Westminstenders: Are we nearly there yet?

[RedToothBrush]

May went to Strasbourg to improve the WA. She claimed to have won 'legally binding' assurances which mean we can't be trapped in the backstop.

Despite the claim of 'legally binding' it seems that this isn't true. It reduces the risk of being trapped but does not eliminate it.

The whole thing is just political theatre designed to give Brexiteers the opportunity to climb down and support May's deal. Whether that will happen remains to seen.

The right wing press has largely been supportive of May this morning but the ERG were scathing last night which doesn't bode well.

For May to pass the deal she needs the DUP to effectively trigger dominoes of support. If she fails to get that it's highly unlikely it will pass.

In order to pass the deal May needs an extra 116 votes compared to last time. This breaks down to roughly 10 DUP, 65 of the ERG, 4 Independents (Field/Hermon /Hopkins/Austin) and 40 Labour.

The Labour MPs won't go for it unless the numbers look tight and the DUP are on board.

We should get a feel for how things are going as the day goes on. I expect more negative comments on it to be expressed as the day goes on.

We might yet see some amendments and curveball thrown into the mix too. However none of those tabled so far this morning look likely to pass (Labour are yet to table anything)

The Cabinet meets at 9.30am. This will give us an idea of how it's played out there.

At 11.15am Barclay faces the Brexit select committee so some more scrutiny there.

The crucial moment is early afternoon before as May opens the debate on the Meaningful Vote. It is expected there will be an Urgent Question tabled to Cox the Attorney General to assess whether his legal advice that the backstop could be a trap, has changed. This is where thing will come into focus and we will get a good idea of whether the deal will pass or how heavy the defeat will be. How heavy it is, is important.

Word is that Cox said no to the validity of May’s 'legally binding assurances' last night and has been pretty much been sent away to 'think about it with a team of lawyers'. Cox has replied this is "Bollocks". But you do have to wonder if this is what May did in the Home Office with her ridiculous court cases and the A50 case. None of which went well for her in court in the end. However Cox did tell The Mail yesterday he would only change his legal advice if the risk of being trapped was 'eliminated' not merely reduced.

If its going badly a No10 damage limitation exercise will be in full swing by about 4pm.

If The Withdrawal Agreement fails by a small amount May might be able to try again. If it fails by a lot we really are into political chaos. May's position might be untenable if the Cabinet withdraw their support. If May stays that's not necessarily going to stave off even greater crisis.

Theresa May looks likely to go for an extension until 23rd May. The EU have more or less agreed to this. But this might be too short to get an alternative plan on the table. And May would be unlikely to be the person to do this anyway as it requires a huge uturn. The 23rd May date is crucial - if the UK doesn't make contingency plans to take part in European Elections its a cliff edge. A deadline of 23rd May is also too short for another referendum.

The only way we get a 2nd ref is to take the option of a longer extension which requires us to take part in European elections, and this is politically unpalatable to many Tories as it endangers Brexit completely.

This is what ERGers need to weigh up. Are they really committed to no deal. If they are not then the WA is perhaps the only way to stop no deal AND the possibility of no brexit.

However the chances of the legislation for European elections and a long extension getting through the Commons looks extremely unlikely too. But who knows where we will be come the end of April.

Thus if the WA fails then the chances of No Deal sky rocket, even if no deal is blocked by Parliament tomorrow. Unless those same MPs are prepared to vote for EP elections further down the line if need be. This might be the only way to truly block no deal. Has this dawned on Tory moderates? And that's what remain moderates and Labour MPs need to weigh up. I don't think the penny has dropped with many. Yet.

The trouble is that the WA problem is really with hardline ERG Tories not moderates nor Labour anyway.

Voting starts at 7pm.

DGR from all the Leavers I've talked to locally have far more in common in terms of what they think is wrong with the country than anything I've heard pass the lips of May and the likes of JRM.

Because ultimately the problems they wanted to fix have fuck all to do with the EU.

I find it interesting and noteworthy that yesterday my MP chose to issue a huge update on what they've been up to around the constituency. Yesterday. Of all days. And one of the key panels made a pointed reference to the fact that "the people" have had enough of Brexit - in or out. This was issued in my MPs name - nothing to do with either the local or national labour party. It suggests that talk of an extension is - again - ignoring what the people now want. Which is knife crime, shit local services, NHS/ A&E funding/ schools/roads fixed.

What that can be translated into at a higher level remains to be seen (no pun intended).

It will be interesting to see how many votes Ken Clarke’s amendment to revoke gets (assuming it is chosen). How wonderful a day that would turn out to be (I know it’s unlikely but I’m clinging onto my pipe dream)

{I can understand May voting against no deal, she's worked stubbornly on the WA }
This can't possibly be news, surely. The idea of the PM voting against her own policy at this stage would be a little too bizarre, although not impossible on previous showing.

I wonder if Storm Gareth blew all the Leavers to Kansas ? Coz it's gone a bit quiet everywhere ....

{I wonder if Storm Gareth blew all the Leavers to Kansas ? Coz it's gone a bit quiet everywhere}
There is a new shitstirer on some of the other threads that doesn't seem to understand Brexit.

I hope Ken Clarke enters the Lords when he finally steps down as an MP. Actually, were we ever to become a republic and elect a head of state, he is someone I could see myself voting for.

Chaos with the Tory whips again

@MattChorley
“I’m not sure they know how to whip us on all of the amendments,” says a Tory MP. “But it doesn’t really matter because no one gives a fuck what they say.”

mojo, leclerc WTO rules do not specify a hard border, merely that all countries must be treated equally,
unless there is a trade deal to change that.

So, the UK cannot treat EU countries preferentially after a hard Brexit:
if it waves through goods from the EU, then it would have to do so for the USA, China, India etc
or they will complain to the WTO and may impose punitive tariffs against the UK

Sorry, spelling error there, I meant a Leaver with lots of useful well researched ideas on how the UK will be a lot better off when it leaves the EU.

Leaver friend reckons we will get a free trade deal with EU within weeks if we No Deal.

Still nothing from my primary despite another email to them the day before yesterday. Other primaries have sent out detailed plans for No Deal. How on earth are schools going to keep food in when they are so stretched?

Leaver friend reckons we will get a free trade deal with EU within weeks if we No Deal.

Do they have a vote in the HoC ? If the answer is "no", then no one cares what they reckon. (If you're feeling mischievous, you can say that to their face ...)

"The Malthouse Compromise" will NOT be accepted by the EU.
It is yet another cake fantasy deal

It is basically demanding a transition period after No Deal
retaining EU trade benefits for current contributions BUT without the backstop

Barnier has already tweetd that there can be no transition period without the WA,
precisely to squash this type of idea, which Boris was fantasising about yesterday

Voting for the Malthouse Compromise is voting for no deal

I tried to suggest WTO would disagree with her, but she doesn't believe they would impose sanctions on us. Yes, futile arguing, but at least now she agrees everyone will be worse off. She still thinks it is "worth it" though. Depressing.

David Allen Green
@davidallengreen
The only rational decision now, in the public interest, is for UK to revoke Article 50.
(Brexiteers, you can try again one day, with a fresh mandate, when you have a plan.)
All other courses than simple revocation are mad.
(Of course, that will not stop UK doing a mad thing.)

Tom Holland
‏**@holland**_tom
Follow Follow @holland_tom
More Tom Holland Retweeted David Allen Green
Until yesterday, I'd have disagreed, on the basis that the referendum had to be respected. But yesterday it WAS respected. Brexit-supporting MPs were given their chance to vote for Brexit. They rejected it. They had their chance & blew it. So screw them.

.

I work in a setting which detains people against their will. If we No Deal we can't guarantee we'll have sufficient food for them, let alone sufficient medication. I do not honestly know what the hell will happen. Do we open the doors and invite them to go out and forage? What do we do if we can't get the medication they need?

Carole Cadwalladr
@carolecadwalla
Last week @arron_banks & @andywigmore went to Veneto, the heartland of Italy's Lega Nord. Today, the plan is revealed. The fascists have agreed to help Britain exit without a deal. Salvini will block an extension of article 50. We're fucked.

EP Elections

The problem is mostly on the UK side, that holding EP elections would cause great anger from Leave voters who would think they are about to be betrayed by Revoke.

Yes, the EU had some concern about UK MEPs being deliberately disruptive - but Farage & co have always been like that for years !

A50 is fit for purpose - it is the PM & HoC that are not
No possible Article could cope with an HoC that refuses to choose from the available options
and a PM who cannot get her deals approved by the HoC

The EU have made provision for reverting to the current seat allocation if the UK participates in the MEP elections

The EU have said the UK can NOT remain without having elected MEPs

This is because the EU treaties require that every country be represented in the EP
Those treaties cannot be easily modified - it tales years - and the EU would not do this for the UK.

If the EU chose to ignore it, they could be taken to the ECJ and EP laws / work could be declared illegal

Trouble-makers like e.g. Farage would leap at the chance to totally disrupt the EP like this.

Any extension past about 23 May would probably be conditional on the UK passing legislation to hold EP elections on time
Possibly even a short extension would require this, in case May or a new PM requests a 2nd extension from 23 May.

So Hammond is basing his budget assuming we get WA.
None of this applies if No Deal...he should have said both options surely? If they want the public behind WA he should make more of this.

{I wonder if Storm Gareth blew all the Leavers to Kansas ? Coz it's gone a bit quiet everywhere}
I still read the threads sometimes, but I don't like to post on Westministenders as it seems rude somehow ... like an uninvited gatecrasher..

Cant watch Hammond bare faced lying gives me the rage

I think Brexit is over anyway to be honest.

Cadwalldr's tweet about a NO Deal plot ^with the Italian far right is terrifying

I have been afraid that 1 or more E27 countries hardly affected by Brexit would block an extension, possibly to grab business from the UK, or just because they ran out of patience

However, that is enemy action by Brexiteers, conspiring with the foreign far right
The Mueller enquiry hasn't stopped them plotting

btw, when it comes to traitors, conspiring with foreign extremists is far more treasonous than merely upholding due legal process, or exercising the democratic right to campaign against a polcy

If that genuinely happens - the Italian far right vetoing an extension - then May should Revoke
She would have justifiction in that she is facing "enemy action"