The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[HanoiVillan]

So we ask for an extension then. 

[peterms]

37 minutes ago, bickster said:

I've been in a law seminar most of the day, so I know very little.

Well if it was that poor, I hope it wasn't you paying for it.

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So we ask for an extension then. 

We'll see. It isn't binding, is it?

Four members of the cabinet voted against the policy of their own government, apparently: Leadsom, Fox, Williamson and someone else.

Edit: That's 5 now. Liz Truss, too. The 'someone else' was the Brexit Secretary. The man in charge of the department for Exiting the EU has voted against his government's now stated policy for exiting the EU.

Edited March 14, 2019 by snowychap

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, Chindie said:

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.

This is a mad plan. It's just not credible. If a deal gets passed, then obviously it's already agreed, and that's what happens.

If a deal gets agreed, then it will be a "tory" supported, or tory originated Brexit, and Labour isn't ever going to support a tory Brexit, because then "Labour enabled a tory brexit". Corbyn's whole modus operandi has been to pretend to do something, while doing nothing. He'll continue to do nothing that has a hope, because he wants a tory Brexit and to then say "all these consequences - the tories did that, Vote me".

If a deal gets agreed only on the proviso it's put to a referendum, what is Corbyn going to campaign for? - A tory Brexit plan, or Remain - neither of which he wants to be seen to support, so he'll effectively off to his potting shed and hide, again. So that's not going to happen.

With different leaders this would all have been sorted by now. In effect a hung parliament with tight margins, and the same situation of 48-52% in the last ref, the obvious conclusion is that a low scale Brexit is what the natural outcome should be. Take away May and Corbzz and replace them with sane people, and they'd work together to thrash out a soft Brexit. Two leaders, two broken parties.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

We'll see. It isn't binding, is it?

@HanoiVillan

Actually, rereading the motion, I think that it only says that they agree that the government will seek to agree an extension if the WA is passed by 20th March. If that doesn't pass, it just says it is highly likely that the European Council would require a clear purpose (which they obviously won't have by then as they booted the indicative votes amendment) and that any extension beyond that which they have agree to seek would require EP elections to be held. It doesn't say, I don't think, that they would actually seek to agree a longer extension.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Four members of the cabinet voted against the policy of their own government, apparently: Leadsom, Fox, Williamson and someone else.

Five, another was definitely Truss

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Five, another was definitely Truss

Yep, post edited to reflect that now.

[villa4europe]

the main question is how many meaningful votes can we squeeze in between now and june 30th?

[Davkaus]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/eddie-mair/eddie-mair-grills-liz-truss-over-austerity-brexit/

I found this exchange quite amusing.

Quote

 

On Brexit, Ms Truss said any second referendum would be a “bad idea”.

Eddie asked: “People can change their minds, can’t they?”

The Tory frontbencher replied: “But they were told in the referendum in 2016 that their vote would be implemented.”

Eddie responded: “What about people who have changed their minds between then and now?"

To which Ms Truss said: “I don’t think people have changed their minds.”

“You have,” Eddie hit back.

“I have, that's true,” Ms Truss replied. "

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Davkaus

[OutByEaster?]

What happened to j? The one that prevents May bringing her deal back unchanged repeatedly. Did it go away?

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

What happened to j? The one that prevents May bringing her deal back unchanged repeatedly. Did it go away?

The Rev (ex) from the Rhondda didn't move it.

Edited March 14, 2019 by snowychap

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The Rev (ex) from the Rhondda didn't move it.

The addition of the ex hasn't helped me.

I'm guessing the Rev (ex) from the Rhondda is a political figure involved in todays debates, but I'm not sure about the movement bit.

Unless it's a literal reference I don't get that's about moving the letter J?

 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

The addition of the ex hasn't helped me.

I'm guessing the Rev (ex) from the Rhondda is a political figure involved in todays debates, but I'm not sure about the movement bit.

Unless it's a literal reference I don't get that's about moving the letter J?

Ah, sorry.

Chris Bryant didn't put his amendment to the vote.

Edited March 14, 2019 by snowychap

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, snowychap said:

Ah, sorry.

Chris Bryant didn't put his amendment to the vote.

Thank you. Remember I'm not the brightest. (I do post constant reminders to help with that  ).

Also, the rotter! That was the one I had most faith in.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Thank you. Remember I'm not the brightest. (I do post constant reminders to help with that  ).

Also, the rotter! That was the one I had most faith in.

I think there was some talk that if he'd put it to the vote and lost then it would have taken the decision on it out of Bercow's hands because the house's will on the matter would have been known and so he decided against taking that risk.

Edit: Also, to be fair, unless you watch much of Parliament (where Bryant is a very frequent contributor), you may have missed his regular references to his previous vocation.

Edited March 14, 2019 by snowychap

[hogso]

Not related to the politics, but we've had an EOI out today for 160 staff to provide support for 'EU exit preparation and implementation work' (I work for the DWP). It appears as though it's support for HMRC customer services. I wonder if 160 extra staff will be enough... 

Edited March 14, 2019 by hogso

[ml1dch]

To offer a snapshot of how silly this all is, David Davis (he of "they'll cave at the last minute, just you watch" and other hits) voted for a delay.

Steven Barclay who closed the debate in favour of there being a delay voted that there shouldn't be a delay.

