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.

A friend said this morning
why won't they do what we voted for
I replied they can't because we voted for lies
and then added if the lies had been told in a by election it would have been cancelled and re-run, but because that vote was not binding, the lies stand
I could see the penny dropping as she stood there

How does it work in other countries, I wonder.

Other countries in Europe at least often issue free ID cards which people are used to carrying, from adolescence. Both my teenagers routinely carry their ID cards because that's how they've been brought up.

There is no postal vote in France but you can vote by proxy (I don't know about the ID requirements for this).

This conversation reminds me that DD needs to transfer her address for voting purposes to her student address in Paris, as I can't be her proxy and it's too far to come home.

Young people in Scotland get issued a Young Scot card - with a photo - for free from about the age of 11 or 12 (must be about then, as they did the photos at school). (I think he got a photo-less card before then)

It means that they get free/reduced access to various venues (like leisure centres), discounts in some shops - and also acts like a Student Railcard (until they turn 19) within Scotland, without having to pay for the Railcard.

They also re-issue the cards for free twice if the little darling loses it . It's also possible to get an updated card with new photo (for free) easily at local libraries (ds needed a new one as he didn't have the necessary hologram to use it as a railcard - plus at just about 18, didn't want to use a card with a picture of him age 11 ).

Libraries for administering an identity card scheme!

I'd actually think that was a fantastic idea - if my library hadn't been closed down!

Of course the post office could do it - but that's been closed down too.

Did anyone hear Emma Louise Lewell-Buck MP on Radio 4 this evening (Labour MP for South Shields) explaining why she'd voted for the withdrawal bill. Apparently, she did it because she wants it to move forward so MPs can get on with putting forward amendments to it. Her constituency is heavily reliant on manufacturing industries for jobs, which means she favours a customs union. She seemed to seriously think this could be one of the amendments, despite the interviewer pressing the point that that would be tantamount to a completely different deal. She refused to answer his question about how she would vote if such an amendment wasn't put forward and agreed upon. Basically, she was acknowledging that Brexit in its current proposed form would be a disaster for her constituents, but she had voted for it anyway.

Apparently, she did it because she wants it to move forward so MPs can get on with putting forward amendments to it.

A few Labour MPs are reported to have taken that view.

Which makes any attempt to guess further votes interesting.

On the one hand, it's actually a pragmatic approach. Especially since nothing is yet set in stone.

Yes, DGR, but ultimately they will have to decide whether to support the bill and fuck over their constituents' jobs, or not support it and piss off the thousands of constituents who voted leave and don't apparently give a flying fuck about jobs, but just repeat the 'Leave Means Leave' mantra.

twofingers I heard that interview too and my first thought was 'there is a woman who really wants to keep her job' , she knows Brexit isn't going to have positive effects on the lives of her constituents in any way shape or form , she knows that a good chunk have fallen for the lies spouted during the referendum, but they voted for her and she wants to keep that job more than she wants to have a go at explaining they are up shit creek because of it. She would rather keep her job and hope she can mitigate the worst. Maybe she does give a shit about them and is hoping against hope that if a soft Brexit is somehow achieved it will all be fine ?

Does anybody know if this rumour is true? Heard it today that the Conservatives voted against a Labour plan to protect the NHS from more privatisation / by US health care corporations, and the Lib Dems abstained?

Cannot be true because Labour are the opposition and do not propose policy

I think that was amendment f of the queens speech that I asked about on the new thread but no one has replied yet. It seems they voted against protecting the nhs. The chamber was only about a quarter full so was confused by the vote anyway as didn't seem very important to MPs but to a lot of people that's massive.

Customs union won’t work tho as one of the main leave campaign arguments was of building own trade deals and controlling mirgration etc - none of which you can do with accustoms union. It’s simply not Brexit so BJ knows he can’t compromise there. He’d lose the votes he currently has which is why he’s going for an election

Yeah. Tories voted against and LDs abstained. I'm not sure how much weight the amendment had though.

If labour want a customs union as their form if brexit they should campaign on the basis for one in an election. Then it’s the hard brexit vs his version. But he won’t because 60% of labour seats are from leave areas and he can’t alienate them

Blackbird
Ah yup, it was a proposed amendment to the Queen's speech
but its all utterly meaningless
because none of that legislation will ever happen
cos Bozo does not have a majority

Haven't double-checked, but as I understand it, the amendment was calling for the repeal of the 2012 Lansley Act - which goes well beyond the remit of the QS.

If I were more suspicious cynical, I'd say it was a deliberate ploy on Labour's part to try to make the LibDems look bad

frumpety - I think you're right. When listening, I swung between pity (she's between a rock and a hard place) and exasperation at her failure to be brutally honest with her constituents and her mad belief that she - or someone else - would somehow manage to tack on a customs union as an amendment.

Apologies if this has been shared already but this amused me as so many of us have been commenting on Priti Patel's smug 'resting' smirk www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/22/bbc-apologises-andrew-marr-accusing-priti-patel-laughing-brexit/

Basically Priti Vacant has a naturally bitch resting face

Basically Priti Vacant has a naturally bitch resting face

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpfeifengesicht