Brexit Arms

[time4chocolate]

Not much else to say really 🍷🍷🍷

If you've got kids who are very sensible & mature & recognise the gravity of consequence of their vote then you'll obvs be ok with 16 yr olds voting

Well not in my case

Having said that although i think ds2 would take his duties very seriously he does have a habit of telling family members that he is going to vote for parties that he thinks will upset them

So my dad he has told he is voting labour, my husband hes told he will be voting UKIP and he has told me he is voting lib dem because they want to legalise drugs

He’s a horror

The problem with Brexit is it’s so tribal, I’m sure all leavers do want to see proper parliamentary scrutiny in general, but when it comes to brexit, I think some of the hard core leavers would be honestly be happy for it not be scrutinised at all as long as it passes, warts and all.

“But there are some more interesting questions about how politics is done and in particular about how government legislation is scrutinised where we might find common ground.”

This is a fair point, as excruciating as any delay may now be, a delay of some sorts does feel inevitable. So on that basis, I feel 2-3 week technical extension only would satisfy the scrutiny issue. Which seems to be the only remaining legitimate objection that isn’t about brexit blocking.

3 months would be dreadful for business and enterprise and the general morale of the country at this stage imho.

I'm not especially in favour of votes at 16 in election, though I'd listen to reasonable arguments in either direction.

For an either/or EU referendum it's different, for a number of reasons. Primarily because either no one really understands the issues (in which case remind me why referendums on complex issues are a good idea?) or it's a very simple yes/no question on an issue that absolutely that everyone understands without difficulty - in which case why not give the generation most affected by the decision a voice?

Dusty do you agree with a longer period of scrutiny in the HoP then? To ensure that the bill has no badly written clauses with unintended consequences?

I'd be absolutely fine with that.

But the anti-brexit coalition aren't being entirely honest though - they want the extra time to get as many wrecking amendments as possible.

So on that basis, I feel 2-3 week technical extension only would satisfy the scrutiny issue. Which seems to be the only remaining legitimate objection that isn’t about brexit blocking.

I really do not understand why the Johnson government refused to discuss a new programme motion with Corbyn when he offered this.

He’s a horror

He's a teenager...!!!!

It's all about the trolling 😂😂

I did exactly the same (and even in my 40s I was still trolling my G'dad 😂)

I really do not understand why the Johnson government refused to discuss a new programme motion with Corbyn when he offered this.

There was some standing order or other which meant the bill had to be put in limbo

Can't remember details though

But the anti-brexit coalition aren't being entirely honest though - they want the extra time to get as many wrecking amendments as possible.

Some of them do.

But that's parliamentary sovereignty for you - this is a direct consequence of the Tory party failing to win a majority at the last election, and then kicking out some of its MPs while pissing off its confidence and supply partners.

There's now a majority for a deal: it's up to the government to work to find a bill that can unite enough members behind it, and to do that they're doing to need to compromise.

That could have started yesterday with discussions over a new programme motion.

There was some standing order or other which meant the bill had to be put in limbo

Pretty sure this is not correct but happy to be shown I am wrong if you have a source.

What did he say yesterday...

Oh yeah,

‘sorry im late home we had a new bus driver who took ages, its because she’s a woman driver’

And it was a lie! It was a new MALE learner

Honestly...horror

(But sooooooo adorable)

Right im gonna stop being distracted and concentrate on important politics stuff

Well by the time it's brought back they'll have had plenty time to read it thoroughly & rip it apart.

I fully expect the ensuing debate & 'scrutiny' to just be endless repeats of the same soundbites & very little in the way of real questioning though.

And then after it all, most MPs will just trot through whichever lobby that their whips told them to.

Pretty sure this is not correct but happy to be shown I am wrong if you have a source.

JRM & Bercow last night were discussing it in the chamber

😂😂😂

Teenagers are ace

My eldest has come through the darkness and is mostly very lovely now

My youngest is on the turn & it's like walking on eggshells. He can flip from lovely to wanker in an instant.

From Hansard:

JRM: because the Bill now stands referred to a Committee under Standing Orders 83A and 63.

Bercow: the technical term for the status of the Bill is that it is in limbo. That is the technical term, advised to me by the Clerks. I refer Members to the ruling of the Chair on 10 July 2012 and to paragraph 28.58 of “Erskine May”. Any motion to enable the Bill to proceed to Committee or beyond requires notice and so will be considered on another day. One could have had an indication of intent, but there does exist a requirement for notice.

JRM & Bercow last night were discussing it in the chamber

Bercow's "in limbo" comment appears to be the result of a government decision** to pause the bill.

I don't pretend to be an expert but I can find no evidence that the bill could not legally proceed with a new programme motion. It seems that the govt chose not to do this, for reasons which I must admit are not completely obvious to me. It seems like a major strategic error.

It has to be referred to committee so is in limbo - rulez is rulez (as constantly highlighted by Bercow)

Cross post. So without a programme motion the bill can't proceed (this seems fairly un controversial). The govt could have given notice of its intention to proceed with scheduling a new programme motion, but didn't.

The way I interpret the Bercow comment is as follows:

The bill can't proceed to the committee stage without a programme motion. A new programme motion requires notice. For obvious reasons no notice has been given; it is open to the govt to signal its intent to provide notice of a new programme motion, but it has chosen not to do so.

I'd have to look up the references but as far as I'm aware the govt will make a decision based on the extension response from EU.

Then they'll decide whether to proceed with bill or try to secure a GE.

Xpost sorry - yes, I think that interpretation is right

The govt didn't give on the record indication of their intent, just sticking to procedure without embellishment

Agreed Dusty.

What I don't understand is why all this has to be done in such a hurry when there was time for a five week prorogation, and when an extension is clearly available (even if it's to Feb 2020 the extension can be ended prematurely if a deal is secured).

The whole thing seems like a series of unforced strategic errors from a government that is in a tough place due to a lack of majority and the FTPA.

I was about to barrel in with 83a, but it looks like dusty got there first! Lol.

Anyhoo, Corbyn and Boris met this morning to discuss timetabling for scrutiny. So that resolves that poing too. It will be interesting to see what has come of it.

PMQ’s start very soon.

Poing? Lol. Point.

Clearly not much has come of it, judging by the usual rabble today.