UK Politics: Time Marches On

[Chaircat Meow]

Rumour is that May is going to promise to align all UK business and agriculture regulation with the EU if the backstop is ever triggered, thereby minimising divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Reports are DUP being won over. 

If true, bad.  And sad, actually. 

OTOH, it seems like there is always a bubble of government optimism before the MVs, and it always bursts horribly come the day. So we will fucking see. 

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Rumour is that May is going to promise to align all UK business and agriculture regulation with the EU if the backstop is ever triggered, thereby minimising divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Reports are DUP being won over. 

If true, bad.  And sad, actually. 

OTOH, it seems like there is always a bubble of government optimism before the MVs, and it always bursts horribly come the day. So we will fucking see. 

How much of a bare faced lie is that likely to be? And isn't 50% of Brexit meant to be doing exactly NOT that?

"We will have total sovereignty over our business and agricultural regulations. Which means instead of being forced to implement regulations (which we had a hand in drafting and approving) inside the EU. We are now going to choose to force those regulations on ourselves, and not have any hand in making those regulations."

Seems legit.

[Which Tyler]

Looks like Parliament (Bercow) won't allow the same motion twice in one session.

He allows that there was enough negotiation and change between January and March, with new documents and new advice.

He states precedent going back a mere 4 centuries and reinforced by (IIRC) a dozen different speakers.

ETA, now an article up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Rumour is that May is going to promise to align all UK business and agriculture regulation with the EU if the backstop is ever triggered, thereby minimising divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Reports are DUP being won over. 

Curious, I didn't think there was anybody left in the UK, who believed a single word that is coming out of PM May's mouth. Besides that guarantee is worth something close to zero. It's the same guarantee May gave the DUP, when they shot down the original backstop. And of course, it doesn't say much about how bound the next PM will feel by that promise.

But then again, if they want to secure Brexit, accepting May's deal seems to be the only forward for them at this point.

But are those votes being sufficient?

Labour will presumably vote against the deal, with the exception of Hoey, Stringer and those horrible people. The SNP will collectively vote down May's deal, same with the Lib Dems (those party will hedge their bets on another referendum), the Indepent Group will also vote this deal down. So that looks like a pretty close shave for May, even if she gets the DUP and ERG onboard.

[Which Tyler]

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But then again, if they want to secure Brexit, accepting May's deal seems to be the only forward for them at this point
 

By the sound of things, it isn't coming back.

The only way I can see Mays deal returning is either the EU do offer enough changes, or a delay that puts it into a new session.

 

 

Brexiteers suggesting the same rule should apply to amendments - specifically stated the (rejected) amendment (to a specific motion) last week that parliament take control of itself for a day, rather than being told what to talk about by the government - but obviously thinking about the (rejected) amendment (to a specific motion) that a second referendum should happen.

[Which Tyler]

May's spokesman releases a statement to say that he's not in a position to release a statement.

May's legal advisor (if I've got that right) suggests dissolving parliament for a few days and starting a new session.

Lots of Tories complaining that Bercow isn't helping them (which isn't his job).

 

 

Nothing boring about politics this last 7 days

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

By the sound of things, it isn't coming back.

The only way I can see Mays deal returning is either the EU do offer enough changes, or a delay that puts it into a new session.

 

 

Brexiteers suggesting the same rule should apply to amendments - specifically stated the (rejected) amendment (to a specific motion) last week that parliament take control of itself for a day, rather than being told what to talk about by the government - but obviously thinking about the (rejected) amendment (to a specific motion) that a second referendum should happen.

Hasn't Becrow just done, what remainers in Westminster couldn't do, killed off Brexit?

I mean, May said (I know, nothing coming out of her mouth is worth a thing), if she can't get her deal passed this week, she will ask for a longer extension from the EU, which she will likely get, but EU insiders fear that Italy might really veto it. Anyway, Becow said no vote on this, this week or next week (or anytime before official Brexit date for that matter). So May has to run and beg ask for an extension (and better provide a way forward to justify it), if she doesn't want a no-deal crash out. If she really goes for the longer extension, it's two years. Let's be clear an extension of another two months won't be of any use anyway.

I think the second referendum supporters can live with that amendment not coming back before April.

[Which Tyler]

Not necessarily killed Brexit, but the final death knell for May's deal.

 

We either act paralysed, and dropout with no deal next Friday (eek); or we ask for an extension whilst we hold a general election (which I don't see the EU granting) or an extension whilst we hold a 2nd referendum (which I do see being granted), or an extension to negotiate a completely new deal, back to stage 1 , and absent May's red lines (which I think would be granted, despite Farage's best efforts).

 

If Farage gets his way, and the Italians block any extension, then we either dropout with no deal, and probable violence on the streets; or we revoke Article 50, and much less likelihood of violence on the streets.

 

 

Of course, the above is all my reading of the situation, I'm married, so I ALWAYS reserve the right to be wrong.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Which Tyler said:

Not necessarily killed Brexit, but the final death knell for May's deal.

There's no new deal to vote on, and there most certainly won't be one before Brexit Date.

So it's down to no-deal crash or long delay; if we give May the benefit of being truthful of her intentions just this once.

