Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
No it doesn’t.
|
Depending on who wins, and what smaller parties may influence in a confidence and supply arrangement, of course it does.
If the arithmetic allows smaller “2nd referendum“ parties prop up old Jezza and his “jobs first Brexit” on condition he puts it to the vote vs remain then that’s what happens. That’s the sovereign power we want to wrestle from Brussels to Westminster.
Note: that’s not what I think would happen just an example.
In another hypothetical if May treats it as a referendum on her deal and returns 400 MPs then the ERG/DUP would struggle to legitimately block her.
Note: I don’t think that’ll happen either.
---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:35 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
No but it might change the politics of the deal and that's all that we're really talking about here. Parliament can force a vote on May's deal if they want it. Bercow might also lose his nerve if he thinks his ban cannot hold in which case a superficial change would likely be enough of a ladder for him to climb down. The bill becomes a vote for the extension to be short or longer for example.
In the end who knows? None of these are immutable laws of physics.
|
It’s hard to know what Bercow’s precise intent was. If he’s perceiving TM as using the deadline to bully Parliament then the extension is a material change - being asked to vote on her deal in April with and end of June exit day doesn’t have the same effect.
Equally if there’s a reasonable period to a new deadline and it’s obvious that the ERG/DUP would back a deal (plus Labour leavers) he could take the view the protocols aren’t there to deny Parliament from ruling on matters it has come to an opinion on under less onerous circumstances.
As you say, without being a mind reader...