Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The Rebellion

970 replies

RedToothBrush · 23/02/2019 22:43

This week is the start of another big week. Touted (again) as high noon. However the end of February marks a watershed in many ways. Parliament simply can not kick the can further. Its last stand time.

Three Cabinet ministers are openly saying back Cooper-Boles. They are joined by other ministers and intend to vote for it regardless of the government position. And will break protocol by refusing to resign to do so. This leaves May with the option of accepting it or sacking them.

The breaking of collective responsibility would be a bit deal. But May can not easily sack them. She simply has so little power left.

These ministers are backed by up to 100 moderates too. And with the emergence of the TIGGERS the mood has changed with others emboldened in their rebellion and arguably more likely to go.

Meanwhile Corbyn is losing even more authority. In what looks like a last ditch attempt to retain remain support in the face of the TIGGERS whilst also leaving to the point where it is realistic, noises are being made that Labour are about to back a People's Vote. It sounds symbolic rather than meaningful in anyway.

The antisemitic row, however, seems to be engulfing the party even further with MPs seen as Jewish, or not loyal Corbynites subject to intense amounts of abuse for being diplomatic or sympathetic in the face of resignations. The spectacle of Labour infighting has been laid bare in a very public way and it doesn't look healthy and is swallowing all column inches over and above any policy regarding either austerity or Brexit.

What this means for votes this week is important. The power of the whip on both sides of the house is completely fractured. MPs are more likely to vote with conscience than party lines than previously.

Where this leads us is now wide open.

An extension now looks all but inevitable. But for how long, at what price and for what ends ultimately in terms of a deal or no deal.

This noise seems very much at odds with other voices.

The Government itself, however, still seems to be planning to get WA legislation through parliament at the last minute at the end of March. (This would also involve May using measures which break parliamentary constitutional arrangements). And prominent leavers are suggesting that an extention will just kill Brexit off completely.

A GE is also very much looming. The TIGGERS emergence is such a threat that both parties will now possibly want it sooner rather than later (for slightly differing reasons). They will not want them to become established or prepared for an election. But calling an election now closes parliament and enables no deal by default. A GE after an extension or Brexit is a different prospect too.

Things are likely to get very busy this week. Time to brace once again.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:27

Personally, I still think there will be no extension and we'll head to no deal. All of this fannying about in parliament is two years too late.

Part of the problem is that common-or-garden MPs (which I stress is not an insult ....) have never had any experience of the process of negotiating anything other than their expenses. Which means they are totally clueless about what is really happening between the EU and UK since A50. I remain to be convinced that most of them don't think it's some version of "The Apprentice".

Generally the UK does treaties (which is what the WA is, in reality) by expert negotiation over years (the boring, but essential bit) and then a final advised vote on the outcome.

I was reading about problems surfacing in the US where "da prez" and his twitter account are in danger of torpedoing very real, serious and believable threats to US security ... which seems to be a similar issue ... he thinks being Prez is just like a reality show.

AutumnCrow · 27/02/2019 15:29

Keir Starmer telling it like it is. I want Cooper and Starmer in charge please.

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:33

DG The main reason for invoking A50 when May did was reportedly to avoid the complication of the EP elections.

Thus reinforcing my "no extension" logic Hmm

With the benefit of the past two years I doubt she was that clever. It was much more an attempt to ensure it was a Tory Brexit to keep the party together.

In fact all the (premature) triggering of A50 has done is give Remainers a massive stick with which to reasonably beat Leavers. A stick that gets longer by the day as we edge towards B-Day. Because as we all recall, it was Remainers that suggested a delay to A50, and Brexiteers that howled about Traitors, Enemies of the people etc etc when due process was insisted upon.

Not really had much interaction with any Leavers, of late Hmm but when I have, it's been cathartic - and correct - to point out that Leavers have had a damn good bite at the Brexit cherry and there's no patience anywhere for them to have another two years for a second bite.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:35

DG May certainly wanted to avoid having EP elections after having promised to deliver Brexit

  • Leavers would have immediately shouted betrayal.
So, yes, she did deliberately avoid - until now - holding the elections
FishesaPlenty · 27/02/2019 15:39

Personally, I still think there will be no extension and we'll head to no deal.

How? Isn't it beyond doubt that either the SNP amendment or May's vote on no deal will result in ND being off the table (at least ND on 29 March)?

If ND's off the table and there's no extension then what possible course has May got, other than to revoke?

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:40

DG May certainly wanted to avoid having EP elections after having promised to deliver Brexit- Leavers would have immediately shouted betrayal. So, yes, she did deliberately avoid - until now - holding the elections

Ah, the fading roar of the Leavers ?

Unless I've missed something in the past few days (sun gone to my head ?) the situation as of 15:39 27/2/2019 is that the UK is on course to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. No extension has been asked for or granted. And there will be no EU elections in the UK in 2019 ?

Is that correct ?

All else is tomorrows chip papers.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:40

btw, another timing problem generally overlooked imo:

The EP has not yet approved the WA - it is waiting for Westminster to do that first
and the EP dissolves itself before the MEP elections on 23-26 March

So unless the UK approves the WA before about 1 May, the EP won't be able to approve it until about late August, in its new session

Which would not be a valid session if the UK has no MEPs ..... AAARGHH !!

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:41

How? Isn't it beyond doubt that either the SNP amendment or May's vote on no deal will result in ND being off the table (at least ND on 29 March)?

So how does the UK in isolation take "no deal" off the table ?

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:41

Oops
MEP elections on 23-26 March May

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:46

"If ND's off the table and there's no extension then what possible course has May got, other than to revoke?"

