Thursday 14th March 2019
Posted: Thu 14 Mar, 2019 7:03 am
Morning all.
Jamie Susskind
Verified account
@jamiesusskind
Follow Follow @jamiesusskind
More
Live your life with the confidence of Nick Timothy on the front page of the Telegraph lecturing everyone about political judgement
10:58 PM - 13 Mar 2019
James Ball
Verified account
@jamesrbuk
2h2 hours ago
More James Ball Retweeted Jessica Elgot
Nick Timothy, or as he’s known in Westminster circles, “oh, fuck off”.
HindleA wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ssion=true
Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is announcing the Commons business for next week.
She has not timetabled a Brexit debate next week - even though the government motion being debated later sets Wednesday as the deadline for Theresa May’s deal to be passed. (Politics Live, Guardian)
This is a response to a tweet from our former friend, who I've muted so I haven't seen it.Rob Ford
@robfordmancs
Follow Follow @robfordmancs
More Rob Ford Retweeted
To be fair to Labour there’s some logic to this. Opponents of May’s deal need to coalesce around a single alternative. That means convincing either 2nd ref backers or soft Brexiteers their cause is dead. And 2nd ref has much less potential to win needed Con votes
Donald Tusk is leading.Willow904 wrote:Ken Clarke on Sky News making the point that if we get to 29th March without a deal or extension, as parliament has voted against leaving with no deal, the government ought to make use of its right to revoke article 50.
Also dismissive of a short extension of just a few months. Will be interesting to see how the extension debate develops later on, given both the Tory and Labour leadership have both been reluctant to consider anything other than a very short extension. I presume Yvette Cooper will lead the arguments for a substantial extension.
That would be a terrific "number 10 doorstep" speech from Corbyn if there is a snap election and Labour win itRogerOThornhill 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."
Bercow calls four amendments, including one calling for a second referendum (Politics Live, Guardian)
Really?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Mark Francois apoplectic
Yeah, not sure why. The second referendum amendment being defeated effects the same result, so it becomes superfluous.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
Speaker selects amendments - including the second referendum amendment, the indicative votes amendment and Labour’s amendment.
NOT the one rejecting a second referendum- Mark Francois apoplectic
Is he ever?PorFavor wrote:There's now lots of argy bargy about the selection of the amendments. Mark Francois, for example, is not happy.
PorFavor wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire
Whoops - sorry!
Well quite.Willow904 wrote:Yeah, not sure why. The second referendum amendment being defeated effects the same result, so it becomes superfluous.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
Speaker selects amendments - including the second referendum amendment, the indicative votes amendment and Labour’s amendment.
NOT the one rejecting a second referendum- Mark Francois apoplectic
Very little sign of that on previous form, but we will have to see I suppose.RogerOThornhill wrote:Well quite.Willow904 wrote:Yeah, not sure why. The second referendum amendment being defeated effects the same result, so it becomes superfluous.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
Speaker selects amendments - including the second referendum amendment, the indicative votes amendment and Labour’s amendment.
NOT the one rejecting a second referendum- Mark Francois apoplectic
Almost like the anti-2nd ref are afraid that the Commons might actually vote in favour.
No surprise that the usual suspects - Guido etc - are screeching about Bercow being partisan. You can't have MPs voting on a motion which is to stop MPs voting on something - nonsensical.
Next week? We have no idea if they'll be another opportunity to vote for a second referendum next week, not least because any extension requests are going to need to go in by the 20th March at the latest.Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
NEW: @johnmcdonnellMP tells me Labour will not be backing amendment for second referendum tonight, but could do next week. Also still undecided on whether to back Benn/Cooper/Letwin amendment in indicative votes, which lots of Labour backbenchers are supporting.
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.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh also includes Chris Bryant's "you can't bring your deal back for a third time according to the rules" amendment.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
NEW Lidington: Government facilitate two week indicative vote process in April
...IF longer extension agreed, meaningful vote goes down, and UK takes part in European elections
Hmmm, "still undecided" at this stage suggests there is a good chance they ultimately will?Willow904 wrote:If I'm right about the second referendum amendment going first, I'm not sure Bercow can be accused of favouring Labour in any way. A lot of Labour supporters are going to find this painful:Next week? We have no idea if they'll be another opportunity to vote for a second referendum next week, not least because any extension requests are going to need to go in by the 20th March at the latest.Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
NEW: @johnmcdonnellMP tells me Labour will not be backing amendment for second referendum tonight, but could do next week. Also still undecided on whether to back Benn/Cooper/Letwin amendment in indicative votes, which lots of Labour backbenchers are supporting.
We're deep into the territory now where passing over an acceptable compromise in order to pursue an ideal risks the worst possible outcome with no chance to do over.
The indicative votes amendment is the truly vital one though. If it's looking like an extension isn't going to happen, the opportunity to hold a vote on revocation may become the only way to prevent a no deal exit.
Jessica Elgot
✔
@jessicaelgot
New - Phil Wilson tells me he is abstaining on People’s Vote amendment because of the timing. Big ref supporter. He is behind the yet-to-be-put Kyle-Wilson amendment which would approve the deal subject to a second referendum. Very significant that group backing Labour position.
4
1:31 PM - Mar 14, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)
I haven't. What are they?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Away from Brexit just for a moment, I presume some of you have seen the proposals of Scott Mann (a Tory MP, and no relation I presume) to "solve" knife crime?
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.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.
Thanks for the response.AnatolyKasparov wrote: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.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 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.AnatolyKasparov wrote: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.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.
If we are to have a further referendum, we need to show the EU our intent by a majority vote in parliament and request an extension by 20th March.Here is the text of the government
That this house: (1) notes the resolutions of the house of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees that the government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in article 50(3);
(2) agrees that, if the house has passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then the government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and
(3) notes that, if the house has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then it is highly likely that the European council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.
If the EU will only grant an extension for a specific purpose, parliament is going to need to show a majority for that purpose, whatever it is, before the extension is requested and that needs to happen by next Wednesday at the very latest.RogerOThornhill wrote:Presumably the "wait and see" approach for a 2nd ref is that they need an agreed extension before moving it.
at the moment we're still leaving at the end of the month so supporting a 2nd ref is a bit pointless since there's no time for it to happen
Edited (and swiftly, just for the record) to add -11m ago 14:00
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says many Labour MPs will be tempted to vote for the Wollaston second referendum. He says, although Starmer is in favour, other senior people in the party give out different messages on this topic.
Starmer says he has always tried to speak with a clear voice on this. (Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)