Westminstenders: Neglectful Drunkeness!

[RedToothBrush]

The HoC has spend the past 3 years in a state of Neglectful Drunkeness.

As it stands less then two weeks from Brexit Day, there is no deal we were promised. The Conservative and Labour Parties are more divided than ever.

The government is in disarray as 8 Cabinet ministers plus the chief whip voted against the Prime Minister including the Brexit Secretary who had minutes earlier argued for an extension only to vote against it. He is now on the brink of resignation.

The DUP look like they may be about to capitulate and vote for a deal. But it may not be enough even then.

This is what the cliff edge looks like.

Who wants to take a closer look?

Preliminary off the top of his head (his head = Bercow's head)

Berkow is brilliant. I love his head!

Bercow

What is he up to?!

If May ends the parliamentary session, she has to demonstrate she has the confidence of the House by passing the Queens Speech.

No issues here... At all...

cough

Wow! have to say I didn't expect that outcome. I resigned myself to the idea, some time ago, that Brexit wouldn't meaningfully be allowed to happen but to see it actually working through is pretty extraordinary.

Let's hope the backlash is rhetorical only.

Bung from DUP won't be enough........hooray!

He's raging about the house losing 5 weeks in the process due to the Govt

Revoke! Revoke! Revoke! Yay!

TBF LouiseC this is a rule that has been written in Erskine May for a loooooooong time. It's not something Bercow has just made up. The Govt will have known about it, we all knew about it on here.

Catherine Haddon @cath_haddon
Bercow’s intervention is obviously a huge one. But he’s been warning of this for a while. Govt must have been checking their options.

Surely?

Just from the Guardian blog

Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, asks if Bercow’s statement means the government would have to get the EU to agree to changes to the agremeent. Or would it be enough for the government to offer concessions to a party in the Commons (ie, the DUP

Bercow says, thinking off the top of his head, “in all likelihood, the answer to [Benn’s] question is yes”.

A change of opinion about something is not the same as a change to the offer, he says.

He says he would have to look at this.

Fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be fundamentally different.

Not just different by wording, he says; different by substance.

Bercow implies he will not allow a new vote on the Brexit deal unless the EU agrees to further changes to it.
This takes Bercow’s ruling much further than his original words implied.

Given that the EU has said it will not make any further changes to the withdrawal agreement, Bercow’s answer to Benn may have killed off all prospect of a MV3 vote.

Do we agree with this analysis (fingers crossed my italics and bold work out)

(fingers crossed my italics and bold work out)

I am amazing! I should be working for Google

Theo Usherwood@theousherwood
Immediate options open to PM:

1). Change legal advice and convince Speaker changes substance of motion.

2). Press reset - bring forward MV3 at start of a new parliamentary session.

3). Don’t bother. Extend A50 for two years on Thursday and go walking in Swiss Alps.

Anyone else cynical

It’s good news but has TM got him to do it as she will not get the votes.

Moves the blame elsewhere (a little) and I doubt he gives a fuck!

I'm not Theo U at the best of times but I don't think 1) is an option.

A change of legal opinion wouldn't be a change in the motion.

Norman Smith @bbcnormans
So seems to me.....Speakers decision - good for Brexiteers cos makes No Deal more likely. And good for Remainers cos makes long delay more likely. Only big loser is...the PM.

This is a toast to the size of Bercow’s balls

So where do we go from here? No deal by default on the 29th?

Well, soorry! was 'surprise' not an acceptable reaction to this news on here then?

I am (admittedly only dimly) aware of what the rules say. I am also aware that they are subject to a wide latitude of interpretation by the Speaker. Surely had it just been a matter of the rules, the putative MV3 would never have been on the cards in the first place?

Genuinely did not expect this.

And am not sure how I feel about it... probably because I am not sure what outcome it increases the likelihood of.

(About the only thing I am sure of is that my feelings for Bercow have moved past silly crush stage to full blown disturbing passion.)

2). Press reset - bring forward MV3 at start of a new parliamentary session.

Who else remembers the 2-year parliamentary session as being dangerously too-clever-by-half when it was announced ? Also, if there are praetorian guards running around the palace looking for scapegoats, whose idea was the 2-year session ?????

Given that The Codpiece seems to believe that the entirely foreseeable and interminably discussed issue of the backstop would be sufficiently unforeseeable and unexpected enough to invoke the Vienna Convention (when the fall of the Iron Curtain was not sufficient grounds ) in order to get out of it , then I still wouldn't put it past the Government to try to cry foul and claim that the MV3 was different just because they think it would pass this time or because they have got an extension

They must be kicking themselves that they'd already made it clear that Bercow wasn't going to be elevated to the Lords after his stint as Speaker, as they can't threaten him with refusing to let him!

Alex Wickham@alexwickham
- Bercow rules out third Brexit vote unless there are fundamental changes to the deal
- say change in UK legal opinion not enough, govt has to renegotiate the deal with the EU if it wants another Commons vote

A motion with an extension agreed by EU would be enough in theory as this is a new negotiation with the EU.

They must be kicking themselves that they'd already made it clear that Bercow wasn't going to be elevated to the Lords after his stint as Speaker

Alternatively, a future government might ...