Oh lordy, this is never going to end, is it?

The effect of the Letwin amendment. The bill will now be salami sliced to death and we will be back at yet another impasse needing an election or referendum to change the dynamic. Which means months more misery and mutual loathing

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/sta ... 7246372864

This is now the main problem for No10. Last week it looked like Gloria De Piero could back their deal. Now she is backing a customs union amendment

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/ ... 3520546817

ronmcd wrote:I still don't get why Boris postponed the vote, doing it on Tuesday might give him more time to persuade some MPs, but it might give time for some to be persuaded otherwise.

What would he gain by winning a "meaningful vote" in that situation? It would not defer the Benn act, which had become the only reason for holding it.

What he needs to pass to get Britain out of the EU with a deal is the Withdrawal Bill. The meaningful vote was a symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons that had elevated status purely because of the provision in the Benn act referring to it - a provision that was effectively superseded by Letwin (for the reasons discussed above).

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I still don't get why Boris postponed the vote, doing it on Tuesday might give him more time to persuade some MPs, but it might give time for some to be persuaded otherwise.

What would he gain by winning a "meaningful vote" in that situation? It would not defer the Benn act, which had become the only reason for holding it.

What he needs to pass to get Britain out of the EU with a deal is the Withdrawal Bill. The meaningful vote was a symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons that had elevated status purely because of the provision in the Benn act referring to it - a provision that was effectively superseded by Letwin (for the reasons discussed above).

Surely it was still meaningful in agreeing the terms of the deal. It was always going to require a withdrawl bill as well. It would have been "a
symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons".

The effect of the Letwin amendment. The bill will now be salami sliced to death and we will be back at yet another impasse needing an election or referendum to change the dynamic.

I don't get that either. How does tying symbolic approval of the deal to the passage of the withdrawl bill "salami slice" anything? Is it simply that a short delay allows for greater scrutiny of the bill? That seem greatly preferable to a bill rushed through with little thought.

The only difference it makes on that front is that there is now time for amendments to the Withdrawal Bill. This would be true under any circumstances in which the Benn act was passed (assuming the EU agrees to extension which all signs indicate it will).

By removing the Hobson's choice element and no deal, you'll get MPs like Gloria de Piero voting on a different basis.

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I still don't get why Boris postponed the vote, doing it on Tuesday might give him more time to persuade some MPs, but it might give time for some to be persuaded otherwise.

What would he gain by winning a "meaningful vote" in that situation? It would not defer the Benn act, which had become the only reason for holding it.

What he needs to pass to get Britain out of the EU with a deal is the Withdrawal Bill. The meaningful vote was a symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons that had elevated status purely because of the provision in the Benn act referring to it - a provision that was effectively superseded by Letwin (for the reasons discussed above).

Surely it was still meaningful in agreeing the terms of the deal. It was always going to require a withdrawl bill as well. It would have been "a
symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons".

Bearing in mind it's pretty obvious that losing the vote would be viewed as negative, the question there was "what would he gain by winning in those circumstances?".

The answer is of course: absolutely nothing. He'd be in the exact same position of having to win Withdrawal Agreement passage with an extension in process either way. Why risk losing the vote when you have nothing to gain? Regardless of what I think of Boris, that's not the sort of risk I'd take.

Contrast that with what he'd have got if it passed without the Letwin amendment: Complete freedom to implement either his deal or no deal with the Benn act now satisfied.

Fair enough. I realise now I'm even more lost that I thought.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I still don't get why Boris postponed the vote, doing it on Tuesday might give him more time to persuade some MPs, but it might give time for some to be persuaded otherwise.

What would he gain by winning a "meaningful vote" in that situation? It would not defer the Benn act, which had become the only reason for holding it.

What he needs to pass to get Britain out of the EU with a deal is the Withdrawal Bill. The meaningful vote was a symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons that had elevated status purely because of the provision in the Benn act referring to it - a provision that was effectively superseded by Letwin (for the reasons discussed above).

Surely it was still meaningful in agreeing the terms of the deal. It was always going to require a withdrawl bill as well. It would have been "a
symbolic indication of acceptance from the Commons".

Bearing in mind it's pretty obvious that losing the vote would be viewed as negative, the question there was "what would he gain by winning in those circumstances?".

The answer is of course: absolutely nothing. He'd be in the exact same position of having to win Withdrawal Agreement passage with an extension in process either way. Why risk losing the vote when you have nothing to gain? Regardless of what I think of Boris, that's not the sort of risk I'd take.

Contrast that with what he'd have got if it passed without the Letwin amendment: Complete freedom to implement either his deal or no deal with the Benn act now satisfied.

Granted BJ would have won a free hand without the amendment, but is that the only reason there was to be a "meaningful vote" because there seems to be no meaning in it for anyone else on that basis. Why would anyone vote for that?

Its symbolic approval of the deal. A win should ease passage of the bill since the principles it enacts will have been approved.

He held the Saturday session to avoid triggering the Benn act. There wasn't really a lot more to it than that.

He failed though, because, you know, He's Boris.

I would assume that the MPs that would vote for it would do so on the basis they trusted that it would then follow the Withdrawal Agreement would get through with that deal (and if faced with a rebellion of a few Tory idiots like Mark Francois forcing that choice to be between Boris's deal and no deal then Lib Dem or Labour MPs could always vote the WA through - it's only really the prospect of deceit by Boris in bringing the legislation that would worry them) and we'd leave the EU as "decided" in the referendum whilst avoiding the looming perceived disaster of no deal.

Obviously MPs are split on whether further extension is a good idea. Doesn't really matter now, it happened anyway.

What we need in these dark times is to laugh at David Cameron.

Whomsoever changed the dust jackets on Cameron’s book in Foyles Bookstore is an absolute genius.

https://twitter.com/the_woozle/status/1 ... 9435046912

Problems for Boris.

Huge problems storing up for the govt this week:

Plan is to bring MV back tomorrow. Think almost certain not to happen as Speaker will rule out of order as (i) same issue twice (ii) contradicts Letwin amendment which says Brexit related legislation must be agreed first.

There is a common misconception that the govt pulled the vote on Saturday. They did not. They just didn't bring the motion as amended to a division. It went through on the nod. The House decided something. I.e. Letwin, that there is no deal until WAB passes. That is big.

That is why common refrain that Saturday was a "waste of time" or that "they didn't decide anything" is a nonsense.

As a result of that decision, the Speaker has even more justification to refuse the deal coming back. The previous MVs were defeated and the House passed nothing. Yesterday the Commons (when govt walked away from motion) effectively unanimously agreed and 'resolved' the matter.

So that means only route to get the deal through is via the WAB. That is due to take place Tuesday. And that is absolutely fraught with danger. The parliamentary manoeuvres we saw on Saturday will look like a walk in the park compared to the WAB.

continued

That all sounds about right.

@ that book

via BBC

Government attempt to give MPs new vote on Brexit deal on Monday rejected by Speaker

I meant to ask the forum about if this was possible but forgot. Is the rejection because the Bill is not substantially different to the one debated on Saturday?*

Now what?

* It appears so:

"Today's motion is in substance the same as Saturday's motion and the House has decided the matter, today's circumstances are in substance the same as Saturday's circumstances" - Speaker says it would be "repetitive and disorderly" to vote on Brexit deal

Yeah, if the speaker let them put forward that vote again, parliament would be forced to do the Letwin amendment again. There's no point in repeating it when nothing's changed. The Letwin amendment means approval is withheld until all the other necessary legislation is passed, so Johnson should get on with trying to do that if he thinks he can.

BBC

PM to pull Brexit bill if timetable not approved

The government will abandon its Brexit bill if MPs vote down the three-day timetable for its debate and the EU confirms a delay.

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill was published on Monday night, and MPs will vote later on whether to agree the timetable to get it through Parliament.

Does this mean the possible end of Brexit -maybe?

More info to come later, I suppose.

Double post.

Alan B wrote:BBC

PM to pull Brexit bill if timetable not approved

The government will abandon its Brexit bill if MPs vote down the three-day timetable for its debate and the EU confirms a delay.

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill was published on Monday night, and MPs will vote later on whether to agree the timetable to get it through Parliament.

Does this mean the possible end of Brexit -maybe?

More info to come later, I suppose.

I don't think so. Without a withdrawal bill it will be a no deal exit, either at the end of this month or at the end of an extention period.

BREAKING: something has happened and I don't have a fucking clue what it means.

Have the tickets for DitchWatch been printed, yet?