blandy Posted March 14, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 Today's Gov't motion confirms the UK is not in a position to leave on 29 March, under any circs - even if May's deal got voted through, we'd still not be ready. We haven't made the changes to UK law necessary to allow us to function if we leave on 29th March. Quote [even].. if the house has passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship ....then the government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 14, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: Excuse my ignorance, could someone summarise the votes that we had yesterday and the results? Well, Quote Theresa May has spent the last three years saying “no deal is better than a bad deal”. She’s allocated £4bn of public money to preparing for no deal. And then, on Wednesday evening, she was expected to walk through the division lobbies and vote to rule out no deal. Mad, obviously. Stark raving mad. But it’s at least within the realm of madness that we’re used to. But what happened was a madness to echo down the ages. Not so much another order of magnitude as another dimension. The House of Commons was a Benny Hill chase on acid, running through a Salvador Dali painting in a spaceship on its way to infinity. It was a kind of death-defying, window-shattering, epoch-shaping, never-to-be-surpassed lunacy. The details are extravagantly complex, and if you can’t face them all, the key bit to remember is that Theresa May planned to defeat herself, then decided not to defeat herself by defeating herself, then lost. To herself.... Nevertheless, here we were, two weeks short of Brexit day, and the prime minister was unable to tell her government how to vote on this vote to rule out no deal. So it was to be a “free vote”, which means, here in the UK in 2019, the government does not have a position on self-inflicted economic ruin. ...The Conservative MP Caroline Spelman introduced an amendment to the ruling out no-deal motion, which meant that, if passed, it would involve ruling out no deal permanently. In other words, it couldn’t just be ruled out for a couple of months, for a bit more negotiating time. It would be ruled out for good. Which would mean, in all likelihood, Theresa May having to go back to Brussels to seek not a short but a long extension to Article 50, the UK taking part in the EU elections at the end of May, and various other things that, we as a country can no longer do – because we’ve gone mad. This was quite the problem. Now, government ministers, and Theresa May herself, having been free to vote against the motion they themselves had introduced, would have to vote against it. Which put dozens of government ministers, and indeed the prime minister, in the rather tricky spot of having to vote in favour of economic ruin... 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 Quote The most important amendment going on the order paper today is the one in the names of Hilary Benn, Sir Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper - because it is the one that would wrest control of shaping Brexit from the prime minister and deliver this control to MPs. This is a coup against the PM, against the executive, so Theresa May is honour bound to oppose it, to instruct Tory MPs via a three-line whip to vote it down. But it was clear from what Greg Clark, the business secretary said on my show last night, and what the Chancellor said in his spring statement yesterday, that important members of the Cabinet - them, plus Rudd and Gauke, for instance - support this revolt of the backbenches. So the first question is whether Clark, Rudd and Gauke - plus other ministers desperate to avoid a no-deal Brexit - will have to rebel against the PM again by either abstaining on the Benn/Letwin amendment or backing it. Probably not, I am reliably told. Since the movers of the motion are convinced they will win, even without ministerial support, and would rather keep their supporters inside the PM's tent. "They are more useful to us in the government rather than out" one of the leaders of the coup told me - in language that will further enrage Brexiter Tories, who fear they are being comprehensively outmanoeuvred by unreconstructed Remainers who are seeking to capture the Brexit citadel and deliver what they see as Brexit in Name Only. There is of course deep pain for the prime minister in the confidence of Benn/Letwin/Cooper that they will triumph even without ministerial resignations, which is that she has lost control of her backbenches - and that significant numbers of Tories outside the payroll will disobey her. So how does their disloyal amendment transfer power away from 10 Downing Street? Well here is where it gets complicated. Bear with me. The first thing it does is temporarily remove the PM's power to set the agenda in parliament - in this instance on next Wednesday. On that day a motion would be debated by MPs which if passed would then pave the way for what's known as indicative votes on different versions of Brexit the following week - on another day when control of parliament's agenda would be seized from the prime minister by backbenchers. On this second full day of the backbenchers' coup, MPs would then be able to table their own preferred routes through the Brexit mess. Those routes might include a no-deal Brexit, the so-called Malthouse Brexit (a "managed" no-deal Brexit), Common Market 2.0 (the Norway model augmented by an customs "arrangement" - don't ask!), a referendum and so on. And at the end of that day, all these options would be printed on bits of paper. And MPs would - in a secret ballot, to avoid gaming of the system - be able to put a tick next to any version of Brexit or even a no-Brexit that they favour. MPs would be able to vote for as many plans as they like. They would simply be asked to show which routes they would tolerate. Now, the expectation is that after this day two of backbenchers' control, there would not be a clear winner. No single option may be backed by a majority of MPs - which seems the most likely outcome. Or there several may command a majority (in that, as I said, MPs could vote for as many Brexit plans as they like). Either way, the chances are that backbenchers will have to