Westminstenders: Another day of fear and toil

[RedToothBrush]

In a move that surprised no one paying attention, Bercow refused to let Johnson put the WA back to the house today after it had already been presented to the house on Saturday.

This move upset the government but was entirely predictable.

This means that the only way the deal can move forward is through the WA's implementation bill (the WAB). It was published for the first time tonight (all 100 pages of it) and it will be presented to the house tomorrow.

In a lightning fast timetable parliament will be asked to scruntise it. This of course is reckless in the extreme for such an important piece of legislation. The speed at which it is being forced through is the thing that looks most likely to ruffle feathers.

The government is still trying to pretend it can make the 31st October deadline and leave by then. The reality is there isn't enough time for parliament to pass the necessary legislation and the EU will need to also ratify the deal, which in a best case scenario won't happen until next week with an extraordinary EU meeting to do so. This is much more likely to occur the week after at the earliest.

The reality is the EU need an extension themselves which is why we are very likely to get at least a short technical one and remain in the EU beyond next Thursday. It's in the UK and EU's interest if we do want to get a deal done.

Everything that Johnson does though is about optics ahead of a GE. It has to play it all as if he has been prevented from leaving as he promised.

We wait to see the pieces of a deal fall into place. It is in progress now finally it seems. For better or worse.

Ouch

George Osborne @George_Osborne
Last time a government lost a programme motion was, I believe, on our House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012. The person who led the rebellion was Jacob Rees-Mogg. Funny in politics how what goes around comes around
19:53 22/10/2019

Ouch again

Ouch indeed.

Really shouldn't

But I can't stop at the schadenfreude

Ah pretty, play nice. Remember the Leaver earlier this week who was here to crow?

Schadenfreude re Smug is matched by the schadenfreude that goes with the Schrödinger's Deal: simultaneously dead and alive

Pesky foreign sounding words

@prettybird All that Parliament has done, is vote, some reluctantly, some with too much enthusiasm, for content of the Bill to be debated

So they hadn't agreed the WA ... they'd agreed to debate it via the WAIB ... but voted against that because of BJ's time frame? So does BJ now have to put the WA to the vote again?

Gosh, I'm glad I wasn't around then! Sounds awful.

I like Schroedinger's Deal though. We should have a limbo party. I'll bring the pina coladas.

I'll bring cheese and pineapple on sticks and tiffin.

I'll bring cake, I always bring cake.

There is still a lot further debate to go: the second reading, the committee stage, the HoL and further debate in the HoC, with the possibility of amendments (and corrections - which is the point of the scrutiny) before it gets to the third reading, which needs to pass before it becomes law.

The Withdrawal Bill is a long and complicated bill which cross-references many other bills. It's not (whatever the frustrated Tory/Leave MPs try to claim) in anyway comparable to a simple, short Bill like the Benn Bill which could be rushed through within a week.

So they hadn't agreed the WA ... they'd agreed to debate it via the WAIB ... but voted against that because of BJ's time frame? So does BJ now have to put the WA to the vote again?

Sort of.

1. WA meaningful vote was amended by Letwin to say HoC withholds approval until implementation legislation all passed. I think that implies that once WAIB passed, that counts as meaningful vote and then Brexit withdrawal can take place but I am not sure.
2. That meaningful vote then was passed without division - sometimes called "on the nod" because the gov't couldn't pull it at that point but didn't want it put to a vote. Because it was passed, it can't be put to a vote again in this session of Parliament (that's what Bercow ruled on yesterday morning).
3. Today the gov't brought the WAIB forward for a 2nd reading (that puts it before the HoC for debate and amendments). This passed.
4. One of the requirements for a bill to then be debated is for the gov't to put a programme or timetabling motion describing how much time and what days the bill will be debated on. The gov't wanted this to be very short. This failed.
5. The WAIB is now "in limbo" (technical term ). Another programme motion needs to be brought and passed before it can be debated. I believe the gov't must do this; I don't know that a SO24 mechanism can be used for the opposition to do so.
6. Tomorrow and Thursday the gov't has scheduled further debate on the Queen's Speech; I think there will be a vote on that Thursday, that should bring it to the usual 5 or 6 days of debate.
7. The EU will offer an extension shortly. This could be

a) short - Parliament will have to vote on this b) to 31 Jan 2020 - automatically accepted by provision of Benn bill c) long - Parliament will have to vote on this

So they hadn't agreed the WA ... they'd agreed to debate it via the WAIB ... but voted against that because of BJ's time frame? So does BJ now have to put the WA to the vote again?

They have voted to take debate of the implementation plans of the WA to the next round of parliamentary process.

They have rejected the timetable for this process saying the time frame the government proposed is too short, and that they need more parliamentary time to scrutinise it adequately.

They have not approved the intended implementation process, merely taken it to the stage where amendments can be made to the plan.

This is separate to the WA itself. Even if the WAB (the plan to implement the WA) is approved this isn't sufficient. The WAB is merely the legal plan / framework for the WA in UK law. The WA itself also needs to be approved to ratify the agreement with the EU into UK law. Both must be done before we can leave or we have a chaotic Brexit where UK law isn't clear and no one knows what the hell to do.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

I'm going to make a prediction now.

The EU will offer the Benn Act extension with bi-monthly possible leaving dates (15th and last of the month) up to 31 Jan 2020 should a deal be ratified by both UK and EP. This will be offered by end of day tomorrow. Thursday morning Labour will call and win VONC triggering an election. Election date 12 Dec.

Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
EU sources saying tonight they will offer a ‘flextension’ - a 3 month delay, but “it would be terminated once/if brexit deal ratified”. Will Boris turn down that?

Um, he can't? It's specified in the Benn Act that he has to.

Interesting point of law - maybe one of the lawyers on here could comment : as I understand it, the Benn Bill required him to send the letter by 19 October, requesting an extension if the WA hadn't been passed; as well as the pre-written letter specifying the length of extension requested (to 31 January 2020, which has to be accepted automatically), the Bill specified that if the EU offers a different length, then Parliament ( not the Government) gets 2 days to decide whether or not to accept the different date.

What happens if the EU offers a flextension "up to" the 31st January? Who decides if that is acceptable? Is that up to the government? Is it a grey area?

Beth Rigby@bethrigby
What next? Some ministerial sources think govt should try to push on. Short ext, new program motion, try to get Johnson deal thru. But No 10 position is to push for election if extension granted (and Tusk says tonight he’d recommend that). So, over to Corbyn. Will he do it?

So extension or extension.

I think we are extending*

*Subject to EU approval.

Placard at Saturday's march...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/22/starmer-clashes-shadow-cabinet-over-second-referendum-labour-brexit

Labour is ready to vote for a general election as soon as EU27 leaders have signed off on a Brexitt* extension,

despite the desire of some senior party figures to secure a referendum first, the Guardian understands.

Labour has twice abstained when the prime minister asked for an election under the terms of the fixed-term parliaments act, which requires a two-thirds majority.

But Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said that once an extension was in place he would support a poll and a Labour spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday night that remained the party’s position.
“Extension, then election,”

Nicholas Watt@nicholaswatt
Lot of chat about how EU might grant a ‘flextension’ - extension to EU membership which would be expire as soon as deal ratified. That would be in line with the Benn act, as final sentence in letter to EU shows

Hello thecat! I love your username - one of my earliest memories was dressing up as the Cat from Japan (with obligatory big blue fan) in primary school for Book Week

Stephen Hammond (and his wife Sally who responds to a lot of his emails) both seem like genuinely lovely and decent people. He is saying he voted for both the second reading and the program motion to try to stop No Deal and to ensure that amendments he was working on could be considered...not quite sure that I agree that rushing the bill through would have achieved either of those things, but at least he is providing vaguely sane sounding reasons rather than “we must deliver Brexit!” “Will of the people!” Etc etc etc

Yep, Benn / govt was specifically asking for a Flextension
So it would be automatically accepted, no need for a vote

(iirc all EU extensions so far have been flextensions ?)

Thanks for the explanations

Apparently
France is open to a "technical extension of several days"

What's several days in French?

3?

90?