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?

Somerville Wed 13-Mar-19 16:11:28

Fucking Gove talked about a return to rule from Westminster for Northern Ireland in no-deal scenario. Being interpreted as a threat to the DUP but they WANT this. What have I always said about him on these threads??? He just proved it all over again; hates the GFA and happy to put the boot in at any opportunity.

OF course it wouldn't be a threat to the DUP. It would kill the GFA, which Gove loathes every bit as much as they do.

I think he is trying to provoke Republicans and/or discredit the government of Ireland who might be tarred with the same brush as any dissident Republicans who might start bombing, etc.

Any EU decision on an extension would be taken by heads of government at the
European Council meeting, 21-22 March

They would be pretty cross to receive a request on 20 March

Normal practice for important decisions is to give at least 2 full days for the Sherpas to create briefing papers and for the govt heads to read these beforehand

MV3 by 20th March, she is like a fucking Terminator,:

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the WA is passed.

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?

The two laws are independent of each other, but their combined effect paints May into a corner with her options

Her remaining ways out are

1. Pass the WA and go for a short technical extension (extension would have numbers in the HoC, but passing the WA is a struggle and it's reliant on the EU granting extension which is probably viable in this circumstances)

2. Be defeated getting the WA through and be forced into asking for a long extension as a result. This would include EP elections. (this option is toxic to the tories and its unlikely a long extension would pass the HoC. The EU would still need a justification for a long extension - a PV would be the natural option - but not clear if that could pass the HoC. Ditto passing legislation for EP elections. Whole scenario is unlikely)

3. Be forced to revoke (tory party big red button of self destruct)

4. Actively decide to pursue an illegal no deal Brexit (let's not think of the ramifications)

news.sky.com/story/an-ancient-rule-means-bercow-could-take-drastic-action-on-brexit-11664555

If Bercow blocks MVIII that takes 1) above off the table.

Phew, Four votes!

Worried about how binding Spelman amendment will prove to be in practice.

Would have liked explicit instruction to revoke if no WA by deadline but politically impossible at the moment.

At least tomorrow’s votes will give us some mulling space.

MV V111???

She will simply never quit, she will have to be forced out. That can only happen in the next few months if:

C) The good Lord does it for her, and causes her health to break down, (even if she subsequently recovers to live a long and happy retirement.)

Would Bercow dare refuse, with the risk of No Deal so high ?

He's shown so far that he will bend rules in order to let MPs vote.

But is it MVIII if it's linked to the extension because then it's a hybrid thing so sufficiently different?

Was that first vote which won by 4 legally binding?

Jack Maidment
@jrmaidment
New: David Mundell refuses to quit after he abstained on crunch no-deal vote.

He said: “I am not resigning because I support the Prime Minister her course of action... but I am very clear that I don’t support a no-deal Brexit and I have made that clear on numerous occasions."

Currently, the only really openly organised group is pushing option 4) No Deal

MPs supporting Revoke or PV are floundering around, with victories as much by good luck as by judgement
and some are too chicken to vote the way they think

I mean is a sufficiently similar MVIII for Bercow to block it.

I don't think he should because:

1. Tell them again.
2. It's a vehicle for good amendments - yes?

I thought motions don’t override statute? So you would have to repeal the law that says we leave on 29th March. And revoke Article 50 because that’s international law.
This motion shows the ‘will of the Commons’ in the same advisory way that the referendum shows the ‘will of the people’.
But no-deal is unlawful anyway, according to Dominic Grieve, because it violates the GFA.

The Speakers responsibility is to parliament and the people.

Whilst MVIII is technically undemocratic and unconstitutional under Erskine May I'd bet he'd rule that since parliament had already voted to block no deal and not having the option to vote for the WA under changed circumstances that vote created, it risked a constitutional problem which was far greater than just allowing a one off exception on Erskine May.

Other alternatives judgements he makes could be used against him.

Tomorrow’s cross party amendment for an extension with PV.

EU indicate willingness to delay for GE or Ref2 with Remain on ballot.

Hang on - none of these votes create anything legally binding, surely? Parliament hasn't passed a bill into legislation. Isn't this more to do with the protocol of parliament, that politically May has to respect these votes or else be subject to censure or a vote of no confidence? (Plus also how it will look to the electorate when their representatives have voted for an option and the government defies it).

Agree that Bercow would have to allow MV3

Red I wasn't referring to your (excellent) commentary, but the whole debacle in its entirety

I've just mainlined 4 kitkats. I was giving up eating after dinner for lent. I'm normally devout in my dedication to what I've given up but brexit votes have defeated me and I need chocolate.

Sorry, can you remind me who the minister was that resigned, thanjs

And if she accidentally Brexit without a deal she breaks the law

I don't think that would worry her too much. Didn't she break laws at the Home Office?

Sarah newton I think