seize control of a third day of business from the government, to whittle down the most popular options to just single one that commands the majority of MPs. And at that juncture the Prime Minister would be instructed to negotiate that outcome with Brussels and EU leaders. By now you will have realised that this does genuinely represent an extraordinary and unprecedented undermining of the PM on the most important issue of this age and one of the most important issues of almost any age. Her humiliation at that point would be complete. Why would formerly loyal Tory MPs turn her into their puppet? Well it is because they are concerned that if they don't, the alternative would be a no-deal Brexit - which, they fear, would wreak havoc on country and their party, from which neither would recover for many years. And they say the reason they have to launch their coup today is because it has to be underway - they say - before the European Council of a week's time, in that they are anxious EU leaders would not delay Brexit unless and until they can see MPs beginning the process of rallying towards a particular Brexit course. So we are on the brink of history - the transmogrification of Theresa May into PINO, or Prime Minister in Name Only. Robert Peston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) Looks like Amendment I might be pulled. The government has indicated that it'll be putting in place the requested time for indicative votes etc, so Benn will pull it. Not the first time the government's done this - facing defeat it just accepts whatever the amendment was going to do, but often with some spin to their advantage. I wouldn't trust them to be frank. Edit - now looks like it WON'T be pulled. Good. Edited March 14, 2019 by Chindie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stevo985 said: Excuse my ignorance, could someone summarise the votes that we had yesterday and the results? Everyone else has given you thoroughly comprehensive answers, but I prefer Tom Peck's pithier take in the Independent Theresa May planned to defeat herself, then decided not to defeat herself by defeating herself, then lost. To herself https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-no-deal-article-50-mp-parliament-vote-a8821991.html Edited March 14, 2019 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 The second referendum amendment is looking shifty. The People's Vote campaign doesn't want the amendment placed now and Labour aren't going to back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 The irony of May having vote after vote on her deal until she wins is delicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The irony of May having vote after vote on her deal until she wins is delicious Shush, we don't talk about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted March 14, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, mjmooney said: Quote So we are on the brink of history - the transmogrification of Theresa May into PINO, or Prime Minister in Name Only. PINO Grigio, presumably? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 42 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: PINO Grigio, presumably? Pino e-grigio-us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 14, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: The irony of May having vote after vote on her deal until she wins is delicious tbh it's leaving a rather bad taste in my mouth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Unintentional comedy from Leadsom earlier (Hansard) : Quote Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) May we have a debate in Government time on electronic voting? Since my colleagues and I were elected in 2015, this House has spent 205 hours—eight and a half full days, or five and a half working weeks—just on voting, in smelly, sweaty, stuffy voting Lobbies. This is wasting time and thwarting democracy. Andrea Leadsom I am very sorry if the hon. Lady’s Lobby is smelly and sweaty... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 May angry about leaks from Cabinet meetings, according to leak from Cabinet meeting. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 What a shower. Hilary Benn's indicative votes amendment fails by 2 votes. 312 - 314. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 Second referendum vote failed as well. Not a shock that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: What a shower. Hilary Benn's indicative votes amendment fails by 2 votes. 312 - 314. Yes, because this is a government which can be relied upon to keep its promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 14, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 Just now, Chindie said: Second referendum vote failed as well. Not a shock that. I've been in a law seminar most of the day, so I know very little. Am I right in thinking even Peoples Vote didn't want this to go through and Labour weren't voting for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bickster said: I've been in a law seminar most of the day, so I know very little. Am I right in thinking even Peoples Vote didn't want this to go through and Labour weren't voting for it? Yes. The People's Vote campaign was against the motion being brought, and Labour abstained on it. So it took a kicking. The plan for Labour seems to be that they will support an amendment in future being pushed by a couple of their members which is basically to put it back to the country once there is an agreed deal and have the second referendum be between the Deal and Remain. The People's Vote campaign basically wants to be the last option standing so didn't want a motion in place caught up in the extension arguments. Edit - it also lead a complete shitshow in the debate when Labour confirmed they wouldn't back it with shit slinging between Remain factions. The Not Party knew Labour wouldn't support the vote IMO. Edited March 14, 2019 by Chindie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) Edit: Edited March 14, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 14, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2019 Corbyn's amendment loses, because of course it did. Bryant didn't push his, which is unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts