The Noes Have It

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ayes: 242
Noes: 391

[Zacs-Master]

There’s one chink in the armour of the legislation behind A50 in that the wording of the act allows for a minister to change the definition of "exit day". This could be done relatively quickly via a statutory instrument such as a piece of secondary legislation. This would avoid an entirely new act of Parliament having to be debated. Said minister would have to propose it and MPs would have to approve it in the usual way but the time period for this to happen is becoming critical.

[sanmac]

Perhaps we need some Guy to put an end to this tissue of twaddle.

[jim360]

Yes, if only I'd thought to mention that earlier...

But the definition of exit day in the 2018 Act makes not a ha'pennorth of difference if the EU doesn't also agree.

[Zacs-Master]

Apologies, Jim. I joined the debate late and your tendency towards the verbose makes me speed read your answers. To my discredit, it would seem.

[jim360]

I went on a bit, I'll admit, but that was for two reasons: firstly, I wanted to be precise, and cover everything; and secondly, it may have been showing off just a teeny bit :P

[Peter Pedant]

I think it is time for Amys famous hit
they re trying to make me Brexit but I say - - -

[Zacs-Master]

Mmm. Indeed.

A good night to all.

[Peter Pedant]

// I went on a bit, I'll admit,//
no Jim go on as much as you like
I read everything you write with Great Concentration

[New Judge]

To step away from the technicalities for a moment, I find it highly amusing that the papers were full of gushing headlines, showing Mr Juncker and Co embracing Mrs May, headlines like "Sealed with a kiss" and similar drivel. I find it amusing because it gave the impression that the "deal" was so radically amended that it would be a shoe-in for the Commons to nod it through when in fact it contained no amendments whatsoever and the codicil (or whatever it was called) was not worth the paper it was printed on.

The EU has spent decades fooling most of the people nearly all of the time with this unabashed chicanery. A small rearrangement of words here, a heading underlined twice in bold type there "to emphasise our commitment". Thankfully the Commons have rumbled this and most of them (God knows what made the 40-odd change their minds) realised they had the same document containing the same dire agreement with all its shortcomings shoved under their noses for the second time in a few weeks.

The EU (and Mrs May, it seems) appear to have no idea of the view the Commons took of their "deal". The EU I can understand - they always try to pull the wool over the eyes of anybody who might upset their applecart (filled with French Golden Delicious, natch). But Mrs May? What can you say?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//yes jim as I have been saying, no deal is now much more likely//

Wish I shared your optimism, Togo. I heard Andrew Neil mention the "statutory instrument" (referred to in ZM's post) as a means of fast-tracking the legislation needed to "delay" (=scupper) Brexit.

You shouldn't underestimate the tenacity and guile of the kill-Brexit bloc.

[retrocop]

NJ
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

[New Judge]

I forgot to add, before I turn in, that should we remain in the EU, our Gin & Tonic is safe. The Commission has spent four years (twice the time they have spent on Brexit) deciding whether soft drinks manufacturers can call the mixer "tonic water". This is because they took the view that it was not a "tonic" (i.e. contained no medicinal properties). Anyway, not to worry, we've been graciously granted permission to carry on and we should all be eternally grateful to the Commissioners for their vigilance but also their understanding. I must say I didn't fancy ordering a Bombay Sapphire and carbonated water with a hint of quinine. It doesn't have the same ring to it.

Next up will no doubt be "Cream" Soda. As far as I know it contains no cream and a thorough investigation will no doubt be necessary to protect European consumers from such blatantly misleading labelling. We should know by about 2023 or thereabouts (when I confidently predict the UK will still be in the EU - if it still exists by then). Matters of such grave importance must be considered carefully, you know.

