FlyTheNest

Strip DWP of responsibility for ill and disabled people, urges thinktank

Scathing report says trust has been shattered by sanctions and botched benefits reforms

The Department for Work and Pensions should be stripped of its responsibility for providing social security benefits and job support to ill and disabled people, a thinktank has urged.

A scathing report by Demos says public trust in the DWP has been shattered by a series of botched reforms to disability benefits, and the imposition of a brutal sanctions regime that has left many vulnerable claimants stressed and in poverty. (Guardian)

Sir Martin Donnelly, who was the Permanent Secretary of the Department for International Trade until 2017, said that the UK could offer less market access as an individual country than as part the EU, and would therefore be offered less favourable terms when negotiating free trade arrangements after Brexit.

PorFavor wrote:I think the squirrels were associated with the thing in the Guardian I was attempting to link - not a problem with this site.

James Forsyth and Katy Balls have a useful cabinet write-up at the Spectator. Here’s an extract.

May also appears to be moving more firmly towards ruling out no deal. One minister says that it is the ‘the first time she has said it so definitively’. This minister says that ‘it is the issue of the union seems to be what has really convinced her’ of this. (Politics Live, Guardian)

May set to tell MPs she does not yet have enough support to win third meaningful vote
(Politics Live, Guardian)

PorFavor wrote:HindleA being fashionably late today.

HindleA wrote:Dedicated non follower of fashion.

HindleA wrote:Dedicated non follower of fashion.

May says MPs will vote on the the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act on Wednesday. (Politics Live, Guardian)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.

Before the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to seek formal approval for the legally-binding assurances on the Northern Ireland backstop and Alternative Arrangements agreed in Strasbourg on 11th March. I reported your Statement, Mr Speaker, which made clear that for a further Meaningful Vote to take place, the deal would have to be “fundamentally different - not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance.”

I explained that, as a result, some Honourable and Right Honourable Members were seeking further changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.

And I requested a short extension to the Article 50 process to 30th June. I regret having to do so. I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29th March. But I am conscious of my duties as Prime Minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that Union leaving without a deal could do when one part of it is without devolved government and unable therefore to prepare properly.

The Council formally endorsed the legal Instrument relating to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Joint Statement supplementing the Political Declaration.

This should increase the confidence of the House that the backstop is unlikely ever to be used, and would only be temporary if it is.

But the Council also reiterated, once again, its longstanding position that there could be no reopening of the Withdrawal Agreement.

So however the House decides to proceed this week, everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the Withdrawal Agreement is simply not an option.

Turning to extending Article 50, this has always required the unanimous agreement of the other 27 Member States.

As I have made clear before, it was never guaranteed that the EU would agree to an extension – or the terms on which we requested it.

And they did not.

Instead the Council agreed that if the House approves the Withdrawal Agreement this week, our departure will be extended to 11pm on 22nd May.

This will allow time for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which is legally necessary for the deal to be ratified.

But if the House does not approve the Withdrawal Agreement this week, our departure will instead be extended only to 11pm on 12th April.

At this point we would either leave with No Deal, or we would “indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council”.

If this involved a further extension, it would certainly mean participation in the European Parliamentary elections.

The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.

So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.

Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit.

Mr Speaker, I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as soon as possible with a deal, now on 22nd May.

But it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third Meaningful Vote.

I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support, so that we can bring the vote forward this week, and guarantee Brexit.

If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward.

The amendment in the name of my Right Honourable Friend the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the Order Paper. I continue to believe doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions.

So the Government will oppose this amendment this evening, but in order to fulfil our commitments to this House would seek to provide government time in order for this process to proceed.

It would be for this House to put forward options for consideration, and to determine the procedure by which they wished to do so.

I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes.

When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome that is unnegotiable with the EU.

No Government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is.

So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this house. But I do commit to engaging constructively with this process.

There are many different views on the way forward, but I want to explain the options as I understand them.

The default outcome continues to be to leave with No Deal.

But this house has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week.

The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a Second Referendum.

But the bottom line remains, if the House does not approve the Withdrawal Agreement this week, and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal we will have to seek a longer extension. This would entail the UK having to hold European Elections. And it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit.

These are now choices the House will have the opportunity to express its view on.

Mr Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday evening.

I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many Members across this House are frustrated too.

We all have difficult jobs to do.

People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views and I respect those differences.

I would also like to thank all of those colleagues that have supported the deal so far, and those that have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.

I hope we can all agree, we are now at the moment of decision.

And in doing so we must confront the reality of the hard choices before us.

Unless this House agrees to it, No Deal will not happen.

No Brexit must not happen.

And a slow Brexit which extends Article 50 beyond 22nd May, forces the British people to take part in European Elections and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together.

I know that the Deal I have put forward is a compromise. It seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain.

But if this House can back it, we could be out of the European Union in less than two months.

There would no further extensions, no threat to Brexit and no risk of a No Deal.

That I believe is the way to deliver the Brexit the British people voted for.

And I commend this Statement to the House.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Brexit trade deals will be worse than current EU deals, says Liam Fox's former trade chief

https://www.businessinsider.com/says-li ... ?r=US&IR=T

Sir Martin Donnelly, who was the Permanent Secretary of the Department for International Trade until 2017, said that the UK could offer less market access as an individual country than as part the EU, and would therefore be offered less favourable terms when negotiating free trade arrangements after Brexit.

Anna Turley MP
‏
Verified account

@annaturley
Follow Follow @annaturley
More
Shocked that the combined global bargaining power of 28 nations is greater than that of 1.

Yes, I am too...

HindleA wrote:Despite non appearance money ..

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally have never donated,nor never will.Extremely uncomfortable with it.

PorFavor wrote:HindleA being fashionably late today.

The Challenge
"Should it reach 17.4 million respondents then I am sure there will be a very clear case for taking action"
Andrea Leadsom MP 21 March 2019, sarcastically commenting on the petition
Of course, she thought it would never happen.
But does that sound like a challenge to you?
How about we all work to make those words come back to haunt her? What if we could actually get 17.4 million signatures on that petition?

1. Labour frontbench for indicative votes
What does it do?

Tabled by Jeremy Corbyn and members of his top team, the amendment lists the alternatives to May’s Brexit deal, including a second referendum and a customs union. It calls on the government to allow enough time for parliament to find a majority for one of them this week, implicitly calling for a series of indicative votes to take place.

Will it pass?

No, because MPs who want indicative votes are throwing their weight before the more prescriptive amendment by Tory MPs Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve (detailed below). Unlike the Labour frontbench proposal, that amendment explicitly takes control over parliamentary proceedings to sets time for the votes to occur on Wednesday.

“notes the Government’s Withdrawal Agreement and Framework for the Future Relationship have been defeated for a second time; further notes the alternative proposals being proposed across this House including Her Majesty’s Opposition’s plan, Common Market 2.0, for a customs union, and for a public vote; and calls on the Government to provide sufficient parliamentary time this week for this House to find a majority for a different approach.”

2. 100 MPs call for indicative votes
What does it do?

This is the crucial amendment to watch tonight. It would wrestle control of parliamentary business from the government at 2pm on Wednesday, so as to hold a series of indicative votes on the possible ways forward. Since being proposed by a cross-party group of MPs including Letwin, Grieve and Hilary Benn, it has racked up more than 100 signatures.

Will it pass?

Probably. A very similar amendment to take control of the parliamentary agenda and hold indicative votes on 20 March, which was moved by Letwin and Benn, was defeated by just two votes on 14 March. Given that there is still no majority for the Brexit deal almost two weeks later, holding a set of indicative votes seems like the only option MPs have to try and settle on an alternative.

Full text:

“and, given the need for the House to debate and vote on alternative ways forward, with a view to the Government putting forward a plan for the House to debate and vote on, orders that –

(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply on Wednesday 27 March;

(b) precedence on that day shall be given to a motion relating to the Business of the House in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union other than any Business of the House motion relating to the consideration by the House of a motion under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then to motions relating to that withdrawal and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union other than any motion moved under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

(c) if more than one motion related to the Business of the House is tabled, the Speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;

(d) the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business before the Business of the House motion having precedence at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March and call a Member to move that motion;

(e) debate on that motion may continue until 3.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March at which time the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion including the questions on amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;

(f) when those proceedings have been concluded, the Speaker shall call a Member to move one of the other motions having precedence;

(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order or an order arising from the Business of the House motion may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption on Wednesday 27 March.”


3. We don’t want no deal
What does it do?

This amendment restates parliament’s rejection of no deal. If the UK came within seven days of it, it would have the government bring forward a vote on whether MPs want no deal, or to extend Article 50 and find some alternative way forward. It’s been put forward by a small cross party group that includes Margaret Beckett, Joanna Cherry, Ed Davey, and Anna Soubry.

Will it pass?

This will be uncontroversial to most MPs and is likely to pass, because it all it does is allow them to vote again on no deal and extending Article 50. The real fight will happen if this vote does occur and MPs have to decide whether to allow a long extension, if they are faced with a choice between that and a cliff edge.

Full text:

“and orders that, in the event that the UK comes within seven calendar days of leaving the European Union without a deal, the Government must make arrangements within two sitting days, or if this House has been adjourned for more than four days to arrange for the House to be recalled under Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances) for this purpose, for a Minister of the Crown to move a motion on whether this House approves the UK leaving the EU without a deal and on whether the UK Government should be required to request an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit and to give time for Parliament to determine a different approach.”.

gilsey wrote:'respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain'

18:00

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative attorney general, says he thinks the case for revoking article 50 is getting stronger. He says he is concerned by reports that the cabinet has been influenced by what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best by the country. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Ken Clarke says, given what Lidington has just announced, the government is promising what Letwin proposes. So why don’t they just agree to set aside Wednesday for indicative votes.

Lidington says, until the Letwin amendment is put to a vote, the government won’t know if Wednesday is available.