deal cliff edge has drawn closer.

I have less than zero sympathy for parliament as a whole in this. They should have acted much sooner, when it was painfully clear that Theresa May had her own ideas of what to do.

This isn't politics. It's "Westminster does It's A Knockout ".

1tisILeClerc · 13/01/2019 14:45

{And then there is no deal, which although being widely promoted is not currently technically possible}
No deal is what happens unless Mrs May says anything otherwise.

Moussemoose · 13/01/2019 14:46

Revoke is less a unicorn than a rare breed pony.

thecatfromjapan · 13/01/2019 14:57

Yes. I agree with BigChoc - i keep saying it but it really is worth emailing your MP to vote down the WA.

It's all pretty horrible, though.

I'm going to take a social media break until Tuesday - too much stress!

Much love to all of you. ❤️❤️❤️🦄❤️❤️

TatianaLarina · 13/01/2019 15:00

Don’t personally think she will cancel it now, but never say never. She’s gone either way. If she cancels she’d have to resign. If she loses she’ll either resign or be pushed (knowing her the latter).

Benn’s amendment is not the only opportunity to put No Deal before the house though.

QueenieIsLost · 13/01/2019 15:02

Place mat king.

DGRossetti · 13/01/2019 15:05

The only way revoke is an option is if the HoC passes a vote of no confidence in May, and can supply an alternative PM to the Palace who can command a majority.

Theresa May is only PM because she has blagged it to the Queen that she can command the commons. The Queen is free to chose whoever she likes as PM - as long as they can deliver a majority. It's only a recent (post war) tradition that she chooses the party leader.

Peregrina · 13/01/2019 15:09

I was busy for two days, and a new thread gets to 194 posts! Still catching up with them.

TatianaLarina · 13/01/2019 15:11

That’s not true, post A50 cases - Parliament can direct PM to revoke as per its constitutional requirements.

I don’t think Revoke is on the cards atm.

Peregrina · 13/01/2019 15:15

No deal was absolutely full to bursting, practically no more room for people to put their tiny star stickers on the chart.
But that is Now. Given a couple of years crashing out without a deal it will be a different matter. As with Nazi Germany - oh so many went along with it in the early 1930s - Hitler brought work, and many felt he gave the Germans back their respect. It was a very different story by 1943 when it became increasingly clear that the Germans were going to lose the war, and lose badly.

1tisILeClerc · 13/01/2019 15:16

{I was busy for two days, and a new thread gets to 194 posts! Still catching up with them.}
As a 'stress busting' strategy I would recommend a bit of essential prep, as advocated by Bellinisurge, then switch off computer/phone with any 'Brexit' info until 30 March. Then open your curtains and see if the world is still there.
Get some coffee on, and a bottle of gin/?? on 'standby', and check out the news.

DGRossetti · 13/01/2019 15:24

From the BBC. Today.

A "no-deal" Brexit is where the UK would cut ties with the European Union overnight without a transition period.

Theresa May's government, and many others, believe this would be hugely damaging and want a more gradual withdrawal. But if Parliament can't agree on that, and nothing else takes its place, the UK will leave without a deal.

This would mean the UK would not have to obey EU rules. Instead, it would need to follow World Trade Organization terms on trade.

is it just me, or is that last sentence just plain wrong ?

RedToothBrush · 13/01/2019 15:25

PARLY
@ParlyApp

With MPs facing an unprecedented situation, Commons procedure has become front page news.

The current situation only arises because the government does not have a majority. In our system the government, whether Tory, Labour or coalition, is normally assured of complete and unquestioned control of the Commons.

The suggested changes to standing orders being discussed today could have profound effects on that government control of the House in the future. Alternatively a future government with a majority could reestablish total dominance by rewriting the standing orders.

The Cameron government introduced complex new standing orders in October 2015, creating the EVEL process. Many MPs were furious at this creation of what they saw as second hand MPs.

It was viewed by some at the time as a major constitutional outrage, creating two tiers of MPs.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/01/2019 15:25

PARLY
@ParlyApp

With MPs facing an unprecedented situation, Commons procedure has become front page news.

The current situation only arises because the government does not have a majority. In our system the government, whether Tory, Labour or coalition, is normally assured of complete and unquestioned control of the Commons.

The suggested changes to standing orders being discussed today could have profound effects on that government control of the House in the future. Alternatively a future government with a majority could reestablish total dominance by rewriting the standing orders.

The Cameron government introduced complex new standing orders in October 2015, creating the EVEL process. Many MPs were furious at this creation of what they saw as second hand MPs.

It was viewed by some at the time as a major constitutional outrage, creating two tiers of MPs.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread