Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35986461)

Reese-Mogg looking rather annoyed

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986443)

Not true.

The government is still the government because it is appointed by the Queen, not by parliament or by the electorate.

When a general election is to be held, the Prime Minister asks the Queen to dissolve parliament. The Queen does so. From that point on, there are no MPs. There are still government ministers. By convention they don’t do anything radical during the election period but they still hold office and they continue to do so unless and until the Prime Minister resigns.

After an election’s results are known, the PM will either continue in post, or else (s)he will go to Buckingham Palace, tell the Queen that (s)he can no longer form a government likely to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, and advise the Queen which member of the House of Commons most likely will have the confidence of the House. The Prime Minister then resigns, and the person they have advised the Queen should appoint is summoned to the Palace and invited to form a government.

In our system, all of that normally happens within hours of an election result being known but in 2010, while the Coalition was being formed, it took several days.

To return to the main point however. The government continues to exist and has full executive power during an election campaign.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35986461)

Reese-Mogg looking rather annoyed

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35986462)

This has to be one of the worst PM of all time next to Corbyn and Blair when it comes to spilling out crap from their mouth.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35986472)

Good, Jacob really smugg looks annoyed, I'm pleased about that



I feel sorry for her, works her whole life to get the top job and gets handed this impossible situation with a divided country and an even more divided party and keeps getting up and ploughing on in spite of the wretches around her, she is a far classier act than many of those ass hats. Yes she might be out of her depth and a bit hapless but she always does her best.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35986476)

Until when? Until they vote the way the EU wants them too?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986480)

Until there is a deal. I think May might get her deal though, alternatively there is a possibility of a custom's union deal that Labour will support. They might also go for a longer extension for a general election or referendum.

Or the EU might be sick of it and stick with no deal now. They don't sound too impressed with the results tonight and yesterday and their bigger concern is the European elections in May.

Once again Brexit is right there, days away, if the ERG and the DUP want it.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35986481)

Meaningful vote No.3 next week?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986489)

Rumours the EU don't believe anything will be sorted and will force no deal anyway to get it over with.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986489)

Rumours the EU don't believe anything will be sorted and will force no deal anyway to get it over with.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986492)

I must say that having just watched the farce that is parliament,if i was an Eu negotiator i would say no extension no deal just go.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35986488)

I'm just confused.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986480)

Until there is a deal. I think May might get her deal though, alternatively there is a possibility of a custom's union deal that Labour will support. They might also go for a longer extension for a general election or referendum.

Or the EU might be sick of it and stick with no deal now. They don't sound too impressed with the results tonight and yesterday and their bigger concern is the European elections in May.

Once again Brexit is right there, days away if the ERG and the DUP, want it.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986489)

Rumours the EU don't believe anything will be sorted and will force no deal anyway to get it over with.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986497)

How many more TIMES.:mad: THERE ISN'T A DEAL OF ANY SORT CURRENTLY ON OFFER.


Therefore any withdrawal agreement is relevant. The vote says we cannot leave until we accept whatever the EU tells us to.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986498)

Link?

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35986501)

At the moment the default is we will leave without a deal on the 29th if nothing changes.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986500)

May's Withdrawal Agreement would count as leaving with a deal.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986502)

I don't have a link but Brexitcast (BBC Podcast) or BBC One have been saying the EU27, not the council but the actual member states, don't see the point of an extension and they all need to agree.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986506)

No it doesn't. The withdrawal agreement only last until the end of 2020.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986507)

The Government motion for tomorrow proposes asking the EU for an extension until 30 June and in effect notes that:
- If Parliament votes to accept May’s negotiated deal in the meantime, she will go to Brussels and tell them she needs the time to pass relevant legislation
- If Parliament does not accept May’s negotiated deal in the meantime, Parliament is going to have to come up with some pretty good reasons why the EU should grant an extension.
- The EU is not obliged to grant an extension and it’s difficult to see why they would do so without that very good reason being put to them.
- We have to hold EU elections if we’re still a member state when they come around in late May.

There has actually been a theory floating around for months now that “managed no deal” has always been the end game, because it fully detaches the UK from the EU, looks very messy and sends a signal to the remaining members to think twice about leaving. In other words, both the UK and the EU get something out of it, even though it doesn’t look good. It still seems to stretch credibility to me, but given today’s pantomime in the Commons, somewhat less than when I first heard it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986507)

The Government motion for tomorrow proposes asking the EU for an extension until 30 June and in effect notes that:
- If Parliament votes to accept May’s negotiated deal in the meantime, she will go to Brussels and tell them she needs the time to pass relevant legislation
- If Parliament does not accept May’s negotiated deal in the meantime, Parliament is going to have to come up with some pretty good reasons why the EU should grant an extension.
- The EU is not obliged to grant an extension and it’s difficult to see why they would do so without that very good reason being put to them.
- We have to hold EU elections if we’re still a member state when they come around in late May.

There has actually been a theory floating around for months now that “managed no deal” has always been the end game, because it fully detaches the UK from the EU, looks very messy and sends a signal to the remaining members to think twice about leaving. In other words, both the UK and the EU get something out of it, even though it doesn’t look good. It still seems to stretch credibility to me, but given today’s pantomime in the Commons, somewhat less than when I first heard it.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986511)

The vote says that the WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT is NULL AND VOID.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986502)

I don't have a link but Brexitcast (BBC Podcast) or BBC One have been saying the EU27, not the council but the actual member states, don't see the point of an extension and they all need to agree.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

The ERG are saying they'll back May's deal in a third vote if May commits to go: https://twitter.com/alexwickham/stat...32337202774018

Remainers might be wary of that because it wouldn't be beyond the ERG to immediately break a international agreement IMO.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

The ERG are saying they'll back May's deal in a third vote if May commits to go: https://twitter.com/alexwickham/stat...32337202774018

Remainers might be wary of that because it wouldn't be beyond the ERG to immediately break a international agreement IMO.

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------



That might well change as early as tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35986514)

From the BBC at 20:53

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986512)

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986511)

There is NO negotiated deal. The vote says that the WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT is NULL AND VOID, and that we remain in the EU until a deal is reached, which is going to be sometime never.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986516)

The withdrawal agreement comes AFTER leaving the EU, which according to the votes can't happen. That is why 29th March 2019 is a deadline.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986516)

The withdrawal agreement comes AFTER leaving the EU, which according to the votes can't happen. That is why 29th March 2019 is a deadline.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986517)

Not correct, and using caps lock doesn’t change any facts.

The house yesterday declined to support May’s negotiated withdrawal agreement, but the text of it still exists as an agreed document between the British government and the EU which Parliament can ratify at any time.

Today the house declined to support a No Deal scenario but the vote did not have the effect of amending or repealing the EU withdrawal act, which Parliament debated and passed thanks to Gina Miller and the Supreme Court. The legislation still sits on the statute book and as things stand right now, we will still leave on 29 March, whether or not the deal is accepted by parliament.

Tomorrow the house will be asked to debate a motion that proposes the only viable reason to ask for an extension to the A50 deadline is to give Parliament time to pass the withdrawal deal and any other measures needed to ensure the UK leaves the EU smoothly. It also asks the house to recognise that in the absence of any viable strategy, there is no reason for the EU to grant an extension.

Parliament is being lined up for a third go at Teresa May’s deal.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986521)

The original sequence of events was,

1) we leave the EU,
2) the withdrawal agreement comes into effect.

3) we might be allowed to reach a deal with the EU.


The votes say we cannot implement stage 1, therefore stage 2 cannot be reached at all. The withdrawal agreement is not a deal of any kind. It just fills the gap between leaving the EU, and reaching a deal or end of Dec 2020(whichever comes first).

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986521)

The votes say we cannot implement stage 1, therefore stage 2 cannot be reached at all. The withdrawal agreement is not a deal of any kind. It just fills the gap between leaving the EU, and reaching a deal or end of Dec 2020(whichever comes first).

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986519)

I am so sick of Brexit. It's never, ever, gonna end.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986522)

Nothing voted on by Parliament this week is binding. None of it has the effect of amending or repealing the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act legislated for the UK’s withdrawal to come into effect at 11pm on 29 March 2019. Nothing has happened that changes this - not even tonight’s vote in which parliament declined to give its support to the idea of us leaving without a deal.

Changing the withdrawal date involves bringing a bill to the Commons that amends the EU (withdrawal) Act. This would need to pass through all the stages of both the Commons and the lords in order to become an Act and have any effect. That cannot be achieved by the procedure that took place this evening.

Originally Posted by DocDutch (Post 35986526)

yeah that was quite messy as I was 100% sure that I heard TM say yesterday that today would have been a free vote and then all of a sudden hear that there is a line of whips waiting for them.



I wonder how that has gone down with the MP's

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986523)

The vote says they don't want us to Leave with no deal. They didn't say the deal had to last forever. Leaving the EU with a two year transition period is a deal, albeit temporary. Not only does it meet the requirements of not leaving without a deal it's explicitly stated as an option in tomorrow's motion.

Basically: The Withdrawal Agreement will allow us to leave the EU.

Anyway. Lots of interesting stuff about how the Government found itself in this position tonight: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...its-own-motion

Also speculation from Labour MPs that the Government didn't know co-signers of a amendement can still push it a vote hence they were caught by surprise. They spent the day getting Spelman to drop it only for Cooper to push it a vote. It makes sense since it's clear Tory MPs were confused as to if it was still a free vote and a Tory backbencher blew up at the speaker saying the motion had been dropped....

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35986531)

Then what was supposed to be the purpose of the votes?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986537)

Now the DUP and the ERG have seen that there is no majority for No Deal in the Commons, there is a greater likelihood of them voting for the withdrawal agreement if it is put before the Commons next week. Don’t take my word for it though, that’s the view of the FT’s political editor, George Parker.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35986538)

Ah yes it was a close vote lets have a 2nd vote next week 5 of them might have died in that time and we might have some more leave MP's on our side.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35986538)

Ah yes it was a close vote lets have a 2nd vote next week 5 of them might have died in that time and we might have some more leave MP's on our side.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35986541)

The majortiy for the motion as amended was 43.

No doubt May will bring her deal back to parliament for a third go.

Seems odd that the same thing can be repeatedly put to parliament for a vote and called democratic, but offering people a vote on the deal or other options is seen as undemocratic.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986554)

Extend it two years. Sort out the full agreement in that time. Then no need for backstop. Sorted.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986554)

Extend it two years. Sort out the full agreement in that time. Then no need for backstop. Sorted.

Originally Posted by DocDutch (Post 35986560)

Would think the EU would only say yes to extension are either a 2nd ref or change of gov.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986542)

The difference is obvious.

The referendum asked a basic question; the government stated that parliament would enact the outcome.

There is no reason to revisit the fundamental outcome of the referendum just because parliament has yet to make good on its end of the process.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35986557)

What's interesting about last night, that even with the DUP/Erg backing her on one of the votes, she still.lost. Even if they change their mind on another meaningless vote, it may not be enough.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35986538)

Ah yes it was a close vote lets have a 2nd vote next week 5 of them might have died in that time and we might have some more leave MP's on our side.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35986566)

I'm even more confused.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35986570)

Looks like we will be participating in the EU elections after all.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35986575)

A two year extension?

oh well, at least we will be able to save money on a new Lexus or BMW, eat and drink expensive foods & wine, save £2-36 on our next foreign holiday, and the farmers can carry on being paid to sit on their arse.

How much a year will we be paying into the EU for that little 'gift'?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986573)

They'll be happy when they get 73 versions of Nigel Farage.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35986575)

A two year extension?

oh well, at least we will be able to save money on a new Lexus or BMW, eat and drink expensive foods & wine, save £2-36 on our next foreign holiday, and the farmers can carry on being paid to sit on their arse.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35986607)

Next steps...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47571614

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35986616)

So we now have two options, a short delay or a long delay . . .

Any idea of what will happen 29th of march if the EU refuse an extension?

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35986616)

So we now have two options, a short delay or a long delay . . .

Any idea of what will happen 29th of march if the EU refuse an extension?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986619)

No delay :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35986621)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986623)

It only takes 1 of the EU 27 to say no and it's no delay.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986623)

It only takes 1 of the EU 27 to say no and it's no delay.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986623)

It only takes 1 of the EU 27 to say no and it's no delay.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35986626)

Wouldn't that be 'foreigners' interfering with our Parliamentary processes?

Thought you were against that 'sort of thing'?

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2019/03/12.jpg

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35986626)

Wouldn't that be 'foreigners' interfering with our Parliamentary processes?

Thought you were against that 'sort of thing'?

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2019/03/12.jpg

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35986621)

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35986630)

"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."


did he add. . . "because we could really do with their money for a couple of years until we're sorted" :D

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986638)

Labour sitting out a 2nd referendum vote at the request of the 'People's Vote' campaign.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986641)

They only represent the people that lost in 2016.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35986619)

No delay :D

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35986649)

You mean the road has finally run out for May to kick the can down?

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35986645)

:
And Bravo, they have just voted against any extension.... 85 v 334, a majority of 249. Massive Labour no show.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35986654)

Brexit delayed

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:26 ----------



No that was for a second referendum and Labour abstained.

The vote for delay has just passed.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35986656)

Brexit isn't delayed yet?

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35986656)

Brexit isn't delayed yet?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35986658)

I suspect it won't be, May's deal will get through so long as the speaker allows it to be done for a 3rd time.