It's a bit like Lewis Carroll writing House of Commons sketches.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

If a deal gets agreed, then it will be a "tory" supported, or tory originated Brexit, and Labour isn't ever going to support a tory Brexit, because then "Labour enabled a tory brexit". Corbyn's whole modus operandi has been to pretend to do something, while doing nothing. He'll continue to do nothing that has a hope, because he wants a tory Brexit and to then say "all these consequences - the tories did that, Vote me".

To be honest, this seems like how you would expect the opposition to behave. It really isn't the opposition's job to offer to destroy themselves in public opinion because May can't persuade her own backbenchers. 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

If a deal gets agreed only on the proviso it's put to a referendum, what is Corbyn going to campaign for? - A tory Brexit plan, or Remain - neither of which he wants to be seen to support, so he'll effectively off to his potting shed and hide, again. So that's not going to happen.

Unless the government changes, any referendum is more likely to be between May's WA (or a future Tory descendant thereof) and No Deal. Remember that the largest party in Parliament would have to vote for the legislation enabling it. 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

@HanoiVillan

Actually, rereading the motion, I think that it only says that they agree that the government will seek to agree an extension if the WA is passed by 20th March. If that doesn't pass, it just says it is highly likely that the European Council would require a clear purpose (which they obviously won't have by then as they booted the indicative votes amendment) and that any extension beyond that which they have agree to seek would require EP elections to be held. It doesn't say, I don't think, that they would actually seek to agree a longer extension.

Yes, that's how I read it too. I guess whether you think we will have a clear purpose depends on whether we have the indicative votes, which Lidington said there would be earlier in the day. I know that the government can't be trusted on anything at all, but maybe they won't feel they have the choice to duck them? 

[HanoiVillan]

Stephen Bush's latest:

Four things we learnt from tonight’s Brexit vote

'There is no majority for a second referendum

A great deal of attention was given in the run-up to today’s votes to the amendment tabled by Westminster’s newest political party, the Independent Group, to seek a long enough extension to hold a fresh referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. The amendment, which was co-signed by all of Parliament’s out-and-out anti-Brexit parties – the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, the Liberal Democrats, the sole Green MP Caroline Lucas, and of course the TIG – was the first real test of whether there are the votes to be found in Parliament for a second referendum.

The People’s Vote campaign, the largest of the various cross-party organisations calling for a fresh vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union, called on MPs to abstain, as did the Labour party. Both organisations had slightly different reasons: the People’s Vote campaign believe that they can only succeed if MPs are faced with a straight choice between a no deal exit and a fresh referendum, while the Labour leadership know that a whip in favour of a fresh referendum would result in resignations from the Shadow Cabinet and frontbench, and fear that it would doom their electoral hopes into the bargain.

In the event, 43 Labour MPs broke the whip, with 25 voting for the amendment and 18 voting against, and the amendment was heavily defeated, with 334 votes to just 85.

This shouldn’t need saying but if 334 MPs vote against a measure, it doesn’t matter what the other 316 MPs do, as 334 is a majority. Whether Labour MPs abstain or not, there is not a majority to be found in this parliament for a second referendum.

In a measure of the scale of the defeat, Chris Bryant, one MP who supports a referendum re-run, declined to move the amendment he had laid down to prevent Theresa May bringing her motion back to the House of Commons, a move designed to prevent the Prime Minister from bringing her deal back to the House time and time again until she wins a majority.

Many supporters of a second referendum know all too well that they themselves may ultimately now be forced into voting for May’s deal to prevent no deal.

TIG got what they needed out of this vote

Seconds after Wollaston’s amendment was defeated, TIG sent out an email to their supporters that “Labour’s Leaders Let You Down”, adding that it was thanks to Labour’s decision to abstain that the amendment did not pass. The other anti-Brexit parties did so almost as quickly.

Again, to repeat: there are 650 MPs in the Commons. To win a majority you need half of that plus one, i.e, 326. 334 is more than 326 so regardless of whether or not the Labour party’s official line had been to abstain or not. It is not true that the abstention caused the amendment to pass.

But it is a well-worn tactic of parties who are running against the system – which TIG, with their repeated refrain that “politics is broken” and that all three major parties have failed, are explicitly doing – to pretend otherwise and an even older tactic to use parliamentary votes to get your opponents to occupy positions are somehow uncomfortable for them.

No-one really thought there was a serious hope or prospect of the vote passing tonight regardless of how Labour whipped, and the reality is that the big aim was for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, TIG, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to get their hostile leaflet out of this, to better take votes off the Labour party.

Mission accomplished.

But the nationalist parties are the ones with the capacity to do real damage to Labour as it stands

Although TIG are the new shiny party on the block, it is striking to look at where many of the 25 Labour MPs who voted for a second referendum came from. Six of the 25 have seats in Wales while three of the seven Scottish Labour MPs broke the whip to vote for another vote.

MPs in both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are in good spirits at the moment and if the polls are to be believed they have good reason to be. They are taking Remain voters from Labour. In Wales, that their newish leader Adam Price is currently the most popular politician in the country and has changed the mood music around their party only adds to Plaid Cymru’s mood. (In Scotland, the SNP takes no small joy from the fact that Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard hasn’t changed the mood music.)

No deal is back on the table

It’s always where you left it, isn’t it?'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/03/four-things-we-learnt-tonights-brexit-vote