It depends whether May decides that a vote against ND just requires her to request an extension,
or whether it requires her to avoid it by any means
i.e. can she just shrug if the EU refuse an extension

Revoke would probably tear her party to pieces,
so I doubt she'd Revoke

Especially since the HoC have not to date produced a majority for this

At the very least, if they want her to Revoke should an extension be refused, they need to specifically vote for that course.

TheElementsSong · 27/02/2019 15:47

A 2-month extension is a crash out No Deal trap!

Frankly, if we're going to crash out with No Deal in March or in June, I'd rather crash out in March. Two extra months of agonising fannying around, arguing with ourselves, pissing everybody else off, and painful uncertainty for businesses, organisations and individuals, only to fall off the same cliff, except with even more certainty of hitting the ground?

Thanks, but kill me now.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:48

DG I was referring to her earlier timing of A50 invocation, which was to avoid holding EP elections
This is also why she is only offering to the HoC / considering a short extension now

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:50

Maybe we remainers need to push the message Brexit delayed is Brexit denied ?

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 15:51

This is also why she is only offering to the HoC / considering a short extension now

An extension still unrequested and ungranted ...

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 15:54

This 2 month offer actually makes No Deal more likely:

MPs - still believing the UK can dictate to other countries - assume they will have the extension

So May makes the request on say 15 March, maybe later if she is playing silly buggers again

The EU members may have to debate afew days, since it seems some are not keen
It only takes one country to veto, or for the EU to make conditions that May refuses, such as holding EP elections

then we might not even have time for the HoC & HoL to pass the WA even if they wanted

Could May use Henry VIII or invoke the Civil Contingency Act and its Emergency Powers to pass the WA at the last moment ?

More likely she'd try that, if Cox tells her it is at all legal, than Revoke

FishesaPlenty · 27/02/2019 15:58

So how does the UK in isolation take "no deal" off the table ?

Have I missed something today? As I understand it there's a vote on the WA on 12th March and then a vote by the 13th on whether we leave without a deal on 29th March.

If the HoC votes that we can't leave on 29/3 without a deal then there are 3 choices - either an extension, a deal or revoke. If you're saying that an extension won't happen then the choices are leave with some sort of a deal on 29/3 or revoke.

Unless you're saying that the HoC vote won't actually be binding on TM/Govt? I don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to say whether that's the case or not.

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 16:02

These threads are probably the most well informed discussions on Brexit in the general interwebsphere ... if posters here are getting confused and feel a little at sea (well I do) we can only speculate how things must be to the rest of the world.

Incidentally, I would count posters here as being waaaaaaaaaaaay better informed and better communicators than over 50% of our MPs.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 16:11

Fishes If MPs mean that May must Revoke if an extension is refused, then they should specifically vote that

Otherwise, the question of whether an HoC vote is binding would be avoided by May saying she assumed that requesting an extension was sufficient to fulfill the HoC vote.

btw, the constitutional experts I've read say that the HoC can't force the PM into actions wrt foreign treaties,
because international affairs & treaties are powers reserved for the executive, not the legislature.

If we had a few months, it would be worth clarifying this issue in the courts, but since any refusal of the extension would be just a few days before 29 March,
I don't think there's time before we've Brexited automatically

FishesaPlenty · 27/02/2019 16:11

It depends whether May decides that a vote against ND just requires her to request an extension,
or whether it requires her to avoid it by any means
i.e. can she just shrug if the EU refuse an extension

Revoke would probably tear her party to pieces,
so I doubt she'd Revoke

So consider this (ignoring the other attempts to take ND off the table):

March 12th: Gov loses WA vote.
March 13th: Possibility of ND on March 29th voted against.
March 14th: Extension voted down.

With 2 weeks until B-day, unable to do a deal, unable to ask for an extension and unable to just leave without a deal on 29th March what other options would there be apart from revoke?

If we don't do a deal and we can't legally leave without a deal and we can't extend then exactly what happens on B-day?

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 16:13

It could be that May has had a Plan Z all along, to Revoke if all else fails
but we may not know this until 11pm on 29 March.

AutumnCrow · 27/02/2019 16:14

Spelman talking in House about the billions the taxpayer has paid for no deal prep. Laying it on the line about disruption and the human cost. She's trying to reach out to sensible Labour (Starmer and Cooper).

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 16:16

If we don't do a deal and we can't legally leave without a deal and we can't extend then exactly what happens on B-day?

parliament is supreme. If it votes the UK can't leave without a deal then that is the law of it. The fact it may not actually be connected to reality anymore is neither here nor there. In much the same way that the judges that dug up the MPs that sentenced Charles I to death and sentenced them for treason weren't really playing with a full deck.

Obviously the Eu will happily ignore the UK parliaments conceit. But it would be a valid defence in a court of law if anyone sought to sue the UK government for leaving with no deal.

If my mind is running on all cylinders ?????

DGRossetti · 27/02/2019 16:17

It could be that May has had a Plan Z all along, to Revoke if all else fails but we may not know this until 11pm on 29 March.

While it's entirely a possibility, I can't see it be Mays plan Z.

AngelaHodgeson · 27/02/2019 16:17

Incidentally, I would count posters here as being waaaaaaaaaaaay better informed and better communicators than over 50% of our MPs.

I normally lurk, but wanted to agree with this. When I step away from the Brexit bubble for my mental health to deal with my day-to-day life I always use you folks as a resource for catching up. Thanks!

BigChocFrenzy · 27/02/2019 16:18

Under international law, No Deal Brexit happens automatically, regardless of whether the UK has got itself into a complete Parliamentary logjam.

Brexit is the default, which happens unless the Uk Revokes.
There is no A50 requirement that Brexit be orderly, or even that Parliament consents

"3.The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or,

failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2,

unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

Swipe left for the next trending thread