Just now, Which Tyler said:

We either act paralysed, and dropout with no deal next Friday (eek); or we ask for an extension whilst we hold a general election (which I don't see the EU granting) or an extension whilst we hold a 2nd referendum (which I do see being granted), or an extension to negotiate a completely new deal, back to stage 1 , and absent May's red lines (which I think would be granted, despite Farage's best efforts).

New GE depends on what Labour does. If it's again campaigning on red unicorns vs blue Unicorns or May's deal, then there's just not point in doing it. And the Tories are kinda stuck with May right now anyway, so I don't think they want to go there this year anyway.

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

If Farage gets his way, and the Italians block any extension, then we either dropout with no deal, and probable violence on the streets; or we revoke Article 50, and much less likelihood of violence on the streets.

That''d be the really interesting bit. What would the goverment and parliament do. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think after the Gina Miller (?) case revoking article 50 needs parliamentary approval in some shape or form.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, that's my reading. No deal, long delay, or revoke. But I see no reason to grant May any benefit of the doubt. Not killed Brexit, but killed a negotiated hard brexit (No Deal drop out seems to be alive and kicking though).

New GE is pointless, both parties are too split. I just think May would rather that (she'd probably win) than a referendum (she'd probably lose). Besides, IF we take May as being good to her word (hah!) She won't be leading the Tory party, so there's also need to be a leadership contest that no-one wants to win.

My reading too is that it's need an act of parliament, but it COULD be interpreted that last week's vote to take No Deal off the table counted - which would lead to new court cases and paralysis, but not enough time to hold them, so IF May took that view, it would be an argument for after Art50 has been revoked; and probably years before anyone knows the answer (sounds a good solution for May - can kicked thoroughly down the road)

[SeanF]

If the Commons were really keen to ratify the Deal third time around, they could probably vote first to change their standing orders to allow the vote, before then voting on the actual motion.

Edit:  It also helps Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson avoid the painful decision, whether supporting or opposing MV3 will assist their leadership prospects.

[mormont]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a matter of the standing orders.

Anyway, if experience has taught us anything, it should be this: that May's next step will be to ask for a short extension, which she will use to demand the EU agree changes to her deal, again. The message she'll take away is that her deal must be changed to be brought back, not that her deal is dead.

[Which Tyler]

Tories are complaining that they didn't understand the consequences of their vote last week, and that they might have voted differently if they'd known. Therefore they should be allowed to vote again.
Not the public though, that would be totally undemocratic...

[maarsen]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

How much of a bare faced lie is that likely to be? And isn't 50% of Brexit meant to be doing exactly NOT that?

"We will have total sovereignty over our business and agricultural regulations. Which means instead of being forced to implement regulations (which we had a hand in drafting and approving) inside the EU. We are now going to choose to force those regulations on ourselves, and not have any hand in making those regulations."

Seems legit.

Sounds like Britain is comfortable in dealing with the EU as long as they don't have to deal with foreigners.

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a matter of the standing orders.

According to https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/18/what-has-john-bercow-done-now it would be:

Amid a series of points of order by MPs to Bercow after his announcement, Conservative Alex Burghart asked if the Commons could simply suspend the standing orders which prevent repeat votes. This was, the Speaker replied, up to the house. Whether or not MPs would vote to pass such a measure is another matter.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Anyway, if experience has taught us anything, it should be this: that May's next step will be to ask for a short extension, which she will use to demand the EU agree changes to her deal, again. The message she'll take away is that her deal must be changed to be brought back, not that her deal is dead.

Won't work. She would be laughed out of the room. Well, not really laughed, more like yelled. That part of reality has also penetrated the majority of skulls in Westminster, when they shot down the latest Malthouse nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Tories are complaining that they didn't understand the consequences of their vote last week, and that they might have voted differently if they'd known.

That is like the least surprising revelation in a while.

[Chaircat Meow]

I didn't think Bercow would do this. But he did. He is, to quote somebody else in another context, 'an absolute boy.'

It is important to note that the Commons can override this decision if they want, all they need is a vote on the principal of having another vote on the same thing. But I think that with the arithmetic so tight the added factor of having to vote for it to be brought back in the first place presents an additional obstacle and May is already trying to jump through too many hoops. 

[mormont]

51 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Won't work. She would be laughed out of the room. Well, not really laughed, more like yelled. That part of reality has also penetrated the majority of skulls in Westminster, when they shot down the latest Malthouse nonsense.

And yet if May's career has a theme (beyond 'immigrants, ugh') it's sticking to the line no matter what. People laughing at you? Courts ruling against you? Nobody buying your shit? Ignore them and carry on regardless.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I didn't think Bercow would do this. But he did. He is, to quote somebody else in another context, 'an absolute boy.'

It is important to note that the Commons can override this decision if they want, all they need is a vote on the principal of having another vote on the same thing. But I think that with the arithmetic so tight the added factor of having to vote for it to be brought back in the first place presents an additional obstacle and May is already trying to jump through too many hoops. 

I read earlier that she might dissolve this parliament for a few days, then reconvene and present her crappy deal again. 

This is what I call real democracy.

[Which Tyler]

That's the prorogue mentioned earlier.

Akin to "it's my ball, therefore you all have to play by MY rules"