[jim360]

The problem with NJ's otherwise excellent analysis is that the EU has, in fact, always understood that the Commons would struggle to support its deal, even before the Commons did. But, then again, what business is it of theirs? The EU set out its negotiating position early -- which essentially amounted to something along the lines of "if you want to leave then leave, and if you don't want to leave then you kind of have to stay" -- and has stuck pretty doggedly to it ever since. The logical consequences of that decision, coupled with Theresa May's and the ERG/DUP's "red lines", have essentially meant that the UK must choose between a rotten deal (but, it has to be said, one that does lead, ultimately, to Brexit!) that destroys sovereignty for a decade or so, and a "no-deal" that wrecks the UK's economy -- and never mind that even with a no-deal exit the UK still would have a lot of work to do to decide its future relationship with both the EU and the world.

No doubt other versions of the deal could have existed. But they weren't explored or taken seriously from our end. Not without reasons, but the point is still that the Withdrawal Agreement reached has been shaped by the UK's demands, rather than the EU's. In the case of the Backstop, this is literally true: it was a UK-based initiative, proposed when it was suddenly understood that the Irish Border presented a problem and a contradiction* between separate Customs arrangements (a UK red line) and the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.

But anyway. The EU made its best offer given the UK's negotiating position, and is only surprised in as much as they can't quite understand why some MPs don't see that it's the UK's own negotiating position that has led to this, rather than EU intransigence. No wool has been pulled over anybody's eyes, in that sense. When Cox published his legal view of the effect of Monday evening's developments, I don't think anyone in the EU was surprised or even disappointed to see that he still felt the UK could be stuck indefinitely in the Backstop. That is, after all, the point: it is there to act as a last resort to stop the Irish Border from ever reverting to a closed one, if nothing else can be found. It stands to reason that the Backstop would have no use whatever if it were forced to end by a given date.

Meanwhile, it seems that the Brexiteers may soon discover that their dreams of No Deal aren't dead because the EU decides that it's not worth wasting any more time waiting for the UK to decide what it wants. Now there would be an irony: the EU taking away the UK's sovereignty for one last time to deliver exactly what Hard Brexiteers have clamoured for...


*Yes, we've argued this point already, and some will disagree. Can't be bothered going over *why* this is true any more. What matters for this post is that the EU didn't ask for the Backstop; we did.

[Gromit]

In 2016 at the time of the Referendum, 73% of MPs wanted to Remain in the EU. After the 2017 General Election, that figure increased even more.
So the parliamentary maths was always going to be a problem. To get so many MPs to vote for a deal on leaving (changing their minds) needed a super deal for the UK. Between them Davis, Habb and May (DHM) concocted a deal that satisfied no one. So MPs have now rejected the deal several times, as they will again tonight.
Despite having 3 years to plan our strategy for leaving, DHM never formulated a Plan B. So Plan A gets rejected again and again in Commons votes.

[Gromit]

The Conservative’s Free vote tonight.
It will be interesting to see how the Cabinet votes tonight. The Prime Minister could find herself very isolated. The Chancellor is unlikely to support leaving with no deal. It will be very embarrassing if most of the other Cabinet members agree with him and vote to reject a No Deal exit.
Assuming MPs reject a No Deal brexit, and then vote to extend the deadline for leaving, that leaves May totally defeated by her own Cabinet, her own party, and by Parliament
Surely in such a scenario, the PM should resign?

[Kromovaracun]

Who on earth is Habb?

[dannyk13]

One interesting point from Robert Peston. The vote on no deal will only apply to March 29th, so what happens if an extension is granted and no agreement is reached?

[Gromit]

// Who on earth is Habb? //

Sorry, Raab.

[agchristie]

//Surely in such a scenario, the PM should resign?//

The PM is determined to carry out the majority 'will of the people'.All very laudable except she has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The new Tory anthem should be 'If I could Turn Back Time'....

[jim360]

// The vote on no deal will only apply to March 29th, so what happens if an extension is granted and no agreement is reached? //

I would imagine that the same question will be asked again with respect to the new "exit date", only this time more decisive. Good spot from Peston and others, though.