A motion on Brexit for another so-called meaningful vote.
Member for Wallasey asked if it would be proper to bring it back ad infinitem.
Subsequently, members on both side of the Brexit argument about the House being repeatedly asked to prononce on the smae proposition.
Erskine May - a motion which is the same may not be brought forward again during the same session. For the Chair. Dates back to 1604.
Re-asserted by 4 different Speakers. Each time the Speaker ruled that a motion could not be brought back. It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House's time.
So far as the present situation is concerned, summarises events. Vote on "the Deal" due on 11th December; postponed on 10th December. Not caused by the Speaker or the House, but by the Govt. five weeks later, the first MV was held on 15th January. Loat by 230 votes. Subsequently, the second MV was to be hed in February. Brought again, but did not fall foul, because it could be credibly be argued it wa sa different proposition - legal changes the Govt considered binding. Moreover, accompanied by the publication of three new documents.
In procedural terms, proper that it be held. (cont.)
If we do somehow finish up going out with No Deal I can see Bercow being thrown to the wolves by Parliament the very next day in the same way Speaker Martin was (rather unfairly) thrown to the wolves over all those dodgy expenses fiddlers...
"If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition, which is neither the same of substantially the same as the one disposed of by the house, that would be entirely in order. What the government can't do is bring back the same motion. This motion should not be regarded as my last word.. it is simply the test by which I will judge" blah blah
On our friend timmo's "report from a LD insider" (ok) that Tom Brake may stand in the leadership election, fine. I helped in a very small way to get Tom into Parliament in 1997 and he's survived five Conservative attempts to unseat him. He would be a valuable addition to the race and I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
If MV3 (4,5,6 or whatever) is off the table, the options narrow even further.
So will the EU grant May a long extension? One option might be she would have to revoke A50 now and perhaps in 6-12 months re-start the process with a clearer sense of what we want and what the EU will accept which might mean A50 (2) can be completed in less than 24 months. This is the Clarke/Tusk option.
I can't see the EU granting a long extension without something from the UK and I don't know what conditions might be such that May finds them unacceptable. Forcing a second referendum might be seen to be trampling all over Parliamentary sovereignty.
Taking an EU summit to 28/3 seems wholly unnecessary brinkmanship - if we have to leave without a Deal, so be it otherwise let's take our time, reflect and start the process again in a few months with a much clearer idea of what we want.
It has been strongly rumoured that possibly third and even fourth motions will be tabled.
My conclusion: if the Govt. wishes to bring forward a proposition that is different, that would be in order. What it cannot do is submit the same proposition lost by 149 votes. It is meant to indicate the test the Govt.must meet in order for me to vote that another vote can be heard in this session.....
to agree an extension all 27 countries of the EU have to agree to it. Is that a dead cert?
Both Andrew Neil and James Forsyth, both of whom are I suspect sympathetic to Brexit, are adamant that the EU will not want to carry the blame for a no-deal outcome. So good as a dead cert.
And the fact that people, by and large, act on incentives. As the EU wants us to remain in the EU, they are unlikely to seek a course of action that actively removes us from the EU when we are asking (temporarily) to remain in it.
The Speaker is within his rights. It’s a poor decision though so far as the third meaningful vote is concerned. The mood of some on the winning side has noticeably changed.
I like the idea that if you start down a road which you soon realise leads to a dead end, you have a moral duty to go all the way to the end before you're allowed to turn round.
You know what would allow a MV3? A change to the deal. You know what would allow MV3 to be won? A change to the deal.
Are you listening Barnier? Time to change the deal!
No, he’s not listening. Got any bright ideas?
It's isn't down to him surely. Down to our PM. (And I can't see Olly Robbins being remarkably helpful or inventive. Although that's unfair to a loyal civil servant.)
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
I like the idea that if you start down a road which you soon realise leads to a dead end, you have a moral duty to go all the way to the end before you're allowed to turn round.
It's more like the idea that if you start down a road that leads to the edge of a cliff, you have a moral duty to fall to the bottom of the cliff before you're allowed to turn around.
I do not like Bercow and he is a remainer but his explanation of his decision was careful laid out and I cannot really fault his judgement even if I would like to. He is correct
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
To be fair it's not a pointless convention, it's quite sensible. However, it's arguable that it shouldn't apply to the current circumstances where there's a brick-wall deadline approaching and no other course of action has found favour in the House.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
Next move for the Gov't is to adopt the Kyle-Walker Amendment into the substantive, whip against and then have an amendment tabled "subject to no referendum" ? Would that work ?
You would have hoped the government would have been abreast of this convention. But, these days, no level of abject incompetence surprises me.
Bercow adheres to convention, and changes convention, as it suits his purposes.
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
I'd say if anything Bercow was partisanly in favour of the government by allowing MV2 in the first (second?) place.
He himself just explained why MV2 did not fall foul of this rather pointless convention
To be fair it's not a pointless convention, it's quite sensible. However, it's arguable that it shouldn't apply to the current circumstances where there's a brick-wall deadline approaching and no other course of action has found favour in the House.
These are indeed extreme circumstances. As I said below, the House surely need only to vote in favour of setting aside the convention, in order to then consider MV3.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
Bravo.
Superb post.
PB at its best.
Other than being utter bollocks. For a start any government that, under those circumstances, asked the public their opinion would be guilty of a huge dereliction of duty. They would simply reverse the decision.
Of course our politicians know that this is neither such a situation and that they would rightly be utterly discredited and destroyed at the next election. The very fact they haven't simply revoked shows exactly how stupid the analogy is.
She has no choice now, unless she can 'pull' something out with EU to convice Bercow to allow it,.
What does she go to the EU for an extension FOR though ? Another referendum clearly doesn't have the numbers unless the Gov't whips for, and I can't see that happening.
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
She has no choice now, unless she can 'pull' something out with EU to convice Bercow to allow it,.
What does she go to the EU for an extension FOR though ? Another referendum clearly doesn't have the numbers unless the Gov't whips for, and I can't see that happening.
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Could central office enforce passing of the deal to be a promise of all MPs though ?
Anyone who thinks this paves the way for No Deal ... there's not the slightest chance Parliament will allow it.
Forget it.
Okay, let's try some argument. IF there is to be no MV3, the timeline takes May to the EU summit at the end of the week. She will ask for an extension - will the EU grant it? Will such granting be conditional and what conditions will be set?
Alternative options if an extension isn't politically acceptable (perhaps because it would mandate us to hold a second vote for example) come down to just two - revocation by which I mean we abandon the A50 process for now and we commit to re-starting in say 6 months having sorted out within the UK what kind of WA we want and whether such a WA will clear the Commons.
The alternative to revocation is to allow the clock to run down to 29/3 and we leave without a WA
The weakness of the UK Government AND Parliament is now fully exposed - we are contingent on the EU granting an extension and hoping such an extension doesn't come with such conditions as to be politically impossible for said Government.
She has no choice now, unless she can 'pull' something out with EU to convice Bercow to allow it,.
What does she go to the EU for an extension FOR though ? Another referendum clearly doesn't have the numbers unless the Gov't whips for, and I can't see that happening.
She can do it free vote style like with the extension, while Labour whip for it.
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Could central office enforce passing of the deal to be a promise of all MPs though ?
No. Neither main party could present a coherent manifesto on Brexit.
Yes, I think so. But she needs to make clear what the extension is supposed to be for, which is why I think an election is quite likely. The only other thing an extension could be used for is a referendum, but there's no way the party will accept that, and almost certainly not Labour and therefore parliament either.
Deal vs Remain. She isn't going to voluntarily have a GE. Crazy as it sounds (given where we are) there are too many unknowns and Jezza back up on the stump would be in his element.
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
If we are going to be given the opportunity to change our minds surely it makes do so when we would still be able to remain on the advantageous terms and conditions that we currently have.
I know that some hardline leavers want us to lose our current benefits in the hope it makes it less attractive to return. Fair enough but let's not pretend to be putting the national interest first.
If we don't get a final say It would be highly ironic if Brexit then turned out so badly that we voted to rejoin, Euro and all!
Comments
(EDIT: And also MPs who have played silly buggers in the past and are only now thinking of changing)
Well, that's that.
If one wishes to get Brexit through in the future, one must first change the Speaker.
I presume if required they can add into the deal something like free KFC for EU diplomats during the transition period.
Member for Wallasey asked if it would be proper to bring it back ad infinitem.
Subsequently, members on both side of the Brexit argument about the House being repeatedly asked to prononce on the smae proposition.
Erskine May - a motion which is the same may not be brought forward again during the same session. For the Chair. Dates back to 1604.
Re-asserted by 4 different Speakers. Each time the Speaker ruled that a motion could not be brought back. It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House's time.
So far as the present situation is concerned, summarises events. Vote on "the Deal" due on 11th December; postponed on 10th December. Not caused by the Speaker or the House, but by the Govt. five weeks later, the first MV was held on 15th January. Loat by 230 votes. Subsequently, the second MV was to be hed in February. Brought again, but did not fall foul, because it could be credibly be argued it wa sa different proposition - legal changes the Govt considered binding. Moreover, accompanied by the publication of three new documents.
In procedural terms, proper that it be held. (cont.)
And this rule is not essential for the smooth running of Parliament - people are just using it to create even more chaos than anyone can stand.
UH OH.
On our friend timmo's "report from a LD insider" (ok) that Tom Brake may stand in the leadership election, fine. I helped in a very small way to get Tom into Parliament in 1997 and he's survived five Conservative attempts to unseat him. He would be a valuable addition to the race and I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
If MV3 (4,5,6 or whatever) is off the table, the options narrow even further.
So will the EU grant May a long extension? One option might be she would have to revoke A50 now and perhaps in 6-12 months re-start the process with a clearer sense of what we want and what the EU will accept which might mean A50 (2) can be completed in less than 24 months. This is the Clarke/Tusk option.
I can't see the EU granting a long extension without something from the UK and I don't know what conditions might be such that May finds them unacceptable. Forcing a second referendum might be seen to be trampling all over Parliamentary sovereignty.
Taking an EU summit to 28/3 seems wholly unnecessary brinkmanship - if we have to leave without a Deal, so be it otherwise let's take our time, reflect and start the process again in a few months with a much clearer idea of what we want.
My conclusion: if the Govt. wishes to bring forward a proposition that is different, that would be in order. What it cannot do is submit the same proposition lost by 149 votes. It is meant to indicate the test the Govt.must meet in order for me to vote that another vote can be heard in this session.....
One thing ought to be clear. The Speakership is now a partisan role.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1107668843391078400
Superb post.
PB at its best.
Forget it.
Whats an equivocator to do?
Would that work ?
Of course our politicians know that this is neither such a situation and that they would rightly be utterly discredited and destroyed at the next election. The very fact they haven't simply revoked shows exactly how stupid the analogy is.
LOL basically, i'll do what the f*** i'll want...
Alternative options if an extension isn't politically acceptable (perhaps because it would mandate us to hold a second vote for example) come down to just two - revocation by which I mean we abandon the A50 process for now and we commit to re-starting in say 6 months having sorted out within the UK what kind of WA we want and whether such a WA will clear the Commons.
The alternative to revocation is to allow the clock to run down to 29/3 and we leave without a WA
The weakness of the UK Government AND Parliament is now fully exposed - we are contingent on the EU granting an extension and hoping such an extension doesn't come with such conditions as to be politically impossible for said Government.
F***ing hell Gideon
MV3 must come somehow and it must be side letter-related.
I know that some hardline leavers want us to lose our current benefits in the hope it makes it less attractive to return. Fair enough but let's not pretend to be putting the national interest first.
If we don't get a final say It would be highly ironic if Brexit then turned out so badly that we voted to rejoin, Euro and all!