Brexit

[Mr. Minnow]

From what I read, this is the case. 

It's partly the case. Bercow's ruling today means May can't just resubmit the motion that was rejected last week. In order for a third vote on her deal to happen there has to be a change of substance (rather than just a change of wording). The question is, what does Bercow deem to be a sufficiently substantial change?

Reports this evening suggest that May will try to agree a short extension with the EU, and then go for a third vote with the new extension. The argument would be that the revised exit date constitutes a substantial change compared to the second vote. One of the commentators on tonight's Newsnight seemed to think this would probably work as he thought it would be "very hard" to deny that a new exit date would constitute a substantial change. I'm not so sure about that. It's obviously possible that Bercow might agree, but I don't think it's such a foregone conclusion. The reason the second vote did not fall foul of the Erskine May convention on repeated votes is that it included new, legally binding documents agreed with the EU which impinged directly on one of the key components of the withdrawal agreement, i.e. the Irish backstop. Those new documents didn't have the impact May hoped, but still, they related directly to one of the most controversial parts of the agreement.

But that would not be the case if she tries to get a third vote by simply resubmitting the same motion with a new exit date tagged on. That would do nothing to change the terms under which we leave: it would offer no new interpretations, clarifications or reassurances of the agreement itself. So Bercow might take the view that an extension is not a sufficiently substantial change to justify a new vote. As he's been willing to stick his neck out with today's ruling, I'd be a bit surprised if he allowed a new vote which was based on an extension and nothing else, but it could go either way. Personally I hope he sticks to his guns: trying to browbeat MPs into passing something which they've already rejected twice by huge margins seems to me a pretty blatant abuse of power. Naturally, some Tories are outraged that Bercow is stopping them from doing this (at least for now), so we're now being spun the rather novel claim that we're in a constitutional crisis because the Speaker is insisting that the procedures of Parliament can't just be ignored.

As for the Commons wresting control from May, sadly a vote on that was lost last week by just two votes. It could still happen, but only if May can't get a third vote on her deal at all (which is obviously more likely if Bercow decides that tagging on a new exit date to the current deal doesn't constitute a substantial change), or she gets another vote but loses again.

From the point of view of a spectator, anything but no-deal Brexit will be something of an anticlimax. 

From an outsider's perspective Brexit must look like a fusion of Yes Minister with Monty Python. Unfortunately for those of us living here it's not so great. The country is now so polarised that whichever way Brexit goes from here, about half the country is going to be bloody angry. We just don't know which half yet.   

[JBS]

From an outsider's perspective Brexit must look like a fusion of Yes Minister with Monty Python. Unfortunately for those of us living here it's not so great. The country is now so polarised that whichever way Brexit goes from here, about half the country is going to be bloody angry. We just don't know which half yet.

Well, if Brexit does not happen, the Leavers will be angry because it did not happen.
If Brexit does go through, the Remainers will be angry because it did happen, and the Leavers will be angry because Utopia did not result.

Since the Leavers will be angry either way, best thing would be for Brexit not to happen. That way only half of England will be angry.

This of course is in addition to all the other reasons not to Brexit.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

From an outsider's perspective Brexit must look like a fusion of Yes Minister with Monty Python. Unfortunately for those of us living here it's not so great. The country is now so polarised that whichever way Brexit goes from here, about half the country is going to be bloody angry. We just don't know which half yet.

As a person living in Trump's America I can sympathise.

Well, if Brexit does not happen, the Leavers will be angry because it did not happen.
If Brexit does go through, the Remainers will be angry because it did happen, and the Leavers will be angry because Utopia did not result.

Since the Leavers will be angry either way, best thing would be for Brexit not to happen. That way only half of England will be angry.

This of course is in addition to all the other reasons not to Brexit.

Maybe no deal Brexit is best. Perhaps it will be clear what an idiotic idea it was and there will be another referendum, with a Join campaign and  and Remain (out) campaign. Only half kidding.

[Que]

[Que]

So, the EU made sure that all options (May deal - no deal - soft Brexit - no Brexit) are still available to the UK parliament and provided some time to think about it... The EU wanted to make sure that whatever happens, it is the own choice and responsibility of the UK. And I think they succeeded in that.

The hope in avoiding a no deal hard Brexit has however faded amongst EU leaders:

'Hope dies last': fatalism among EU leaders as no-deal Brexit looks likely

Will Westminster rise to the occasion? 

I have my doubts.... It seems that due to the referendum result most MP's are completely paralysed by the fear of going against the wishes of the electorate. I would be curious to see if they have the guts to opt for a long delay in order to work out a different, softer Brexit. And a referendum on May's deal doesn't make much sense now....

Q

[Que]

Afterthought:

"Sources added that the EU would not rule out a second no-deal extension between 12 April and 22 May, should the British government seek to crash out but wish to have a buffer to prepare. "This is a managed no deal", said one diplomat."

If so, who is going to stop it? Jeremy Corbyn? 

Q

[Mr. Minnow]

Mad as a box of frogs. This man is one of the favourites to succeed May to the highest office in the land - no wonder we're a laughing stock.

If his analogy is to be followed it means that once we're out of the EU we'll be spending years wandering in the wilderness. Although on the upside, we'll definitely, definitely reach the sunlit uplands Promised Land eventually. On the downside, by the time we get there the Promised Land will already have a trade deal with the EU and will offer us a deal on far inferior terms.

[André]

Moses died without entering the Promised Land.

[Mr. Minnow]

Moses died without entering the Promised Land.

[Brexiter logic] Only because he didn't believe hard enough in Brexit Exodus. [/Brexiter logic]

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

This evening headline: "Teresa May Loses Control of Brexit." 

[Mr. Minnow]

This has been pretty clear for a long time, but it's still shameful:



'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories' narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is "committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party". And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: "The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that."

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning's cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: "In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood."'

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Will this lead to a unified Ireland and/or Scottish independence?

[Que]

Meanwhile...

European Commission - Press release
Brexit preparedness: EU completes preparations for possible "no-deal" scenario on 12 April

"As it is increasingly likely that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal on 12 April, the European Commission has today completed its "no-deal" preparations."

Q

[Pat B]

"As it is increasingly likely that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal on 12 April, the European Commission has today completed its "no-deal" preparations."

From my (admittedly distant) perspective, that has looked like the most likely scenario since Parliament rejected May's proposal the second time. Mostly because it's the default if Parliament don't agree to anything else.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

May sweetens the deal by promising to resign?

Parliament will vote on Brexit alternatives? What's the point? They spent years negotiating exit terms with the EU. What purpose is there is voting on a hypothetical plan the the EU has not and will not agree to?

It seems there are exactly three options. Cancel Brexit, which the EU will probably go along with, May's plan, or no-deal Brexit. Why can't the Parliament see that?

Apropos of nothing, I heard a podcast with Preet Bharara (the former Federal Prosecutor fired by Trump) in which he interviewed a British journalist name Ed Luce. When Luce was asked whether U.S. or U.K. politics is more dysfunctional he said U.K., because in the U.S. you have Trump unhinged but most of the other political establishment is trying to hold to democratic norms, but in the British Parliament basically everyone has gone Trump.

[vandermolen]

Yes, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Pat B]

Boris Johnson is now suddenly in favor of May's deal. Presumably this has absolutely nothing to do with the promise that if it passes, her job will become available.

[Que]

Hard Brexiteers have suddenly realised that if they don't support May's deal, there might be either a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all....

Brilliant!  But probably too late by now, unless anything else will fail.

BTW, Corbyn has acted totally predictable.... Meaning that he didn't act at all, awaiting the whole thing to crash on the watch of the Tories and get his general elections. I think it's quite probable that he gets his general elections, but he is not going to win them (as leader of Labour).

Q

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Prime Minister's major legislative project is resoundingly rejected by her own party, twice, and she remains. But if her major legislative project passes, she will quit. This makes sense?

[Que]

As time on "Brexit Day" ticks away....

EU moves into crisis mode as it plans for no-deal Brexit

Today there will be a last vote on the exit agreement, without the joint declaration on a future relationship.

Interestingly, even if the exit agreement is rejected by Westminister, the EU is set to stick to its core elements as preconditions to any future agreement: 1) financial settlement (exit bill); 2) open Irish border; 3) preservation of citizen's rights.

In other words: there is no way around it.....

Also, I'd like to point out that payment of the exit bill and the preservation of an open Irish border are obligations under international law. This legitimises the EU to take (unilateral) actions to recuperate the money that is still owed by the UK and  opens the option to the Republic of Ireland to start proceedings at the International Court of Justice against the UK for violation of the Good Friday Agreement and a breach of good faith.

Q