Westminstenders: Adrift at Sea

[RedToothBrush]

After May lost the Meaningful Vote last night by a long way she has lost control of the agenda. She managed to persuade just 40 out of the 116 she needed to support here.

This leaves us all adrift with nothing apparent to a solution.

May announced that tonight's vote will be to stop No Deal. She has announced that it will be a free vote and she herself intends to vote against No Deal. This looks set to be blocked but the amendments that go with it are more important. Particularly the Spelman / Dromey amendment which is pitched to stop no deal completely (it doesn't) which is more about trying to kill off a Meaningful Vote III instead.

Tomorrow's vote is perhaps more important though. Its about an extension to a50. We NEED an extension. However the length of the extension is yet to be argued as is the purpose of the extension.

This is also against whispers that the Italian Far Right group has been lobbied by Leave.EU and Farage has directly asked Eurospectics in the EP to veto any extension. Whether this would happen remains to be seen but it certainly raises questions over an extension is even now possible. This was always a probable action; Banks & Farage have for 3 years aggitated to cause maximum problems for the government. Its also true that they only have power due to this dynamic of being a hostile force.

With No Deal so catastophic that Hammond today made the point in his Spring Budget that, if he feels there's almost nothing he'd feel able to do to mitigate the effects of what he sees as the car crash of no deal, this leaves one option on the table. Ironically it is possible that the actions of Banks and Co might be more likely to have that effect rather than to stop an extension. The question, however, would then be whether May had the guts to revoke.

We certainly have, at least, reached crunch point. Have we done so too late to make a difference? And will our new found sovereignity be twarted by Brexiteers inviting the interference of foriegn hostile forces to intervene?

What's the point of all these bloody votes if they aren't binding?!

It's like one of Aesop's Fables. At the moment we're storks trying to eat from the fox's soup bowls and not getting very far, but hopefully we'll soon be eating from the long necked vases and the fox will be snookered.

Or something. My brain is frazzled with all this tension.

Why is a default no deal illegal?

Cos they voted to prevent no deal in any circumstances with Spelman amendment to the governments motion which is binding.

red Trying to explain actions carried out by headless chickens is an impossible task
Since the headless chickens themselves don't know

Ah, so the Spelman amendment was non-binding, but once it went through attached to the government motion, it was binding?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell BCF.

I think I'm more optimistic now

This is going to used as a yardstick for so many things in the future.

This is the kind of thing that E27 govts are hearing from business atm

Rem Korteweg@remkorteweg

I just chaired a #Brexit event with 100+ representatives from the Dutch logistics sector, public & private.

NL does logistics pretty well.

50% of participants said they would prefer the certainty of No Deal on 29/3 than the uncertainty of a #Brexit extension.

cordelia I'm not so sure that all Labour MPs would vote to support a PV. We shall see, it all seems to be coming to a head this week.

Ben bradshaw @ benpbradshaw
They thought they had persuaded Caroline not to push her amendment & are so incompetent that they didn’t realise someone else would & we would win.

Sam Coates Times@samcoatestimes
Remainer hit back:

A source close to the ministerial abstainers hits back against this.

"The point though is not that there was ambiguity over the fact there was a three line whip. We knew that. The point is some were told they could abstain."

RTB, but why does JRM keep saying that legally we leave? I thought all of these were an expression of the opinion of the HoC, which is not law. just when I think I get it I'm all confused again

This feels like bloody Jenga.
WA - knocked out
Deliberate No-Deal - knocked out
Extension - TBC, if EU allows it.
BINO/PV - TBC, if they can get the numbers
Revoke - TBC, if all else fails.

I am beginning to think that the Cabinet will revoke at the last minute and May will resign. Purely because every other option is exhausted and so is she.

Perhaps not all, violet, it is entirely possible I'm just being hopeful. But given that the PV has only been (reluctantly) accepted by JC because the Labour Party ordinary members insisted on it, they'd surely be at risk if they voted to remove it as an option?

Cordelia because we have agreed to leave on 29th March.
The only way to avoid that is to revoke and that requires action, that the government to reluctant to take.

Choc which is why I mostly vote Green in elections - since the Ecology Party got my first ever vote - and have watched my 'pressure' votes cause not only the election of UK Green Local Councillors, but MEPs and an MP too. But also, see the 'pressure' cause other Political Parties to absorb and adopt 'green' policies so that it is now of great importance.
But not enough for me.

And, somewhat unfortunately, the Green Party does not represent all of my views on everything, being a Political Party, naturally it wouldn't.

The day after the Ref, when speaking to a 'gutted' Peace Party friend, I said: at least now we have a chance to create the society you have strived for so long for.

Just some Leaver thoughts to add, though I doubt anyone is 'listening'.....they nev.....

RTB, but why does JRM keep saying that legally we leave?

Because the legal effect of A50 is that we leave on 29th March.

It's just that leaving without a deal is now illegal.

Don't bank on an EU extension

I still think they would, subject to conditions, but I am worried

http://m.email3.telegraph.co.uk/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=%40ofqr%2F0GfeAGvrwXMb35U%2FsW9gv99V5dWaudqh177lHU%3D&WT.mcid=eeDM967014&WT.tsrc=email&etype=EdiBrxxNewsubscriber&utmmsource=email&utmmedium=EdiiBrxNewwsubscriber201990313&utmm_campaign=DM967014

The battlelines are hardening in Brusselss_ over an extension to Article 50, as the sheer levels of dysfunction in British politics start to fray tempers in EU institutions and capitals.
.....
The frustrations builds and – frankly – so does the disdain towards a Parliament and a government apparently unable to make fact-based decisions about its own future.

This is why, EU sources warn, lines on an Article 50 extension are hardening.
And why the presumption in London that an extension will be inevitably be granted is starting to seriously chafe in several EU capitals.

The difficulty for EU leaders when they meet next week is how to force the UK to make choices,
and the extension offers them a key point of leverage.

The government motion for tomorrow said next Wednesday is a further (final) deadline to approve the WA. So vote 3?
If the WA is passed by then the government will seek an extension of article 50 until x date ? Which date? They mentioned 30 June?
But when (If) the WA is rejected again the government will seek a different extension, requiring the UK to take part in European elections.

Two dates were definitely mentioned in the amendable motion...

So has Parliament passed two laws which are mutually exclusive? Or has it simply bound itself in to agreeing some kind of deal/extension/revoke?

Sorry if I sound stupid (I promise I'm not), and thanks for answering all my questions.

I think I'm going to go read about the legal woes of Paul Manafort for some light relief.

International law trumps British law

The HoC can vote all they want for No Deal to be illegal

It's still what will happen on 29 March unless they / May specifically choose one of the available options

They could theoretically censure a PM for not trying hard enough, I suppose
but unless they specifically tell her to Revoke if all else fails, she's in the clear.

lonely, one date was the 20th March. I think it was that if HoC agrees a deal by 20th March then TM will ask for an extension until X date to enable relevant legislation to be passed.

Urgh. It would appear a fuckload of brexiteers on Twitter are retweeting me because I tweeted "A Tory whip voted against a three line whip and it appears they're keeping their job". Does that sound pro-Brexit or are we all just united in how shite the Tories are?

Waiting for one of the bunch of prattling wusses to break free and table a revoke amendment, I shall be waiting another 14 days.

Yes there were two dates in the motion making at least part of it conditional on another attempt at the WA. But I guess someone is right now tabling an amendment to delete that bit? But then we need a reason for the request for one.