Westminstenders: Erskine Mayhem

[RedToothBrush]

John Bercow has stepped in. We've long made the point, that the position of Speaker was utterly crucial to the outcome of Brexit. However this ruling was long warned as a possibility. It was somewhat overlooked by all (including me).

We are now faced with the bizarre narrative that May was just about to be able to get her deal through, and it's now simply Bercow who has tried to sabotage Brexit.

The reality is that his ruling has the effect of making BOTH no deal And a lengthy extension (possibly with a PV) much more likely.

May now has to embrace one of these option (by accident or design) or find a way to substantially change the terms of her deal as put to the Commons, either through negotiation with the EU or bolting something significantly different to her deal like a variation of the Kyle Amendment (a PV based on her deal or remain). Or find a majority to overturn the standing order that Bercow has cited as the reason for his block.

This block also might apply to the Benn amendment (indicative votes) or other PV amendments. Which could equally be problematic going forward.

In reality Bercow has upped the stakes and forced May to do something meaningful rather than simply holding a gun to MPs heads to vote. Hurrah for parliamentary Sovereignty and limiting the abuse of power of the executive!?!

It's a completely neutral move in practice. The HoC has tied itself in knots with how it's voted for political reason rather than for the national interest. The British Constitution has just stood up for itself. Bercow is just a useful target to blame for the incompetence of the entire house for the last 3 years.

The billion pound question this morning is where does that now leave us?

The honest answer is I'm damned if I know.

Maybe the EU will come up with a magic bullet for May, maybe the Cabinet can come up with a magic bullet, maybe May will take the political magic bullet of a long extension or revocation or maybe we'll just all shoot ourselves in the head and foot with no deal.

I have no idea.

10 days to go.

DG and a federal structure So nation-changing decisions, e.g. Brexit, going to war, require the consent of at least 3 of the 4 nations

Why federal ? As Tony Benn pointed out (about the EU) there are other ways ... a Commonwealth for a start.

Well I have to say that sounds like it's nonsense. They knew it was coming, and presumably they've already formed a view, so they just need to discuss it?

Try telling HMRC that. Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing if the EU is a stickler for rules, it'll be because the UK insists on it.

Even if they do agree it tomorrow/this week, how on earth do we get the exit date taken out of the EU Withdrawal Act by next Friday?

That's a UK problem. Not the EUs.

So nation-changing decisions, e.g. Brexit, going to war, require the consent of at least 3 of the 4 nations

All four in my view.

It's worth remembering that when parliament was debating the referendum legislation, Alex Salmond said that any result should be contingent on all four constituent nations of the UK voting for it. David Lidington said it wasn't needed because it was an advisory referendum.

In fact the real reason was they knew Scotland would vote to remain and so it would scupper a leave result.

That's a UK problem. Not the EUs

Yes but is it worth going to all this trouble if it can't be implemented anyway? Honestly MPs were idiots to put a fixed date in the legislation.

There wasn't really one in the end Tanith

All this talk of Snobby Roberts and her defenestration may be prophetic.

The cabinet have asked to see the PM this evening.

(Not the other way round, note.)

Pearl-handled revolver time?

I dont think she'll resign tonight, but I don't think it'll be long either

So nation-changing decisions, e.g. Brexit, going to war, require the consent of at least 3 of the 4 nations

If nothing else, the past two years have shown that not only are Westminster and FPTP obviously no longer (if they ever were) fit for purpose, but that the entire basis for any "Union" in "United Kingdom" needs to be carefully reviewed. Ultimately it may not be possible to actually change anything. But at least a cool, thorough examination of the situation - and it's implications - can't hurt.

Part of this clusterfuck now (e.g. Erskine May) has arisen because so much is obscured. At least if things are clearly delineated they can be worked with.

To be honest, I think any talk of needing other nations consent is redundant. I would be surprised if Scotland or Northern Ireland remained in the Union eyond 2029.

