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

[sharkyvilla]

Francois doesnt seem to get that by far the least popular view in parliament is the hard Brexit and there is zero chance of getting what he wants.  I tend to have a better opinion of MPs than most but I genuinely struggle with him, he must be the thickest of the lot by far.

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Francois doesnt seem to get that by far the least popular view in parliament is the hard Brexit and there is zero chance of getting what he wants.  I tend to have a better opinion of MPs than most but I genuinely struggle with him, he must be the thickest of the lot by far.

The currently negotiated position is a "hard" Brexit and that will get over 250 votes this afternoon.

[Seat68]

5 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The currently negotiated position is a "hard" Brexit and that will get over 250 votes this afternoon.

I have a habit of misreading things and skimming over stuff but I thought that it had been voted on this week and 400 opposed it?

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I have a habit of misreading things and skimming over stuff but I thought that it had been voted on this week and 400 opposed it?

The negotiated withdrawal agreement was voted on in January and February, defeated both times and half of it will be voted on again this afternoon, where it is expected to lose again albeit not as heavily after before. If it (and eventually the other half of the negotiated option) pass, we will leave on May 22nd, with our future position outside the Single Market and Customs Union, therefore a "hard" Brexit.

On Wednesday, 400 or so MPs indicated that that they would be against leaving without a ratified withdrawal agreement

Edited March 29, 2019 by ml1dch

[tonyh29]

30 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Francois doesn't seem to get that by far the least popular view in parliament is the hard Brexit and there is zero chance of getting what he wants.  I tend to have a better opinion of MPs than most but I genuinely struggle with him, he must be the thickest of the lot by far.

I'm sure it can be explained away by type 2 diabetes

 

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm sure it can be explained away by type 2 diabetes

 

He looks a pretty good candidate for it.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obviously Labour would like to control the process, but the bigger problem is that May's promise to resign suggests that the negotiations during the transition period on the future relationship will be conducted by an unknown individual, with unknown priorities, on the basis of a mandate stemming only from 120,000 Tory party members, who will be the only people to get a say in the matter. ...

I think that's exactly the plan. 

I think you're right on the first bit

On the second bit, if that's their plan it's a terrible one.

p.s. It would be nice if Labour did try to thwart Brexit

[Straggler]

Chasm of distrust

Quote

Liam Fox has piled pressure on his Westminster colleagues to vote the prime minister’s Brexit deal through, by warning they will undermine faith in mainstream politics by creating a “chasm of distrust” if they fail to do so.

In related news he also warned of the dangers of not shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. 

[snowychap]

Seems like Snell, Nandy et al. are trying their best to fall for 'assurances'' from the government. Mugs.

[NurembergVillan]

Deceitful idiots the **** lot of them.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Seems like Snell, Nandy et al. are trying their best to fall for 'assurances'' from the government. Mugs.

You understand a lot more about the actual process of drafting legislation and what the terminology means than I do. What do you think of Snell's arguments here:

On the *political* front, it looks dreadful - okay, he says it's not at the whim of the PM, but Tory + DUP constitute a majority of the House, so it looks like handing over control to them - but I don't understand whether his motion actually does what he says it does. 

[HanoiVillan]

Sorry, catching up, I see that Snell's amendment wasn't selected anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

You understand a lot more about the actual process of drafting legislation and what the terminology means than I do. What do you think of Snell's arguments here:

Whilst that may be the case (I'm not sure), I certainly wouldn't hold myself up as expert. Most of any knowledge is gleaned from those that actually are [expert], elsewhere.

Having said that, here is my view:

The basic premise is that he appears to suggest that passing a motion with this amendment (which hasn't been selected) would have compelled the government to write that in to a future bill. I can't see that as the case. The last however many months has surely been littered with examples of the government saying as much, i.e. that motions do not have to be followed and observed. I mean the government can't be assured of following statute already written and given Royal Assent.

Indeed, today's kerfuffle is also bringing to the fore the possibility that the government, should this motion pass, coul;d bring forward an Implementation Bill that gets rid of the requirements of S.13 of the Withdrawal Act (i.e. statute already passed).

To have relied upon the government acceptance of an amendment to a motion as a guarantee of future law (the house would still have had to vote on it) might, in normal circumstances and with a government acting in good faith, have been reasonable. Given the recent history of the government, I think it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

To rely upon an assurance from the government that they would have been 'minded to accept' their amendment as some sort of indication of a guarantee to put these things in to statute is just wishful - there doesn't appear to be much thinking going on.

Finally, there would be nothing to stop any future government (other than the practical thing of numbers) repealing any part of any Act already passed.

Edited March 29, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry, catching up, I see that Snell's amendment wasn't selected anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. 

I think it still may matter to him, given his interventions so far and especially the look on his face after his intervention on Cox (which appeared to be him indicating some agreement and acceptance).

[snowychap]

I think people should be very worried that the likes of Mogg, Duncan Smith and, rumours will have it, Raab (he who resigned his post as Brexit Secretary over the Withdrawal Agreement) seem that they are going to vote to pass the motion.

They are not voting in favour of the WA.

They are voting to get us and them in to a position where they can either hold up ratification at a future date (a future S.13 vote or the Implementation Bill) or they can ratify with the intention of reneging either within or at the end of the implementation period.

Even though it still looks as though the DUP will vote against it, if they somehow come round to vote for it (or even to abstain) then I think that would add more weight to the worry.

Edited March 29, 2019 by snowychap

[a m ole]

Have I understood what is happening here? this is essentially a vote to ensure the concept of a deal is approved, then giving the government freedom to decide what that looks like without parliamentary or public scrutiny? Lead by someone who isn’t May?

 

[LondonLax]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Have I understood what is happening here? this is essentially a vote to ensure the concept of a deal is approved, then giving the government freedom to decide what that looks like without parliamentary or public scrutiny? Lead by someone who isn’t May?

 

They still need parliamentary approval for the next stage. 

[snowychap]

A little bit of light entertainment:

 

[snowychap]

Back Brexit deal or open 'chasm of distrust', Fox tells MPs

Quote

Liam Fox has piled pressure on his Westminster colleagues to vote the prime minister’s Brexit deal through, by warning they will undermine faith in mainstream politics by creating a “chasm of distrust” if they fail to do so.

Given that the bods who turned up at Chequers are on different sides with respect to this, could a chasm of distrust between them be called The Grand Wizards' sleeve?

[Dodgyknees]

Is the vote tonight?