FlyTheNest

3m ago 14:12

Challenged about Labour’s failure to support the second referendum amendment, Starmer says:

It is obvious that we are supportive of the principle. It’s a question of timing. (Politics Live, Guardian)

In reality, there can be never be such thing as a meritocracy, because there’s never going to be fully equal opportunity. The main function of the concept is to assure elites that they deserve their position in life. It eases the “anxiety of affluence,” that nagging feeling that they might be the beneficiaries of the arbitrary “birth lottery” rather than the products of their own individual ingenuity and hard work.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:If I were the PM I'd do an address to the nation:

"When my predecessor came up with this ridiculous idea of holding a referendum, nobody - not Leavers nor Remainers - knew about the complexities of what was being proposed. Now that we know about some of them, it's fairly clear that it was far more complicated than the leaders of the leave side were prepared to admit.

So, for now, we're staying in. My government will revoke Article 50 immediately.

And 'the will of the people'?

Well, to be honest, not many of you knew how complex it was either. If you want to blame someone then look in the direction of the Leave leaders."

That would be a terrific "number 10 doorstep" speech from Corbyn if there is a snap election and Labour win it

PorFavor wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh also includes Chris Bryant's "you can't bring your deal back for a third time according to the rules" amendment.

Yes. I'm a bit confused as to why "if it's against the rules" bringing it back for a third time isn't automatically ruled out.

adam wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Is everyone ignoring my question (above) about bringing back Theresa May's deal for a third time because I'm being unbelievably thick?

Go on - I can take it.

i think the short answer is that it would *probably* be against the rules, but people aren't totally sure. And she could always make some cosmetic "changes" anyway.

I think the slightly infuriating answer is that whilst there are detailed rules about how things must be done, parliament is (literally) a law unto itself in terms of how it runs its business, and I suspect that parliament would probably try to find a way to knock this out by saying 'this simply can't be done' ALTHOUGH if there is anyone who might decide that these are the rules so this is how we're doing it because your not even trying to pretend it's a different motion this time, it's Bercow.

I said last night, but one thing that crisis management and chaos tend to produce is interesting and dangerous precedents for others to rely on in the future.

HindleA wrote:Constance knitting a "Cats For Labour" jumper in anticipation.

The Labour MP Lisa Nandy has written a new article for the Guardian explaining why she is opposed to a second referendum. Here is an extract.

It is playing with fire to suggest we can settle the defining question of our age, affecting every aspect of our lives, communities and the future of the planet, through a referendum that large numbers passionately believe is illegitimate. (Politics Live, Guardian)

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:People pointing out on Twitter that MPs are absolutely right to abstain on the Peoples Vote amendment because if it passes the more important amendments won't be moved as a result.

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/m ... ly-be-over

The Labour MP Chris Bryant has tabled an amendment, that has been put to a vote, saying Theresa May should not be allowed to put her deal to MPs again because Commons rules say the house should not be asked to vote on the same proposition during a session. It says:

At end, add “ (4) notes that Erksine May states that a motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session may not be brought forward again during that session; and therefore orders the government not to move a further motion asking the house to approve the withdrawal agreement and framework for the future partnership that the house declined to approve on 15 January 2019 and 12 March 2019.”.

In a speech in the Commons a few minutes ago Bryant said this rule went back to the time of King John. It was introduced to stop him trying over and over again to get parliament to accept a proposal it had rejected. (Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)

Conservative Brexiters are to ask a group of lawyers to examine a new proposal to exit the backstop using article 62 of the Vienna convention. (See 9.48am, 1.47pm and 2.35pm.)

The ERG will ask lawyers including the QC Martin Howe, the only non-MP on their “star chamber” of lawyers, to examine how that could work as a unilateral exit mechanism

He[Martin Howe, QC] said that the international court of justice had considered “the fall of the Soviet Union, disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and dissolution of Czechoslovakia, were not sufficient to satisfy this ground”.

PorFavor wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh also includes Chris Bryant's "you can't bring your deal back for a third time according to the rules" amendment.

Yes. I'm a bit confused as to why "if it's against the rules" bringing it back for a third time isn't automatically ruled out.

PorFavor wrote:

The Labour MP Lisa Nandy has written a new article for the Guardian explaining why she is opposed to a second referendum. Here is an extract.

It is playing with fire to suggest we can settle the defining question of our age, affecting every aspect of our lives, communities and the future of the planet, through a referendum that large numbers passionately believe is illegitimate. (Politics Live, Guardian)

You could say that about the first referendum, too.

PorFavor wrote:

Conservative Brexiters are to ask a group of lawyers to examine a new proposal to exit the backstop using article 62 of the Vienna convention. (See 9.48am, 1.47pm and 2.35pm.)

The ERG will ask lawyers including the QC Martin Howe, the only non-MP on their “star chamber” of lawyers, to examine how that could work as a unilateral exit mechanism

He[Martin Howe, QC] said that the international court of justice had considered “the fall of the Soviet Union, disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and dissolution of Czechoslovakia, were not sufficient to satisfy this ground”.

No problem, then . . .

PorFavor wrote:Now the amendment (Lucy Powell which adds a date) to Hilary Benn's amendment (delaying "Brexit" and putting the whole thing in the hands of MPs) is being voted on.



Edited - I gave Hilary Benn too many "l"s

PorFavor wrote:Now on to the unamended Hilary Benn amendment.



Edited - typo

PorFavor wrote:Chris Bryant has not gone ahead with his amendment.

Motion to extend article 50 passes
It’s 412 in favour, 202 against, a majority of 210.

Willow904 wrote:May finally won a vote.

The motion passed means Theresa May will now ask the EU for an extension to article 50 until 30 June 2018. If they agree – as most assume they will – the UK will not be leaving the European Union on 29 March.