Westminstenders: May's Deal or No Deal

[RedToothBrush]

Tonight: Votes on Amendments after May's Stitch-Up Promise which might nerf the crucial Cooper-Boles amendment as its now deemed 'unnecessary'. I think voting starts very shortly. (They are just summing up now)

A - Corbyn's Brexit deal
K - SNP's, banning No Deal
C - Cooper-Letwin bill paving amendment (which they hope not to move)
B - Alberto Costa's EU citizens rights
F - Spelman/Dromey's to enshrine PM's Brexit extension promise

Corbyn's amendment. You can ignore. Its going to fail.

The SNPs amendment should in theory pass, but with the vote on the 13th March and the government whip, it might fail today.

Cooper-Letwin (or Cooper-Boles whichever you prefer) needs to pass to ensure May can't worm her way out of the current timetable but it looks unlikely to pass. If it does it would come into effect on the 13th March.

Costa's amendment is interesting as he was forced to resign in order to table it (and protect his parents who are EU citz) even though the government have now backed his amendment. His speech was striking in how he stressed it was about people not party politics.

Looking like Spelman has been withdrawn. So possible there will be no vote on it, as May has promised a vote on extension on the 14th March.

The battle now turns to how long the (almost inevitable) a50 extension will be.

March 12th (or earlier): Second vote on May deal.
Its still unlikely to pass.

Which would lead to Cooper-Boles coming into effect (if it passes) though it now has effectively been accepted by May though she might renege.

We now face a vote rejecting no deal on March 13th. Which should ban no deal.

This makes the all important vote effectively on March 14th which will be about the extension. The detail and amendments on this are important and will affect what happens next.

March 29th is probably no longer important as we won't be leaving then.

If we only are able to get a short extension (which the EU might refuse and insist on a longer one! But I doubt it) then the end of April begining of May is crucial. If we don't pass the legislation to take part in EU elections then May can dictate to the HoC and force her deal through as the only alternative to No Deal.

The EU elections fall on May 23-26.

The new parliament starts on the July 1st. This is now effectively the cliff edge if May has her way.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3492426-Westministenders-Abbreviation
Abbreviation thread.

The EU wouldn't be negotiating with both, just checking before they agree a 21-month extension for renegotiations that both leaders have agreed to drop the FOM & ECJ red lines and both want SM + a Customs Arrangement

The problem with that is one party in that triangle has form for saying one thing, and then doing another.

Indeed so! One of them is the UK party who went into a General Election promising to implement the result of the referendum, and has now seemingly decided not to.

LouiseCollins28
{I would say that the likelihood of TM agreeing to drop the red lines as you cite them is (hopefully) fairly small. I certainly hope she doesn't agree to do that. }

Which red lines of May's must not be changed in your opinion?

LouiseCollins28

I know what my reaction would be if we had "revoke" on the 29th March and "no problem" doesn't describe it accurately.

You didn't say if that was a threat or not (and of so, of what ?) ...

Funny thing, democracy. Someone in all sincerity complaining about a party actually following through on a resolution passed unanimously by its members at its part conference

It also, in case anyone hadn't noticed , didn't win the 2017 GE (although, neither did the Conservatives ), so why should what it put in the Manifesto then be a tablet of stone now

By that logic, parties should never ever change their manifestos, even in the face of new evidence and circumstances

But then in the 2015 GE the Tories had a commitment to the Single Market, and also to enfranchise those Britons who had been overseas for more than 15 years. Neither of which happened. However much it might or might not annoy us, Manifesto pledges are a wish list of what the parties might like to do.

Thank you for asking.

For me the FOM and ECJ red lines are fundamental to the campaign argument that Vote Leave made , advocating that we take back control of our trade, our money, our borders and our laws.

Having the UK supreme court as the highest court in the land is IMO, vital.

I'm, not greatly concerned about Free Movement of people personally, though there are many reasons to be against it. I do recognise however, that for many, many people who voted to leave this was crucial, so when TM says "Free movement must end" I think she is right on that point.

I have no objection whatever to specific payments to the EU for participation in specific programmes, but I wouldn't want any open ended commitments to the EU budget.

Being in the customs union would bind us to the common external tariff which is restrictive, and prevents us pursuing an independent trade policy.

Just PMK, nothing of sense to add my brain is fried with all the computations & becoming increasingly angry on the sheer amount of money that is being wasted, if only an effective opposition was in place. Can only imagine the capital that could be made from it.

I didn't say it was a threat because it wasn't any sort of a threat. If we had revoke on the 29th of March I'd consider that a contempt of democracy, and a contempt of the electorate. My reaction, I think (I don't know and I hope not to find out) would be utter despair.

By that logic, parties should never ever change their manifestos, even in the face of new evidence and circumstances

Another thing I have noticed of late - maybe impending local elections have focussed minds - is the dampening down of "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" meme in relation to the idea of a PV somehow subverting democracy.

I suspect that after May, the referendums sell by date will be dangerously close. It's hard (but not impossible) to argue on the one hand one set of election results overturning the last set are valid, while at the same time insisting a flawed vote held in contentious circumstances with a margin so close it would have demanded a recount in most countries must stand for all time.

So you don't agree with any sort of International Court then Louise?

It's perhaps just as well because a judgement has just gone against the UK. However it was Advisory, and in this case I expect Advisory to mean just that, not 'cast in stone for all time', which seems to be how Advisory has become to be interpreted.

BTW we are not in the Eurozone, so we do control our money.

Thought this was the start of a menopause advert for thrush cream or vaginal dryness... cringe

Honestly that comment is disgusting and not at all hilarious. God knows I disagree with everything McVey says but to belittle her because she's an older woman? Wtf! Focus on the content of what is said and don't dismiss it because a woman says it.

Its not just the party's document that matters IMO, the commitment isn't the party's only, its personal. My MP stood on a party manifesto, he was elected, so his personal mandate is contingent on him doing what he's committed to do in that manifesto, in my view.

I voted for the guy too as it happens. I expect to hold him to his commitments made at the time of his election, don't see what's unreasonable about that. The counter is, "the manifesto only counts if the party wins", I guess, but I don't see it like that.

A party can change its policy at any point, of course it must be able to do that, but if you go to the country promising one thing and then do another, I think that's probably termed "doing a Clegg" these days :-)

Absolutely, rebel
I dismiss Ladies for Leave because McVey is an arrogant & nasty fool
Her sex and age are irrelevant

If the UK participates: UK MEP predictions

Looks like both Tory & Labour would gain heavily from UKIP

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-delay-how-britain-would-vote-in-the-european-election/amp/?

My MP stood on a party manifesto, he was elected, so his personal mandate is contingent on him doing what he's committed to do in that manifesto, in my view.

I think you will find that you are on shaky ground there.

From [[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm
III. Duties of Members ]]

1. By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.

1. Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination.

1. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

1. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

No 4 is why Sinn Fein won't take their seats.
6 & 7 ought to be issued to all current MPs as a timely reminder - their duty isn't to put the Tory/Labour party first and stuff the rest. Nor is it to lie their way out of trouble.

So the UK could well end up buying cheap chlorinated chicken etc. What brilliant things are the workers in the UK going to do to pay for this cheap chicken?
Like the government, busy spouting things they don't want but no indication of what they do want and more importantly HOW they are going to achieve it.

National Audit Office update for the HoC: UK Border preparedness for Brexit

Should be UNpreparedness
Border Force, HMRC, Ro-ro all look like they would struggle on day 1

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-accounts/007710-001%20The%20UK%20border%20-%20preparedness%20for%20EU%20Exit%20update%20book.pdf

Six of the eight IT systems which BDG views as the most critical for ‘day one’ remain at risk of not being delivered to time and to acceptable quality

Not sure how I am on shaky ground as you put it. the summation of duties of members of the House is about their conduct while they are members, not the basis upon which they are elected. He can do personally what he's committed to, with no conflict with any of the points in that list.

No 4 is indeed why the SF MPs don't take their seats. I'm reasonably confident that the people voting for them know that they won't do so, if elected.

If the UK participates: UK MEP predictions: Looks like both Tory & Labour would gain heavily from UKIP

So that's 80% support for Leave, then ?

I don't see how individuals can do what they personally commit to if they are whipped to do otherwise, unless like Soubry and Co they resign from the party. But then they no longer represent the party, although I suspect in practice many of their views will still be the same.

As we have seen, under the British Constitution an MP isn't even required to stick to the same party as when they were elected,
let alone the policies

Also, once a party fails to get elected, its manifesto falls away, because it is a manifesto for governmentt
So Labour, LDems etc are not bound by their manifestos at all

However, a manifesto is just the sales pitch to get elected, hopes & dreams more than promises

Once a government is elected and sees the reality,
e.g. "there is no more money" / you can't have your cake and eat it

it has to deal with the world as it is, not the fantasy world they may have sold to voters and even believed in themselves.

Grayling - responsible for transporting food and meds after Brexit ....

Do Leavers really trust his competence to do so ?

3 of his expensive disasters revealed today:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/grayling-reaches-33m-settlement-over-brexit-ferry-fiasco-court-case-eurotunnel

The out-of-court settlement involves a £33m contract with Eurotunnel to provide freight capacity for transit of medical supplies in the absence of a Brexit deal.
....
the settlement came on the same day that

a National Audit Office report showed “disastrous decisions by Chris Grayling at the Ministry of Justice have wasted nearly half a billion pounds of public money”

and a public accounts committee report on Wednesday on his “mismanagement” of the railways.

I don't get how I could expect to hold an individual MP to their party's manifesto commitment if that party lost the election - how is the losing party supposed to enact their policies .

And meanwhile, it was fine for the winning party to ignore parts of their manifesto in 2015 (such as enfranchising UK citizens abroad, or keeping us in the Single Market) - in those sorts of cases we get something like "politicians lie, never expect to get anything from the manifesto or the side of a bus or if they said it would be the easiest deal in history, etc etc"