Thursday 14th March 2019

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 2:16 pm

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)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 2:24 pm

Oh, no! The BBC is reporting that Nigel Farage and coaches containing (I wish someone would contain them) "Brexit" supporters have just arrived to hold their rally, or whatever it is, outside Parliament.

Post by **adam** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 2:49 pm

Good piece lurking down the Guardian's front page.

Meritocracy is a myth invented by the rich

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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:11 pm

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

Brilliant
I hadn't anticipated your response

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:11 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:12 pm

Desperate days
I've been cleaning house rather than looking or listening to any news

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:12 pm

Have I missed much?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:30 pm

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.

I'm no longer confused. Current government are untrustworthy and have no respect for precedent and other constitutional proprieties.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:31 pm

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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:39 pm

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.

My response to your post last night is dissatisfying, too cryptic. I think government have looked ahead and will do anything and everything preventing other party's leadership.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 3:44 pm

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

Edward loves his, wears it all the time. He's in love with her, of course.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:00 pm

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/pu ... -response/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:01 pm

https://inews.co.uk/news/dwp-quietly-ad ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:02 pm

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.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:05 pm

Under DLA of course you just signed your name or got someone on your behalf /it was so complicated Cameron had difficulty.Quite often two complete opposite non justifications simultaneously exist.You would think that might be somewhat of a hint.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:10 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... st-parents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:12 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/m ... ly-be-over" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:17 pm

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.

The other votes wouldn't need to be moved because the house would have already decided on a definitive course of action that isn't those other things. So for those people for whom a referendum is a last resort back up option, abstaining does makes sense if they're still holding out hope for their preferred ideal option (though you risk ending up with neither). What I don't really understand is why someone for whom a referendum is their first preferred option would abstain. The fewer people vote for it this time, the less it will seem worthwhile to vote on it again in the very restricted window of time left. If people think we're guaranteed to get a long extension just to go over all the options again and try a referendum vote at the "right time" they would seem to me to be extraordinarily complacent.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:21 pm

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

"How big are your smalls?"

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:23 pm

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)

Edited to add - note the "same, in substance" bit

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:30 pm

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 . . .

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:37 pm

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.

I read that it could be brought back if that's 'the will of the house'.
So you'd need a vote to decide if there should be a vote, which is what Bryant is doing i suppose.
The mother of parliaments.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:44 pm

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.

My Mum's reply to that would be 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 4:45 pm

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 . . .

By coincidence I just saw this on the same subject.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Summary - the ERG are talking utter twaddle.

NSS...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:05 pm

The Sarah Wollaston amendment (the second referendum one) is being voted on now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:16 pm

Ayes: 85

Noes: 334

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:20 pm

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 · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:32 pm

Ayes: 311

Noes: 314

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:37 pm

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

Not quite enough ayes in the end.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:39 pm

Now on to the unamended Hilary Benn amendment.

Edited - typo

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:42 pm

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

Edited - typo

Not again!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:52 pm

Ayes: 312

Noes: 314

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:52 pm

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:53 pm

Lost by 2

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:54 pm

Shit.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 5:58 pm

So to sum up, we appear to be up shit creek sans paddle.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:00 pm

@PaulfromYorkshire

I keep typing "amandment" - but I feel morally obliged to say what has been edited. Of course, I'm assuming you will all believe me . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:05 pm

Now voting on the Labour amendment on extending Article 50.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:08 pm

Ayes: 302

Noes: 318

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:09 pm

Chris Bryant has not gone ahead with his amendment.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:09 pm

Is it just me or does the Labour amendment being considered now not really add much to the government's motion? I feel l like I must be must be missing something. I'll confess I was focused on the Benn amendment so hadn't really looked at it before.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:11 pm

And it was voted down while I typed, so all academic now anyway.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:14 pm

Now voting on the main motion (to request "Brexit" delay).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:20 pm

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

Yes, good man. Benn losing his vote has changed things somewhat. Let's not be hasty.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:32 pm

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

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:33 pm

May finally won a vote.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:38 pm

Willow904 wrote:May finally won a vote.

Without the help of Andrea Leadsom, it's thought.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:45 pm

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.

This is just the time that is necessary to ratify her deal, if she ever gets it passed. We haven't, for all the drama this week, moved much further forward.

We haven't even found out how close (or not) a "people's vote" might be able to get to a majority.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:48 pm

So that means - if the EU agree - that we have to contest the European elections to be held in late May.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 14 Mar, 2019 6:50 pm

And if we do then Farage's new party would have to go against UKIP for the anti-EU vote.

Ah, PTO...