Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[ger147]

Can they change that in law? Would they have time?

Yes and yes, assuming the HoC's voted in favour of it.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Can they change that in law? Would they have time?

There would not need to be any chance in law for us to leave on the 29th with no deal as that is still the default position. The vote last night was only advisory so is not legally binding (and I won't insert joke here about following advisory referendums )

 

[Deleted member 21784]

100 to 1? if the EU say no to an extension and we do not have a deal by the 29th then we will leave on the 29th with no deal.

You forgot secret option c

Revoke article 50

Which we can do at anytime

We don’t need agreement from any states

Once revoked brexit is cancelled

100/1? I’ll take £10 on that if you fancy backing your odds 😂

 

[Foxholer]

You forgot secret option c

Revoke article 50

Which we can do at anytime

We don’t need agreement from any states

Once revoked brexit is cancelled

100/1? I’ll take £10 on that if you fancy backing your odds 😂

I'd be prepared to spend significantly more than a tenner to watch Rees-Mogg's reaction to that!

 

[Hacker Khan]

You forgot secret option c

Revoke article 50

Which we can do at anytime

We don’t need agreement from any states

Once revoked brexit is cancelled

100/1? I’ll take £10 on that if you fancy backing your odds 😂

It's political suicide if that would be done without some form of referendum where it obtained a significant majority. I'd argue a very managed soft Brexit is the only possible way out of this. I imagine that no one will be particularly happy with that but over time we'll move on. Any of the other options (no deal, revoke article 50) will just lead to massive divisions in society and parliament and years and years of arguing, blaming the other side etc etc.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I'd be prepared to spend significantly more than a tenner to watch Rees-Mogg's reaction to that!

I think Mark Francois would be even funnier. At least you feel there is some form of rational argument and thought process with Rees-Mogg no mater how much I disagree with it, Francois just seems like some member of a religious cult who has been brainwashed and is mad as a box of frogs.

 

[IanM]

Been right at every stage so far.... still on course for take lots of cash off various people!

 

[Taz]

Amendment going in to take 2nd referendum off the table, be interesting to see if speaker allows it.

 

[User62651]

Did May properly lose the plot a bit yesterday?

It went something like -
When the first vote on the amendment went through (No 'No Deal' ever), that caught her off guard, she'd thought she would win that one but lost narrowly. Then panic ensued and she arranged a 3 line whip to get all her MPs (including ministers who are supposed to obey) to vote down her own Govt motion on the main vote of 'We wont leave with a No Deal on the 29th March'. She was then seen in the lobby voting against her own motion and so in a round about way voting for a No Deal herself and took some stick from MPs for it - Jess Phillips who's never afraid to speak her mind told May to her face 'It was a dsigrace'.
A number of cabinet and junior minsiters abstained, some other Brexiteer MPs later calling for their resignations because it was a 3 line whip. Farage raging. One minister did resign I believe. The ministers that abstained must know that's very serious but May has so little control she can't do diddly about that it seems. Those ministers were caught bewteeen a rock and a hard place though - could not be seen to vote for No Deal or they'd have been vilified for it, May put them in an impossible position. They all claim to back PM on leaving with a deal however.

Clearly she wanted to keep a No Deal option alive all along (legally it is still alive as others have noted above) but to have it 'alive' for a later date after 29th in a commons voting sense, if not a legal one.

Is that about the size of it?

Desperate stuff and not the behaviour of a PM/leader in control. How is she continually able to survive as PM? Shambles.

 

[Beezerk]

I think the word you were looking for is omnishambles 🤣

 

[Hacker Khan]

Did May properly lose the plot a bit yesterday?

It went something like -
When the first vote on the amendment went through (No 'No Deal' ever), that caught her off guard, she'd thought she would win that one but lost narrowly. Then panic ensued and she arranged a 3 line whip to get all her MPs (including ministers who are supposed to obey) to vote down her own Govt motion on the main vote of 'We wont leave with a No Deal on the 29th March'. She was then seen in the lobby voting against her own motion and so in a round about way voting for a No Deal herself and took some stick from MPs for it - Jess Phillips who's never afraid to speak her mind told May to her face 'It was a dsigrace'.
A number of cabinet and junior minsiters abstained, some other Brexiteer MPs later calling for their resignations because it was a 3 line whip. Farage raging. One minister did resign I believe. The ministers that abstained must know that's very serious but May has so little control she can't do diddly about that it seems. Those ministers were caught bewteeen a rock and a hard place though - could not be seen to vote for No Deal or they'd have been vilified for it, May put them in an impossible position. They all claim to back PM on leaving with a deal however.

Clearly she wanted to keep a No Deal option alive all along (legally it is still alive as others have noted above) but to have it 'alive' for a later date after 29th in a commons voting sense, if not a legal one.

Is that about the size of it?

Desperate stuff and not the behaviour of a PM/leader in control. How is she continually able to survive as PM? Shambles.

Probably because at the moment in the situation we are in, no one will do a better job as everyone knows there is no majority for anything in parliament. Gove, Bojo et al are keeping as quiet as they can waiting to pounce when the time is right. But I'd argue to take over now would not be a great career move.

 

[drdel]

Probably because at the moment in the situation we are in, no one will do a better job as everyone knows there is no majority for anything in parliament. Gove, Bojo et al are keeping as quiet as they can waiting to pounce when the time is right. But I'd argue to take over now would not be a great career move.

And it is why Corbyn has no idea which way to jump - much as he would like to get Labour in power.

 

[drdel]

And from Mr Tusk....

[B]Donald Tusk[/B]‏Verified account @[B]eucopresident[/B]
@eucopresident


During my consultations ahead of #EUCO, I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its #Brexit strategy and build consensus around it.

1:52 am - 14 Mar 2019

When he says 'rethink' how much would you bet that he actually means 'reverse'?

 

[Sweep]

There was, wasn’t there? And it passed with a greater majority?

No. But you already know that.

 

[Taz]

Amendment going in to take 2nd referendum off the table, be interesting to see if speaker allows it.

Not selected by Bercow, but the cross party one that effectively ties up the process has.

At the start of today's main Brexit debate, Speaker John Bercow announces that he has selected the following four amendments for debate:
Amendment (h) – Cross-party Remainers
This amendment requests an extension of Article 50 in order to have another referendum.
Amendment (i) – Benn/Cooper
This amendment, which has lots of cross party support, would allow MPs to take control of parliamentary business next Wednesday (20 March).
They would use the time to debate a Brexit motion that could lead to Parliament holding a series of indicative votes on different Brexit options, possibly the following week.
He adds that there has been a 'manuscript' amendment tabled to this, which will be published shortly.
Amendment (e) – Labour frontbench
This amendment rejects the PM’s deal and the idea of leaving without a deal.
It also calls for an extension to Brexit talks to “provide parliamentary time for this House to find a majority for a different approach”.
Amendment (j) – Bryant/Brake
This amendment orders the government not to put its Brexit deal to another vote, citing parliamentary rules.

 

[Taz]

Speaker John Bercow has refused to call the cross-party amendment B rejecting a second referendum, despite the fact that it was signed by 127 MPs including the entirety of the DUP and had numerous Labour MPs as leading co-signatories including Caroline Flint, Gareth Snell and John Mann.


Conservative Mark Francois expresses anger that an amendment he supported, which rejects holding another referendum, has not been selected.
Mr Bercow says that MPs "do have to take the rough with the smooth". He adds that all MPs end up happy or unhappy depending on what amendments he has picked.
"The Chair has to make a judgement on a variety of criteria," he says.
"The Chair does his or her best to facilitate debate and to allow the House to speak," he adds.

 

[Taz]

The most important amendment going on the order paper today is the one in the names of Hilary Benn, Sir Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper - because it is the one that would wrest control of shaping Brexit from the prime minister and deliver this control to MPs.
This is a coup against the PM, against the executive, so Theresa May is honour bound to oppose it, to instruct Tory MPs via a three-line whip to vote it down.
But it was clear from what Greg Clark, the business secretary said on my show last night, and what the Chancellor said in his spring statement yesterday, that important members of the Cabinet - them, plus Rudd and Gauke, for instance - support this revolt of the backbenches.
So the first question is whether Clark, Rudd and Gauke - plus other ministers desperate to avoid a no-deal Brexit - will have to rebel against the PM again by either abstaining on the Benn/Letwin amendment or backing it.
Probably not, I am reliably told. Since the movers of the motion are convinced they will win, even without ministerial support, and would rather keep their supporters inside the PM's tent.
"They are more useful to us in the government rather than out" one of the leaders of the coup told me - in language that will further enrage Brexiter Tories, who fear they are being comprehensively outmanoeuvred by unreconstructed Remainers who are seeking to capture the Brexit citadel and deliver what they see as Brexit in Name Only.
There is of course deep pain for the prime minister in the confidence of Benn/Letwin/Cooper that they will triumph even without ministerial resignations, which is that she has lost control of her backbenches - and that significant numbers of Tories outside the payroll will disobey her.
So how does their disloyal amendment transfer power away from 10 Downing Street?
Well here is where it gets complicated. Bear with me.
The first thing it does is temporarily remove the PM's power to set the agenda in parliament - in this instance on next Wednesday.
On that day a motion would be debated by MPs which if passed would then pave the way for what's known as indicative votes on different versions of Brexit the following week - on another day when control of parliament's agenda would be seized from the prime minister by backbenchers.
On this second full day of the backbenchers' coup, MPs would then be able to table their own preferred routes through the Brexit mess. Those routes might include a no-deal Brexit, the so-called Malthouse Brexit (a "managed" no-deal Brexit), Common Market 2.0 (the Norway model augmented by an customs "arrangement" - don't ask!), a referendum and so on.
And at the end of that day, all these options would be printed on bits of paper. And MPs would - in a secret ballot, to avoid gaming of the system - be able to put a tick next to any version of Brexit or even a no-Brexit that they favour.
MPs would be able to vote for as many plans as they like. They would simply be asked to show which routes they would tolerate.
Now, the expectation is that after this day two of backbenchers' control, there would not be a clear winner.
No single option may be backed by a majority of MPs - which seems the most likely outcome. Or there several may command a majority (in that, as I said, MPs could vote for as many Brexit plans as they like).
Either way, the chances are that backbenchers will have to seize control of a third day of business from the government, to whittle down the most popular options to just single one that commands the majority of MPs.
And at that juncture the Prime Minister would be instructed to negotiate that outcome with Brussels and EU leaders.
By now you will have realised that this does genuinely represent an extraordinary and unprecedented undermining of the PM on the most important issue of this age and one of the most important issues of almost any age.
Her humiliation at that point would be complete.
Why would formerly loyal Tory MPs turn her into their puppet? Well it is because they are concerned that if they don't, the alternative would be a no-deal Brexit - which, they fear, would wreak havoc on country and their party, from which neither would recover for many years.
And they say the reason they have to launch their coup today is because it has to be underway - they say - before the European Council of a week's time, in that they are anxious EU leaders would not delay Brexit unless and until they can see MPs beginning the process of rallying towards a particular Brexit course.
So we are on the brink of history - the transmogrification of Theresa May into PINO, or Prime Minister in Name Only.

 

[Kellfire]

No. But you already know that.

You've lost me, here.

First vote, a free vote - tiny margin.

Revote almost instantly, Tories whipped - larger margin.

 

[Sweep]

It's political suicide if that would be done without some form of referendum where it obtained a significant majority. I'd argue a very managed soft Brexit is the only possible way out of this. I imagine that no one will be particularly happy with that but over time we'll move on. Any of the other options (no deal, revoke article 50) will just lead to massive divisions in society and parliament and years and years of arguing, blaming the other side etc etc.

And that soft Brexit could well be Mrs May’s deal. And what is often forgotten is that Mrs. May herself is not that keen on it. It’s just the only thing she can get, because we allowed the EU to dictate the negotiations and couldn’t negotiate a trade agreement in tandem with the WA.
If we could have negotiated a trade agreement at the same time as all this, all these fears about the backstop would have been nullified.
It’s almost like all this chaos was planned to make leaving difficult.

 

[Sweep]

Did May properly lose the plot a bit yesterday?

It went something like -
When the first vote on the amendment went through (No 'No Deal' ever), that caught her off guard, she'd thought she would win that one but lost narrowly. Then panic ensued and she arranged a 3 line whip to get all her MPs (including ministers who are supposed to obey) to vote down her own Govt motion on the main vote of 'We wont leave with a No Deal on the 29th March'. She was then seen in the lobby voting against her own motion and so in a round about way voting for a No Deal herself and took some stick from MPs for it - Jess Phillips who's never afraid to speak her mind told May to her face 'It was a dsigrace'.
A number of cabinet and junior minsiters abstained, some other Brexiteer MPs later calling for their resignations because it was a 3 line whip. Farage raging. One minister did resign I believe. The ministers that abstained must know that's very serious but May has so little control she can't do diddly about that it seems. Those ministers were caught bewteeen a rock and a hard place though - could not be seen to vote for No Deal or they'd have been vilified for it, May put them in an impossible position. They all claim to back PM on leaving with a deal however.

Clearly she wanted to keep a No Deal option alive all along (legally it is still alive as others have noted above) but to have it 'alive' for a later date after 29th in a commons voting sense, if not a legal one.

Is that about the size of it?

Desperate stuff and not the behaviour of a PM/leader in control. How is she continually able to survive as PM? Shambles.

The worst of it was that Caroline Spelman tabled the motion to take no deal off the table for good, then realised what she had done and declined to move it, leaving co signatory Yvette Cooper (Labour, though we know Labour are irrelevant according to some on here, so cannot be blamed or credited) to move it forward anyway. Spelman had no choice but to vote for it and it would have only taken her and one other voting against for a tie.
Spelman also read out in Parliament a heartfelt letter from one of her constituents outlining in very clear terms how many people who voted to leave feel betrayed. She only spoiled it by not being able to resist telling everyone the writer came from a council estate (because all leave voters are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged I assume) and then going on to do exactly what the writer complained about. So it was not only TM who had one of her worst days ever. Spelman is now as big a laughingstock as she made her country. What an absolute plonker.
Mrs. May had to vote against her own motion because the motion had radically altered. She only tabled a motion to reject no deal until March 29 to test the mood of the house and allow it to move on to a vote on A50 extension. She never intended to tie the hands of her own team of negotiators permanently.
The fact that she is unable to sack ministers for defying the whip only serves to demonstrate how little authority she now commands. She cannot lead her party. Her position is untenable. She should and indeed must resign.