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?

Of course May could go all No-Deal now..... but that will implode the Tory party.

Could suspend Parliament? after an extension from EU......

Amazing no 10 had no idea... well, perhaps not lol!

Ooooh look at that tie! I love it!

Or attaching another ref to the motion...

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

OK, so why would the EU offer an extension ? What would it change from the WA as it stands ?

It's pretty clear...

page 397 of the parliamentary rule book Erskine May. "A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session, whether the second motion is substantively the same as the first is a matter for [the Speaker]."

The only latitude the Speaker has is whether any changes to the motion are "substantive". At present there are no changes to the motion this time (as far as we know) so I think the position is extremely clear.

Bear in mind he could have decided not to hold MV2 but went with the Govt and decided the addition of two other supplementary documents would be considered substantive.

Personally, I don't think Bercow has done anything here other than follow pretty clear procedures laid down since 1844.

Press reset - bring forward MV3 at start of a new parliamentary session.
Well the FTPA is utterly toast isn't it

But there won't be an extension unless the government have a clear justification for why it's needed. So far the only justification is 'because we haven't got a bloody clue as to what else to do'.

I'd thought he might let a MV3 through (maybe with an extension incorporated) but not an MV4.

...and I wasn't suggesting you couldn't be surprised. But I do think implying this is some kind of Remainer conspiracy move is not in line with the facts.

Jack Blanchard @ jackblanchard
Key clarification from Bercow. Tells Hilary Benn that "in all likelihood" the government would have to agree changes to the actual withdrawal deal with the EU before he will allow a third meaningful vote. Good luck with that

This retweeted by @parlyapp

I don't believe the EU will give her an extension to try and manipulate the parliamentary process to get the WA through. They won't support the suppression of a democratic process.

The EU would like more time for No Deal prepping

They would really prefer not to refuse the UK an extension and then be blamed

• with EP elections coming up & paranoid populists coming out of the woodwork -

for "forcing" the UK to either Revoke or No Deal

They don't want the UK to Revoke, feel absolutely humiliated and take revenge / recover pride by wrecking the EU from the inside.

However, we know the EU Commision have wargamed all the possibilities - displaying enviable scenario prepping

Now it's decisions, decisions ....

According to the Guardian Bercow already suggested the “no repeat votes” rule could apply to further votes on some of the amendments eg PV and taking control of the Brexit process.

Sorry bold fail

"James Cleverly, a Conservative, says if Bercow had made this ruling earlier, MPs might have realised that last week was their last chance to vote for the Brexit deal. They might have voted differently, he says."

You have to feel sorry for them, poor MPs.

But if voters knew about what Brexit entailed, they would have still voted the same in the referendum, apparently.

OK, so why would the EU offer an extension ? What would it change from the WA as it stands ?

That wasn't what I was making a point over. I was making a point about UK constitutional requirements not EU negotiation conditions...

But there won't be an extension unless the government have a clear justification for why it's needed.

Cos otherwise the UK can't meet its constitutional requirements?

(yeah I know they aren't gonna go for that!)

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

Definitely me.

I thought he would do this because of the exchange when the amendment to ban MV3 was pulled last week

Surely had it just been a matter of the rules, the putative MV3 would never have been on the cards in the first place?
This is why there was so much uproar about MV3 louise. The MPs know it's against the rules of the house. But because it's that or remain/crash out, lots of them were fingers in ears "la la la"-ing

I hopeBrexit is in its death throes

Actually I'm with louise on this one and I am also surprised. Not because it doesn't follow the rules, it plainly does but I had expected a fudge to try and allow some progress to be made.
Pleased to see the rules being followed though, surprised but pleased.

"was this on your flowchart?"

Henry Zeffman @hzeffman
A source gets in touch. The answer is no 🤷‍♂️

As BCF has pointed out several times, neither is 'accidental no deal'

From your own quotation of EM

"whether the second motion is substantively the same as the first is a matter for [the Speaker]."

So, it is entirely in his gift to decide whether another vote is in order or not.

For MV2 he seemingly decided that the addition docs constituted a substantive change. In the case of a possible MV3 he appears to have decided that there has been no substantive change, as he is entitled to do.

I find myself asking now, however, given that the Speaker is supposed to be neutral, but his views on the matter are well known, is what is his motivation for doing so?

The EU would like more time for No Deal prepping

I would like to be dipped in chocolate and have wonderful things happen to me instead of having to go to the shops tomorrow ....

It's axiomatic the EU would like more time to prep. The crunch question is do they need it, and moreover would enabling it to happen be prejudicial overall.

I get all this "they don't want to be blamed" nonsense. However they could offer to paint every UK citizens fences and fix all out potholes and still be called "Euroshits" in the UK MSM. They're not competing in a popularity contest. They are running the biggest trading bloc this side of the Atlantic - and that requires hard decisions at times.

Erskine May [HoC "bible"] says on repeat votes:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-no-deal-vote-commons-repeat-parliament-jeremy-corbyn-a8714241.html

“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session
may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

A decision on whether “verbal alterations” amount to real changes are “a matter for the judgment of the chair [the Speaker, John Bercoww^]”.

< but there are NO real changes, hence no real leeway for him >

So if we have had votes on WA, no deal, extension, PV. Surely we're just left with CU/SM or revoke.

Although of course we no deal anyway in eleven days. Need to bump up the cupboard.

Glad to see parliamentary sovereignty rules being adhered to.