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...

The Metro headline is just spin.

They may have had the numbers but they may well not once amendments are added.

Goodness knows why the Metro are running with that as a headline.

It's just something to throw to Johnson fans outside the HoP, part of the 'Parliament is blocking the will of the people' macho narrative.

Again, it's not journalism, it's sound bites, sensationalism and PR.

☹️

Oops, sorry I misheard that they withdraw the bill
They didn't, which changes things ....

Makes it even more confusing

Is anyone actually planning all this ?
Isn't JRM supposed to be in charge ?

Red Does the WA need to have parliamentary approval before they move on to the WAB and amendments ?

You're doing really, really well, Red.

You've answered my question while I was typing my post Red. Thank you.

I still don’t pretend to fully understand but thanks RTB!

I think the WA effectively lied to all sides - left no deal and string workers rights still a possibility - but once amendments are done, it’s going to divide Votes again and be less likely to get through. Maybe!

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

Why did they accept in advance it would be defeated though?

There have been loads of votes that TM and her government had in December that were as close as yesterday’s one that actually happened?

No, Violet.

It's WAB, all Nrexit legislation to be done, & only then can WA be passed.

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!

They want to put the WA back to the house on Monday now Letwin has in effect fulfilled the remit of the Benn Act by forcing Johnson to write the extension letter (Letwin was just about closing the loophole in the Benn Act, and since the government didn't want the letter they didn't want to support Letwin).

But the bill they want to put to the house for Johnson's WA is the same as the one that failed on Saturday.

There's been talk that Saturday was a waste of time and didn't change anything, but it did because the WA was put to the house and failed.

If they can put the WA to the house the only way to proceed is through the WAB which is scheduled for Tuesday.

The trouble with the WAB is its open to all kinds of possible amendments which might frustrate the government or outright wreck the political declaration that accompanies the legally binding part of the WA that Johnson wants.

But because the WAB could be changed in a future parliament it depends on how much of a gamble the government are pretended to make here.

They might feel they can fight and win an election against a wrecked WAB.

(my explanations really aren't helping make this clearer are they?!)

Does the WA need to have parliamentary approval before they move on to the WAB and amendments ?

No.

Oh, now I feel daft.

That was excellent, Red.

I'm confused, red
As I understand it, WAIB is only UK law, to implement the WA

I thought that if the Tories win the GE then they could change the law afterwards and remove any CU, PV etc
and even if they lose, it wouldn't change things, since Labour would have those as policy anyway

I know the WAIB has to pass to avoid No Deal, but why does it matter so much if a CU is in it ?
The GE can't be much beyond mid-Feb, which might give time for a PV - but afaik only the govt can allocate money for it

I'm missing something, but what ?

If they cant put the WA to the house the only way to proceed is through the WAB which is scheduled for Tuesday

Sorry this should read as above not 'can'

oops bit of a crosspost, but most of the question still stands

Ah, thank you so much, red, I finally get it! The factor that has changed is that the letter has been sent, so now they want the vote (if JB will allow it). For the first time this weekend, I feel I understand.

I wonder if that feeling will last after tomorrow?!

I do think part of the point of amendments is to

• slow down the momentum (when the 'deal' was first presented, there was a mad air of urgency & a frenzied desire to 'just get it done'. MPs aren't immune to that).

• make clear the inner contradictions - especially around areas of i clarity - where we can assume Johnson has been promising all sorts to everyone eg. Worker's rights, LPF. The emptiness of those promised will be clear when the ERG vote against anything like that. If nothing else, will make it hard for Labour MPs to vote for this Deal.

• if Johnson moves to crush a PV, or refused to implement, that's a GE message : Johndon didn't dare put his deal to the people.

Also, once the Letwin bill had passed, the govt couldn't undo that, so why not swallow pride, go to division and get the WA passed ?

Now they nodded it through, haven't they made life more difficult for themselves ?

I think Starmer is suggesting Labour might offer Johnson support in passing WAB in return for PV.

That then means Labour can say Johnson didn't trust the people to accept his Deal.

I am struggling with the suggested CU amendment. PV I can understand - a domestic procedural issue. But what would a CU amendment look like? “The WA can be implemented provided it is renegotiated and redrafted substantially so as to provide for a UK-wide CU?” Surely it goes to the heart of the deal (including the NI arrangements)?

Matt Hancock blatantly lying on peston right now

thecat OK, I can understand slowing down the momentum

• political risk for Labour Leave MPs though I was just reading how Flint has been praised by her heavily Leave constituents for voting for the WA

I think that, BigChoc. And it makes me wonder if it was a macho gesture (so much of the messaging aimed at Leavers is all about this kind of quite deliberately stupid Mach behaviour) the implications of which weren't thought through beyond appealing to a section of the electorate Johnson hopes to pick up in a GE.

Clever of starmer.

If BJ hard Brexit with worse workers rights and no deal threat is put to the public, against remain, they are more likely to vote remain

Yes, Lsrk.

It drives a horse and cart through it. Plus, it was dropped for ERG support, so it's restitution might have an effect on numbers.

lark I gather that's just the non-binding PD they plan to change
Changing the legally binding WA would have to be agreed with the EU - and they might start rocking in a corner