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...

Raoul Ruparel @raoulruparel
To cut through the noise a lot now comes down to - will Govt accept a WAB with customs union attached. Can either accept it, push deal through (possibly by 31 Oct) then go to election & hope for majority to overturn CU. Or can drop amended bill & try to go straight for election

Sam Coates Sky@samcoatessky
As a result of this weekend’s decisions this could well be what it comes down to.

If things seem complicated, it’s because there appear to be majorities in the Commons for several things - deal, deal plus CU, perhaps 2ref, maybe an election.

I’m confused too. So they didn’t want to have to vote for the amended WAB which said the deal would only be approved after legislation in place. But there’s no other deal available. So what on Earth comes next!

Just back from the march via an overnight stay with the in-laws (and a trip to see Lloyd Cole, which made me feel happy, wistful and old in equal measure).

Huge thanks to Listeningquietly for ensuring I didn’t walk alone.

I was so happy to be able to attend, having thought for a while I wouldn’t be able to. Brought back down to earth this morning when buying MiL’s Sunday papers. Man serving in the newsagents informed me he had voted to leave ‘to help the NHS’ . Should have bitten my tongue but couldn’t help reeling off all the reasons this really wasn’t going to happen. His reply was a troubled expression followed by ‘Well, Nothing anyone says is going to change my mind’.

I have yet to catch up on the thread (of course) but thought you all may enjoy this - shared by a friend on Facebook. Someone has been putting fake dust jackets on the Cameron biography in Foyles, Charing Cross Road

One more...

Just to clarify the WA once voted through parliament and ratified by the EU is legally binding in international law and can't be changed.

The WAB is how the WA is implemented under UK law. Once passed by Parliament it CAN be changed provided there is a parliamentary majority to do so. It is legally binding but can be changed under law. Thus its in effect only as good as long as the current parliament stays. A change in parliament could see legal changes made.

That's the important distinction between the two.

Flowchart for what happens next:

Late PMK

Would BJ really rather No Deal than accept a modified WAIB that he could change if he wins the GE ?
If he loses, then Labour would pass new laws anyway, so what's to lose ?

What amendments would make a real difference ?

Is it even possible to move the level playing field sections of the PD back to the WA - with EU approval ?
Doesn't look like it.
In which case, no changes look permanent

Attaching a PV would make a difference, but I doubt the votes are there

So has the WA already gone through with the Letwin amendment attached because the government accepted the defeat. So confused this weekend and I have managed to keep up so far.

The WA hasn't passed, because the govt withdrew the bill after the Letwin amendment passed

Lloyd Cole

😍

Thanks again Bigchoc, you have answered a few of my questions today , struggling to keep up and understand fully this weekend.

Sorry, I'm probably being stupid, but would like any answers - I'm still a bit confused. If the government no longer wanted the vote on the deal yesterday after the Letwin amendment, why is it being suggested that they might have the meaningful vote tomorrow? What will have changed?

If the CU was put back in then labour might vote for it but ERG/ Tories not I think. But then EU haven’t even agreed to that or any other amendment so what’s the point really?

Further up the thread RTB said the govt didn’t withdrW the bill, it was Presented but defeated without being voted on, so John Bercow probably shouldn’t let it be presented again

www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/ive-sent-the-letter-but-i-havent-signed-it-says-petty-little-twat-20191020189950

WW I would like to know exactly that!

I'm really envious, SingingBaboushkaBadly.

I love Lloyd Cole, too.

I don't understand it either.

It's pretty confusing, Violet and I suspect BJ has confused himself too

Papers tomorrow:

Bollocks that they are certain of the numbers!

The WA hasn't passed, because the govt withdrew the bill after the Letwin amendment passed

Incorrect. They didn't withdraw the bill.

They were too late to do that.

So has the WA already gone through with the Letwin amendment attached because the government accepted the defeat.

Johnson’s WA has gone through parliament but failed to get parliamentary approval, because the government nodded it through (said they accepted that if it went to division they would be defeated, so didn't want to go through the formality of the vote to demonstrate this and the circus of having to vote against Johnson's deal because the Letwin Amendment which they disagreed with had been attached to Johnson's deal)

It's important to understand that the government DID NOT withdraw the bill, because the act of having put it to the house has implications for what is going to happen in the next couple of days.

The opposition are arguing that the WA can not be reput to the house in this parliamentary session. In a similar fashion to the problem May had with representing her WA to parliament and the Speaker saying she couldn't unless there were changes to it.

Everyone folliwing yet? (or just getting even more confused?!)

.

Delurking to say when I had a cash offer on my house a couple of years ago the whole process took 8 weeks to complete.

I would have liked completion to have happened by Christmas, but my dream date didn't override the purchaser or their solicitors right to ensure due diligence.

Given a straightforward purchase of a big standard red brick home takes 2 months, why the hell was the government expecting parliament to agree to a deal with less than 2 days notice. Wheres the due diligence?

But what is this about the government wanting a meaningful vote tomorrow? How will that be different from the one they no longer wanted (so nodded through with no vote) on Saturday? Presumably it will still have the Letwin amendment attached?

Still confused - it's easily done!

The implication is that if the WA can't be put to the house again, the only way the government can proceed is to instead proceed with the WAB.

Which the opposition intend to amend to fuck - most notably with a commitment to a CU (or PV). And they possibly have the numbers to get a majority with.

This put the government in a position of having to support a WAB plus customs union or push for an election to overturn a WAB plus customs union as that as their Brexit policy.

(this is just confusing everyone even more isn't it? Sorry I'm trying to explain... )