Westminstenders: Extension or No Extension

[RedToothBrush]

Johnson has sent a letter he said he never would asking for an extension.

We now wait to see what the EU come back with.

It's likely to be a technical extension. At best.

France are really not happy with the idea of an extension and Macron is flexing his muscles with the EU at the moment. He has been prepared to upset all the other EU countries as he proved with blocking progress on accession to the EU for Northern Macedonia and Albania this week. Macron is fighting his own domestic battles.

It looks as if Johnson now has a majority for a deal. What that deal will ultimately look like will be dictated by the Withdrawal Agreement Bill which sets out implementation of the Withdrawal Act.

However, with the DUP firmly offside the chances of a vote of no confidence go up. As do the chances of an election.

And its also worth pointing out that whilst the WAB is legally binding if we have an election and Johnson gets a majority, then there can always be changes made to domestic law. (implementation of the WA rather than the agreement principles of the WA agreed with the EU).

Thus any 'assurances' over workers rights and regulatory standards are only as good as long as this parliament...

cat that's probably because all bets are still off. Anything could pretty much still happen.

I was just pondering what an earth the general election after the next one, and the one after that will be like. I think we'll still be devastated by Brexit, or at least the party political & government system will be. Added to that, the further importance of social media vs MSM. 🤔

@tobee

Yes - we don’t want them back, do we?

Ooh, Ian Dunt is claiming Johnson, even before amendments, is short on numbers for his deal!

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/20/boris-johnson-brexit-deal-knife-edge-despite-claim-he-has-the-numbers?twitterr_impression=true

Pay close attention to this thread, I'm sure there will be lots of questions that relate to it in the next two days:

Lewis Goodall@lewis_goodall
Huge problems storing up for the govt this week:

Plan is to bring MV back tomorrow. Think almost certain not to happen as Speaker will rule out of order as (i) same issue twice (ii) contradicts Letwin amendment which says Brexit related legislation must be agreed first.

There is a common misconception that the govt pulled the vote on Saturday. They did not. They just didn't bring the motion as amended to a division. It went through on the nod. The House decided something. I.e. Letwin, that there is no deal until WAB passes. That is big.

That is why common refrain that Saturday was a "waste of time" or that "they didn't decide anything" is a nonsense.

As a result of that decision, the Speaker has even more justification to refuse the deal coming back. The previous MVs were defeated and the House passed nothing. Yesterday the Commons (when govt walked away from motion) effectively unanimously agreed and 'resolved' the matter.

So that means only route to get the deal through is via the WAB. That is due to take place Tuesday. And that is absolutely fraught with danger. The parliamentary manoeuvres we saw on Saturday will look like a walk in the park compared to the WAB.

It will be amended in every direction. This is why govt wanted to have MV first (same as May's). Establish you have a majority on the deal and hope momentum of that means that coalition of MPs holds throughout the WAB process.

There will be lots of attention paid to the sexiest amendment: a second referendum. But that (prob) still doesn't have enough support. The explosive one is a customs union which probably does and crucially has support from Lab MPs who might back deal but would prefer a CU.

Expect Labour and others to get behind that amendment because it is in effect a massive wrecking amendment to the government's deal. They know Johnson cannot accept it, cannot negotiate it and it would tear the Tory Party apart.

If that happens (and it passes) I don't see any way out for Johnson, other than accepting the reality of the extension and using it to insist on an election where he campaigns for his deal. Tory Party as the Brexit (with a deal) Party.

Basically the govt gave up its best chance of accessing the majority that might well now exist for the deal by not pushing the division on Saturday. Virtually everyone I speak to thinks it was a mistake that they didn't.

DUP votes now in play also means everything (in terms of amendments) even more fluid. As one MP put it to me: "If it was a matrix of options before it’s now galaxy of variables post Letwin."

Other problems abound. There's no guarantee, for example, that the govt even has the votes for a programme motion which would set out when, how and for how long the WAB would be debated. IE they might not even be able to bring the WAB up, or at least, to do so without condition.

Entirely possible MPs try and push programme motion for WAB beyond this week, so we can't Brexit by October 31st and def enter extension. So keep eye out for programme motion vote, which is usually a formality but actually a big moment this week. Possibly the biggest.

AND there's the Queen's Speech. Remember that? We were supposed to conclude the votes on it on Monday and Tuesday. But that is all up in the air tomorrow. A vote seems to be planned on Tuesday. Entirely possible govt could lose. First time on a QS since Stanley Baldwin in 1924.

Brexit isn’t going away. At least not in the next couple of decades. Although it might not stay as headline news - I presume climate change will inevitably take over. The scientific data is very concerning.

Alex Wickham@alexwickham
Opposition parties expect John Bercow to rule a new Brexit motion / meaningful vote tomorrow out of order

This obviously risks allowing Johnson to say parliament blocked him from having a vote on his deal because they knew he had a majority - then heading to an election on people v parliament basis

Govt source: “We have a majority for the deal. Letwin, Parliament and Bercow are preventing us from holding a vote on it because they know it means we will leave on October 31. People are not stupid. They know what is happening and those blocking Brexit will pay at an election.”

Has anybody got the details of the Ken Clarke CU vote when they did the indicative votes earlier in the year?

I think it was only short a few votes??

There is a common misconception that the govt pulled the vote on Saturday. They did not. They just didn't bring the motion as amended to a division. It went through on the nod. The House decided something. I.e. Letwin, that there is no deal until WAB passes. That is big.

