UK Politics: A Third Meaningful Thread

[The Anti-Targ]

So Parliament can simply decline to debate this one, it would seem.

[williamjm]

In non-Brexit news I'm sure nobody will be too surprised that the leader of Farage's new party has had to resign due to Islamophobic comments being unearthed.

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Parliament can simply decline to debate this one, it would seem.

Don't think so

[Spockydog]

Has May given any indication as to how she intends to circumnavigate Berkow? 

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Don't think so

That does not seem to be written with a great deal of confidence.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Has May given any indication as to how she intends to circumnavigate Berkow? 

No, not that I'm aware of. Everything seems to be proceeding as if Bercow hadn't said anything.

People were saying the Tories were just assuming Bercow wouldn't actually dare. Well, obviously, he would.

I think they have to find some way of showing the House wants to vote on the subject again. Bercow's case rests on protecting mps from bullying or timewasting by the executive but if they wish for the matter to be brought back hard to see how Bercow could stand in their way. So, she sort of needs to have the pro-deal coalition alive and kicking and obvious before the vote can be brought back, which is perhaps a bit harder than just tabling the vote again and forcing mps to vote or abstain. 

[The Anti-Targ]

12 minutes ago, williamjm said:

In non-Brexit news I'm sure nobody will be too surprised that the leader of Farage's new party has had to resign due to Islamophobic comments being unearthed.

Quote

The out-of-character comments that I made on social media

 

Next she will claim her account was hacked by Russian bots and none of those tweets / re-tweets came from here at all.

I see the Christchurch terror attacks mentioned in the article. I do wonder if no one in the British media of any kind of standing media would have bothered challenging her on this stuff if the Chch killings never happened.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I think they have to find some way of showing the House wants to vote on the subject again. 

My understanding is that the only way they can set aside a ruling by the Speaker is by voting on it. I doubt May would win that.

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

My understanding is that the only way they can set aside a ruling by the Speaker is by voting on it. I doubt May would win that.

Yes, I think that's right.

As to whether she would win such a vote though, if she has enough to pass MV3 she must have enough to set aside the ruling allowing her to have MV3. It is just the order of the two votes, mps may be less willing to vote to set aside Bercow's rulings than to vote for the deal in MV3 but it is the vote on overturning Bercow that has to come first. 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Yes, I think that's right.

As to whether she would win such a vote though, if she has enough to pass MV3 she must have enough to set aside the ruling allowing her to have MV3. It is just the order of the two votes, mps may be less willing to vote to set aside Bercow's rulings than the vote for the deal in MV3 but it is the vote on overturning Bercow that has to come first. 

If she has a decent majority for MV3, then the overturn Bercow majority should be pretty safe. But if she's only got 50%+1 for MV3 the overturn vote has a good chance of failing.

And holy hell, the revoke petition could pass no-deal less that 24 hrs after being put up. The rate of signatures has to fall away at some point, but people are justified in daring to dream that 1 million could be achieved.

1 million people signing a petition. That'd more than 2% of the voting population. And almost 3% of the people who voted in 2016.

[Ser Hedge]

@Spockydog

Re: questions from a few pages back:

Even though the House had passed a motion against no-deal (technically non-binding on HM Govt I think), the EU could still force a non-deal Brexit.

Her Majesty can prorogue (I like how this has the word rogue in it, or was it just me typing it wrong?) parliament and reconvene it again immediately as a new session. This was ruled as highly unlikely by some minister, but who believes what they say anymore, anyway, eh?

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

My understanding is that the only way they can set aside a ruling by the Speaker is by voting on it. I doubt May would win that.

You'd first require a vote that there should be a vote on MV3, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, before proceeding to MV3.

As to the rest, one can't fault Tusk's logic.  The three options remain the WA, No Deal, or Revoke A50.  MP's have to choose between them.  They can't spend any more time chasing unicorns.

 

[Spockydog]

Just now, Ser Hedge said:

Her Majesty can prorogue (I like how this had the word rogue in it, or was it just me during it wrong?) parliament and reconvene it again immediately as a new session. This was ruled as highly unlikely by some minister, but who believes what they say anymore, anyway, eh?

No chance. If she hadn't called a needless election and lost her majority, then she and Liz might have been able to do business. Because of this, according to every legal and constitutional wonk I've been reading recently, a prorogue is not an option for her.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If she has a decent majority for MV3, then the overturn Bercow majority should be pretty safe. But if she's only got 50%+1 for MV3 the overturn vote has a good chance of failing.

I think the point though is that people might break at the last minute for her, in MV3, whereas they are perhaps less likely to do that if the question is whether to overturn the speaker. Thinking of Labour mps here, it will be easier for them to say, no, you can't bring the deal back than to vote against the deal itself. Kind of psychology thing. 

[Ser Hedge]

 

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

No chance. If she hadn't called a needless election and lost her majority, then she and Liz might have been able to do business.

Ah ok, thx, I didn't keep up with that one.

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

You'd first require a vote that there should be a vote on MV3, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, before proceeding to MV3.

Yes, but then you might need a vote about whether you should have a vote that there should be a vote on MV3, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, before proceeding to MV3. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I think the point though is that people might break at the last minute for her, in MV3, whereas they are perhaps less likely to do that if the question is whether to overturn the speaker. Thinking of Labour mps here, it will be easier for them to say, no, you can't bring the deal back than to vote against the deal itself. Kind of psychology thing. 

Right, that makes sense.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Yes, but then you might need a vote about whether you should have a vote that there should be a vote on MV3, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, before proceeding to MV3. 

Infinite regress alert!!!

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Yes, but then you might need a vote about whether you should have a vote that there should be a vote on MV3, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, before proceeding to MV3. 

Wouldn't be the silliest vote to happen in parliament in the last couple of weeks.

[Ser Hedge]

21 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I think the point though is that people might break at the last minute for her, in MV3,

The MPs that voted against the deal in MV2 or MV1 are for the most part either hard Brexiteers or Remainers. For them to change their vote either no-deal or the possibility of a long extension leading to a very soft Brexit has to be taken off the table. I think Tusk tried to do that by taking a long extension off the table, but I'm afraid the Remainers are not really moving yet, since they think it's a bluff and you get a long extension after all. It might have been better if no-deal had been taken off the table, but the EU (eg France) is just starting to get as worked up as we have been here since December. Sigh.