While I totally agree that in any normal circumstances, Parliament should assent to military action before it begins, how would the "going to war" situation work re the 4 country assent needed. Are you suggesting that a plebiscite in say, Wales, could prevent the country taking military action, or that a vote from Holyrood or Cardiff should be able to do that?

The missiles can reach the UK from Russia in about half an hr, btw.

The cabinet have asked to see the PM this evening

Yeah, yeah. BTDTGTTS. same way there was no point in commenting on the notion that Leadsom, Fox and Grayling would "consider" resigning if there were to be a long extension.

Everyone talks of "parliament taking control" but as far as I can see it's the exact fucking opposite. Every time parliament have been asked the important questions they've ducked them. Even now what would a VoNC deliver ?

While I totally agree that in any normal circumstances, Parliament should assent to military action before it begins, how would the "going to war" situation work re the 4 country assent needed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but when was the last time such a decision needed to be made to protect the British Isles ? Note that I don't consider going on a boys-own jolly to Iraq (a) defending the UK and (b) in need of a 30 minute response.

The missiles can reach the UK from Russia in about half an hr, btw.

So even if a politician could make an instantaneous decision, what would it achieve ? Transfer their savings to BitCoin ?

The United Kingdom, sic. Not "The United Kingdoms."

It's not a federation or a confederation.

Also, the combined population of Scotland, Wales and NI is less than that of Greater London.

Aint gonna fly.

France Says It Won’t Agree to Brexit Extension Without ‘Guarantees’

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/france-says-won-t-agree-to-brexit-extension-without-guarantees?

Francee* won’t accept the extension of Brexit talks unless the U.K. government offers “guarantees” that the deal between London and the European Union will be passed in British parliament,
French Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Wednesday.
< well, she can't, unless it passes next week >

“If she can’t bring the sufficient guarantees, it would cause us to cast aside the request and prepare for a hard exit,”
Le Drian said during question time at the National Assembly, referring to British Prime Minister Theresa May.

“In the absence of an accord, we are ready,” Le Drian said.

France insists on three points:

“the extension is to finalize the exit accord;

that we are very clear that we will not renegotiate the accord;

and the U.K. will not take part in next EU elections,”

I'm very slightly in love with Keir Starmer!

LouiseCollins Every country with a federal structure - including the US - has a provision that the govt can react in self-defence by waging war for a limited period of time

Ooh, over the Brussels? Empty podium

Deciding to declare war on Russia - with its 7,000 nukes - other than in direct response to an attack would be national suicide

Over to Brussels

The UK is not currently a federal state, but needs to become one if it is to survive:

Scotland - and possibly Wales & NI sometimes - bitterly resents that England dominates all political decisions.
Smaller countries than SCotland have a voice in the EU, much louder than Scotland's voice in the UK

I didn't think they could put conditions on us? Saying we can't hold EP elections is saying - essentially - that we can't revoke, which legally we would be able to do as an extension would be on the same terms as already exist.

What is clear is that they're sick of us. Unsurprisingly.

Deciding to declare war on Russia - with its 7,000 nukes - other than in direct response to an attack would be national suicide

(Strokes chin)

As the ever-sooper Lucy Worsley noted recently, a lot of the hype over USSR nuke numbers was bollocks - "verified" and propped up by the US military industrial complex.

I'd be curious how many nukes someone who doesn't have an incentive for inflating the number says Russia has today .....

If Scotland, Wales and NI would care to pay 25% in, they can have an equal say.

More likely if you were to have a federal UK, you would also have the English regions with similar voting powers. Yorkshire is bigger than Scotland.

Scotland - and possibly Wales & NI sometimes - bitterly resents that England dominates all political decisions.

To be fair, there's the reverse when Scottish MPs were used to ram through Labour legislation under Blair ....

DG reportedly 6 large nukes would wipe out most of the UK population
I'm damn sure Russia has a lot more than 6