Thursday 6th December 2018
Posted: Thu 06 Dec, 2018 7:03 am
Morning all.
HindleA wrote:Local council funding settlement announcement delayed due to Brexshit.
Useful thread giving a sense of what's going on within Parliament at the moment and it's very worrying:@rafaelbehr
Following Following @rafaelbehr
More
short thread on a conversation many people having in parliament: 1. everything proceeds from presumption that there is no majority for May's deal. Also, there is no majority for no deal ...
9:49 AM - 6 Dec 2018
Going back to my earlier point, we may need to look at the Benn amendment.Willow904 wrote:
Useful thread giving a sense of what's going on within Parliament at the moment and it's very worrying:@rafaelbehr
Following Following @rafaelbehr
More
short thread on a conversation many people having in parliament: 1. everything proceeds from presumption that there is no majority for May's deal. Also, there is no majority for no deal ...
9:49 AM - 6 Dec 2018
"But no-one seems to know what the exact balance is between PV and super-soft Brexit camps..."
.....or the precise dynamics operating below the waterline in each others parties. Leading me to feel Behr is unfortunately correct with this conclusion:
"So while there is a self-identifying "sane majority" there isn't a distinct coalition for a sane outcome, so sanity could still fall through the gaps"
Of course he was, even some who originally objected are now admitting as much.HindleA wrote:Corbyn was completely correct and being responsible on his questions outwith Brexit IMHO.
They will won't they?Adam Bienkov
Verified account
@AdamBienkov
Follow Follow @AdamBienkov
More
Boris Johnson failed on *nine* occasions to declare his earnings to parliament. The Commissioner for Standards is clear this was not an inadvertent error but a systematic disregard for the rules.
Given the vote won't be binding, it's pretty important that May is both happy to go along with it and also isn't vulnerable to being ousted. The difficulty for Parliament is that they gave permission to trigger article 50, which means the decision to leave the EU has already been taken and they have also passed the Withdrawal Bill which means the framework for our leaving is already in place. At this point, Parliament is only expressing an opinion, it has already provided the government with all the legislation it needs to leave, either with this deal or with no deal, with no further involvement from Parliament necessary. The only thing holding the government back is its lack of a majority and the possibility the government may fall if Parliament isn't heeded.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:What the Huff Post piece (Paul Waugh?) says is that the Benn amendment will probably pass with all the opposition parties (DUP incl.) voting for it and a few Soubry types making up for the Labour "rebels".
This should stop Hard Brexit but avoid May being destroyed in Parliament, so she may be quite sanguine about it.
She's getting more and more "inadvertent" as time rolls by, it seems.The prime minister was not being entirely frank in her interview on the Today programme, and the reality of the situation will do little to calm parliamentary concerns about her deal. In an attempt to peel off some Brexiters to her deal, Theresa May suggested in her morning interview that going into the backstop would be a choice made by the UK six months before the end of the transition period, set to last until the end of 2020.
Unfortunately, the prime minister did not mention the decisive role of the EU at the ‘rendezvous’ point.
In reality, the withdrawal agreement states that a joint EU-UK committee will decide whether an extension of the transition period “by up to one or two years” is to be triggered. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Thanks - very insightful.Willow904 wrote:Given the vote won't be binding, it's pretty important that May is both happy to go along with it and also isn't vulnerable to being ousted. The difficulty for Parliament is that they gave permission to trigger article 50, which means the decision to leave the EU has already been taken and they have also passed the Withdrawal Bill which means the framework for our leaving is already in place. At this point, Parliament is only expressing an opinion, it has already provided the government with all the legislation it needs to leave, either with this deal or with no deal, with no further involvement from Parliament necessary. The only thing holding the government back is its lack of a majority and the possibility the government may fall if Parliament isn't heeded.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:What the Huff Post piece (Paul Waugh?) says is that the Benn amendment will probably pass with all the opposition parties (DUP incl.) voting for it and a few Soubry types making up for the Labour "rebels".
This should stop Hard Brexit but avoid May being destroyed in Parliament, so she may be quite sanguine about it.
So, the Benn amendment could stop both no deal Brexit and May's deal, but it is not guaranteed, plus the problem of what happens instead still remains - soft Brexit or further referendum?
From the start the government has gone about this whole process the wrong way. A detailed white paper on what kind of future relationship we are trying to achieve should have been debated and approved by Parliament before article 50 was triggered.
But the point is, this sort of obfuscation won't work as well with as MPs as it might with (inevitably, mostly lower information) voters. Indeed it will annoy some of them all the more......PorFavor wrote:She's getting more and more "inadvertent" as time rolls by, it seems.The prime minister was not being entirely frank in her interview on the Today programme, and the reality of the situation will do little to calm parliamentary concerns about her deal. In an attempt to peel off some Brexiters to her deal, Theresa May suggested in her morning interview that going into the backstop would be a choice made by the UK six months before the end of the transition period, set to last until the end of 2020.
Unfortunately, the prime minister did not mention the decisive role of the EU at the ‘rendezvous’ point.
In reality, the withdrawal agreement states that a joint EU-UK committee will decide whether an extension of the transition period “by up to one or two years” is to be triggered. (Politics Live, Guardian)
I forgot to say -PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Surprised cod skirmisher is appointed Minister of State for Universities (5,8).
FIFYWillow904 wrote:A detailed white paper on what kind of future relationship we are trying to achieve should have been debated and approved by Parliament beforearticle 50 was triggeredthe referendum.
adam wrote:FIFYWillow904 wrote:A detailed white paper on what kind of future relationship we are trying to achieve should have been debated and approved by Parliament beforearticle 50 was triggeredthe referendum.
