Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but what happens if the parliament doesn't vote? Automatically a no-deal Brexit?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but what happens if the parliament doesn't vote? Automatically a no-deal Brexit?
Is that you Theresa?
It would be if they didn't vote at all but i think they're going to try and avoid a loss or amendments and instead let the alternatives be put forward in their own right so we'd have a vote on them instead.
I think parliamentary procedure would usually enforce the vote on Mays deal and the speaker has previously said as such but I'm sure the government will find some contemptuous way round it
yes... and no
If there is not a vote by 21st Jan then parliament basically gets a bigger say in what happens and they could potentially bring forward a binding motion to prevent no deal... the issue is that legally the default position is to no deal so to enforce their binding motion they would have to extend or abolish A50 - or get a deal approved
Basically its a big bloody mess and nobody is sure what happens
i suspect early in the new year they put forward some non-binding motions to see what kind of deal might get through the commons hoping to find a majority for something - I dont think they will and then I dunno its too late to do a referendum without extending A50 which the Eu may not accept anyway - and I dont think she would withdraw A50 so i guess default position of no deal (which parliment may have tried to block)
Its over used but genuinely probably a constitutional crisis
Thanks guys. As I see it, the EU already stated multiple times that it's this deal or no deal, but I guess it's in the best interest of both to at least get some kind of deal. They are both playing hard ball at the moment.
I hear talk of amendments, but amendments to what?
As far as I am concerned there is only a choice between No deal, cancel Brexit and the deal on the table.
That's why I mentioned NI, at this moment May is determined for the Uk to leave the EU so she'll go through No Deal if she has to and try to separate NI from the rest of the UK. After all she said she would never do that so it's pretty much odds on she will.
Overall it's a constitutional crisis. I'm sure someone said there was a benefit to Brexit.
The EU are not playing though.
That would probably be the quickest and easiest way for her to resolve all this now.
Subject to ratification by the speaker for whatever they want but it seemed clear prior to May pulling the vote that blocking no deal, asking for an extension and referendum were going to be put to vote. I still expect them to be tabled in any indicative motions
We're talking about amendments to approach rather than to the deal. The deal is the deal without new red lines and that would require extension and probably a GE
Right, but a veto means just that. We have to waive the veto in order to lose the rebate. If all EU countries bar the UK wanted to end the rebate they still couldn't do so without our acquiescence.
Kuensberg must be writing the BBC live blog today, they're reporting all Mays 'zingers' and missing out key statements that portray May badly
debate to continue week commencing 7th
vote week commencing 14th
so basically she is looking to run it right up to the 21st deadline
vote week commencing 14th
so basically she is looking to run it right up to the 21st deadline
I was being jestful but my point stands, i always have both BBC and Guardian blogs open to follow these as i want quotes not biased interpretation so with both hopefully covered. The BBC are consistently omitting or backfilling items whilst missing key exchanges or quotes out.
It's not on when so many get their news primarily from the BBC
to be fair the bbc is somewhere between the mail and the guardian (both being somewhat on the right / left)... if the BBC coverage was comparable to either the mail or the guardian there would be something wrong
John Redwood, the Tory Brexiter, asks May to confirm there would be no tariffs on manufacturing components in the event of a no deal Brexit. That would boost manufacturing, he says.
May says the government is looking at this issue.
This is criminally stupid and negligent.
More moronics from another Brexiter:
Sir Edward Leigh, a Tory Brexiter, says he could be persuaded to vote for the deal if there were a legally binding protocol saying, that if the backstop ceased to be temporary, it would no longer be binding.
May welcomes Leigh’s comment. She says she wants to ensure the backstop never gets used.
May says the government is looking at this issue.
This is criminally stupid and negligent.
More moronics from another Brexiter:
Sir Edward Leigh, a Tory Brexiter, says he could be persuaded to vote for the deal if there were a legally binding protocol saying, that if the backstop ceased to be temporary, it would no longer be binding.
May welcomes Leigh’s comment. She says she wants to ensure the backstop never gets used.
Last edited:
PMQs is a waste of time.
I just checked Leigh’s Wiki page and he is a barrister by profession....
Just going round in circles.
Mogg must know she can't guarantee no tarriffs on components and how the hell will it 'boost manufacturing'? I guess it sounds better than 'feck it over slightly less'.
That Leigh sentence makes my head hurt.
Corbyn's tabled a vote of no confidence.
It's a censure motion, about the PM rather than the government. I.e., doesn't lead to a GE.
The fact MPs and the house want and are willing to cut short the christmas recess but the government refuses is embarrassing.
I can't figure anywhere in today's statement where May clarifies what she achieved from speaking to the EU or what she's planning to get.
I can't figure anywhere in today's statement where May clarifies what she achieved from speaking to the EU or what she's planning to get.
Probably doomed to fail but still the right option to push for it
Damned if you do damned if you don't and at least it keeps the pressure on and the naritive that she's screwed
Presumably that's the follow up motion when this one fails
Government don't have to schedule time for this one, they do have to for an actual confidence vote.
Yes but if they don't schedule time surely they have to follow up with an actual confidence vote... Especially based on the tweet from the whips which say not to debate is to admit she's lost the confidence of the house...
Clearly it's a trap as lots of the erg would vote against her but almost certainly not against the government... And it's such an obvious trip there is no way they allow the vote and walk into it.
As such labour really have to call a confidence vote or look like a pointless opposition
Classy bunch.
So unless I'm reading it wrongly, the motion won't actually unseat the government but just allows Labour to pretend they're being proactive?
That's what it sounds like to me, the mouse poking its nose out and then scampering back down the hole.
I think it's a prelude to a full confidence motion
It gives the cover that they tried other options and are not playing party politics
They know the government probably won't make time for the debate
But she had to bring the agreement back before the 21st anyway which she is doing just beforehand and then when she gave a date he brings the motion later which is meaningless. Pfff.
May can't believe her luck she has Corbyn on the other side of the Commons.
What's happening?
Corbyn tabled a Vote of No Confidence. However, this isn’t the VoNC we were hoping for. That would be a VoNC in the government, this is a VoNC in the PM herself, and is thus non-binding and does not lead to any direct consequences.
However, the past precedence has been that a PM resigns if they lose a VoNC in themselves. As for when this would take place, well, the Government could simply not allow it to take place at all, which would look terrible, but losing it would look even more terrible, so who really knows?
Corbyn has put forward a vote of no confidence in May. Crucially, it's in May not the government so doesn't trigger the 14 day clock set out in the Fixed Terms Parliment Act, meaning May can lose with zero actual consequences other than embarrassment. Reckon if the vote goes ahead then they will probably just abstain to prevent it from even having any symbolism.
BREAKINGSpeaker grants emergency debate on EU Council
Emergency Debate request
House of Commons
Parliament
HoCCopyright: HoC
Speaker John Bercow says that he is satisfied that this is enough for an emergency debate.
He says he will advise MPs later, towards the end of the day in the Commons, for how long the debate should take and when it will take place.
He says there is "good reason" why he can't provide the time and length immediately, as he normally would.
Emergency Debate request
House of Commons
Parliament
HoCCopyright: HoC
Speaker John Bercow says that he is satisfied that this is enough for an emergency debate.
He says he will advise MPs later, towards the end of the day in the Commons, for how long the debate should take and when it will take place.
He says there is "good reason" why he can't provide the time and length immediately, as he normally would.
Interesting to see what the EU will do when Brits start coming to the continent to ask for political asylum. Can happen any time soon. 