Can someone explain that to me slowly! What is a ’division’ in this context?

Customs Union (Proposed by Ken Clarke)
AYES: 264 NOES: 272

Thread has moved on but this is an interesting piece on NI unionism (lots of posts earlier this afternoon):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/20/grassroots-loyalists-brexit-deal-sellout-tensions-running-high?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Fed up

They either vote on something (a division is called)

Or they can 'nod it through' (vote isn't needed and government accepts current position as it stands)

So current position was WA does not pass but Letwin accepted.

But it count as having been put to the house even though it wasn't actually voted on.

Thus to put before the house again is to hold a second vote on the same thing. (even though there wasn't a vote)

The government just didn't go through the formality of being defeated.

I'm not sure that Guardian link saying the government is short of 1 is accurate. Ivan Lewis MP who they have in the not sure camp voted against the Benn Act and voted with the government on Saturday so he is likely imo to support the government again.

Thanks for bringing that thread to our attention Red.

I think people are still going to stick their heads in the sand to a large extent re climate change. Because the change needed won't be popular, is possibly too late already. Plus big money want to pretend it doesn't exist, except to pay lip service to it for optics.

268 voted for the Kyle amendment last time (people’s vote) - it got the highest votes of all the indicative vote options I think. Fingers crossed for this time!

to pretzels for having to deal with a bully. Brexit has become a conduit for that sort of frustration with the perceived loss of white male privilege - though it is actually clearly alive and well. My DD and I were driving around Milton Keynes (one of those google magical mystery tours when an accident stopped the M1) and at one of those roundabouts a black souped up something or other came up and tailgated me with his hand fixed on the horn and then cut me up by overtaking me and then stopping in front of me before revving up away. Unfortunately for him there was a queue at the next roundabout and he chose the wrong lane so we came up alongside him. Any guesses on his appearance? Bald, fat , black T shirt clinging too hard to his belly, we laughed and he mimed putting a dick in a mouth. Classy. His son in the passenger seat was staring at the floor clearly mortified. My DD commented "I bet he voted for Brexit". Obviously we don't know but that sort of bullying behaviour towards women and other minorities is worse since the vote.

In contrast on the way back from the 2m march on a train full of marchers we stopped and the train filled with Chelsea fans. and I was surrounded. They laughed at a sleeping man in full EU flag opposite and I was a bit apprehensive. Actually we had a really good discussion, they talked about their children's point of view, their own views and they were incredibly respectful of mine. It is sad a few plonkers give working class white males such a bad reputation.

Another who would gladly give more in tax to fund public services, a scary number has been wiped off my not public sector occupational pension fund in the last month or so. I would far rather it had gone in higher taxation than the machinations of the financial markets and damage to the UK businesses that actually do provide employment and pay their taxes.

But why did BJ just accept defeat on Saturday without taking a chance? I suspect it’s because the amendment meant he lost ERG backing? Or another reason?

Yes, Snowy.

I forgot to say how horrible that was, Pretzels. And to send you a big virtual squeeze.

Sorry - Snowy, that 'yes' was about hoping for numbers for PV.

I have no idea why he pulled the vote.

It's possible it was a gesture - and he missed the implications,

Just to remark - again - what an education these threads provide.

Peston on tonight, hoping he can shed some light 😂

Thank you @RedToothBrush it’s very confusing!

So BJ’s WA got nodded through? But then it didn’t go to a vote (division?) because Letwin’s did go through?? Why did that stop it being voted on?

Sorry if these are stupid questions.

BJ is known from his time at City Hall for having no grasp of detail. A complete ignoramous can govern (several have) if they have the sense to take good advice. This comes from several sources BJ has sidelined. The Civil Servants have been marginalised. The wise old backbenchers have been intimidated into silence or expelled from the party. And he has picked a cabinet full of arseholes. That leaves the Spads like CumBoy.

Nuff said.

I think RTBs nugget means that it was presented to the house but not passed. Which could be bad for BJ if Bercow doesn’t allow it to be presented again next week? But then Bercow would Get the blame for the failure to get a deal and BJ could again blame parliament for his failings. Maybe? Hope RTB can help!

Here’s an interesting take on how BJ/Cummings are spinning things in BJ favour

twitter.com/MikeH_PR/status/1185797486708961280?s=20

So BJ’s WA got nodded through?
The vote on the WA got nodded through with the default position being the government were in effect defeated (minus the media optics of being seen to be defeated)

But then it didn’t go to a vote (division?)
Correct, because the government accepted defeat on the vote without needing to have it formalised.

because Letwin’s did go through??
Yes. The government didn't want to proceed with the vote because Letwin amendment meant the government either had to support the WA plus the Letwin amendment (as a single unit) or admit defeat. As the government were opposed to the Letwin amendment they felt they couldn't vote for the WA as planned.

Why did that stop it being voted on?
It didn't stop it being voted on. The government chose not to have the vote because their policy was opposed to the Letwin Amendment in principle. They couldn't go ahead with the vote as it left them in a position that it was a straight choice between either undermining their position on Letwin by supporting in (in the process of voting for the deal) or they'd have to vote against the deal as part of opposing Letwin.

Late PMK, so so confused... but think the old Chinese proverb/curse 'may you live in interesting times' will be a reality next week.