Thinking of the Daily Borisograph in particular, which has covered the Corbyn (non?) story almost obsessively.RogerOThornhill wrote:I assume that the people who got awfully excited about Corbyn failing to disclose a trip to a meeting at the UN a few years back will be equally vociferous about this?
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They will won't they?Adam Bienkov
Verified account
@AdamBienkov
Follow Follow @AdamBienkov
More
Boris Johnson failed on *nine* occasions to declare his earnings to parliament. The Commissioner for Standards is clear this was not an inadvertent error but a systematic disregard for the rules.
Michael Deacon
✔
@MichaelPDeacon
Not saying the Government is getting desperate, but in the Commons a Tory MP has just asked John McDonnell: "Would you consider voting for this deal, so that we can please get on with our lives?"
19
12:48 PM - Dec 6, 2018 (Politics Live, Guardian)
Absolutely.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Thanks - very insightful.Willow904 wrote:Given the vote won't be binding, it's pretty important that May is both happy to go along with it and also isn't vulnerable to being ousted. The difficulty for Parliament is that they gave permission to trigger article 50, which means the decision to leave the EU has already been taken and they have also passed the Withdrawal Bill which means the framework for our leaving is already in place. At this point, Parliament is only expressing an opinion, it has already provided the government with all the legislation it needs to leave, either with this deal or with no deal, with no further involvement from Parliament necessary. The only thing holding the government back is its lack of a majority and the possibility the government may fall if Parliament isn't heeded.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:What the Huff Post piece (Paul Waugh?) says is that the Benn amendment will probably pass with all the opposition parties (DUP incl.) voting for it and a few Soubry types making up for the Labour "rebels".
This should stop Hard Brexit but avoid May being destroyed in Parliament, so she may be quite sanguine about it.
So, the Benn amendment could stop both no deal Brexit and May's deal, but it is not guaranteed, plus the problem of what happens instead still remains - soft Brexit or further referendum?
From the start the government has gone about this whole process the wrong way. A detailed white paper on what kind of future relationship we are trying to achieve should have been debated and approved by Parliament before article 50 was triggered.
I'm sure you'd agree though that indecision between Peoples Vote and Soft Brexit is a rather more comfortable place to be!
If Brexit is about protecting the spivs at the heart of the City of London from EU scrutiny, then leaving the single market is a red line for more than just the ERG crowd, it's a red line for May's government too. And if May's deal is rejected, a no deal Brexit may be the only way to preserve that red line. She might not actively choose no deal, but what if it were forced upon her by a Brexit blocking opposition?Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, intervenes. Does he accept that remaining in the EEA would preserve the economic benefits of EU membership, if not the political benefits?
Hammond accepts that point. But he says there are two main problems with this proposal. First, the UK would have to accept free movement. And, second, the financial services industry would have to comply with a lot of fast-changing EU regulations over which it would have no control.
This is absolutely true and why Labour's Brexit policy is more credible than May's. It does reveal, however, that Labour's objection to the backstop is basically hollow and that May is right in so far that a backstop would always be necessary due to the nature of the article 50 process. Labour need to be clearer about the gaping hole in May's deal - it's not the backstop, it's the lack of anything yet proposed that can credibly supersede the backstop.McDonnell says that Labour would organise comprehensive customs union deal with the EU and that this would make it “so much more unlikely” that a backstop would be need. He says the “permanence” of the agreement would also help.
Smaller phone box required.AnatolyKasparov wrote:LibDem MP for Eastbourne, Stephen Lloyd, has resigned the party whip. He has previously said he will vote for May's Brexit deal.
I think Behr's analysis above is very astute. Parliament is in complete flux. There are a few sane ways to navigate Brexit, but no way to tell which has the best chance of success. This leaves MPs in a horrible position, frankly, and I don't envy them one jot!PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow
Many good points well made. Thanks.
This comes back to the nature of the GFA and the December 2017 Agreement, which saysWillow904 wrote:This is absolutely true and why Labour's Brexit policy is more credible than May's. It does reveal, however, that Labour's objection to the backstop is basically hollow and that May is right in so far that a backstop would always be necessary due to the nature of the article 50 process. Labour need to be clearer about the gaping hole in May's deal - it's not the backstop, it's the lack of anything yet proposed that can credibly supersede the backstop.McDonnell says that Labour would organise comprehensive customs union deal with the EU and that this would make it “so much more unlikely” that a backstop would be need. He says the “permanence” of the agreement would also help.
Even so, this is quite awkward for Labour as May's deal, imperfect as it is, does roughly coincide with Labour's official stated Brexit policy of a customs union but outside the single market (if the backstop kicks in). Unless Labour change their stance to customs union plus single market, they will be essentially rejecting May's deal in order to attempt to instigate virtually the same deal themselves which doesn't make a lot of sense. Rejecting May's deal makes much more sense if your eventual aim is to remain in either the EU or single market, yet these aren't official Labour positions.
Internal Market and Customs Union. The issue isn't that we can avoid the backstop with a comprehensive customs deal, it's that any deal has to meet the function of the single market. I haven't read about any ideas for this other than the made up technological/magical ones proposed by the government/leave campaign. I haven't seen and I don't claim any expertise here but I can't imagine what could meet the functions of the custom's union and single market other than continued membership, functional or full, of the custom's union and single market (or an FTA coupled to the single market).In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
That's a polite way of describing their talent deficitPorFavor wrote:Multi-tasking isn't one of their talents, is it?HindleA wrote:Local council funding settlement announcement delayed due to Brexshit.
Marley refused the gigPorFavor wrote:The Christmas Fairy still hasn't appeared outside 10 Downing Street.