402 seems like reasonable number to start with, if for no other reason than to emphasize the endless groundhog nature of these daily charades.
The Guardian Live Blog reports MPs Start Debate on Indicative Votes as May Hints She Might Reject What Commons Chooses.
The key point is these indicative votes are not legally binding. May has already stated she might reject them. This is just like allegedly taking no-deal off the table in theory but not practice.
These clips are roughly in time order. I find many of them amusing. They are all meaningless.
The bottom line is the UK parliament succeeded in a vote to wrest control of the Brexit process from May. But it’s not really binding.
Another Day, Another Resignation Threat
At various stages in the Brexit process there have been reports about pro-European ministers threatening to resign en masse if they don’t get some concession from the government. Those threats have always been withdrawn – normally (but not always) after Number 10 shifted a bit towards what the pro-Europeans wanted. According to ITV’s Robert Peston, something similar seems to be happening again.
Meaningless Circles
More He Said, She Said Silliness
A government source has denied Jeremy Corbyn’s claim that Theresa May suggested splitting the vote on the withdrawal agreement from the vote on the political declaration when they met at lunchtime earlier. The source said it was simply being explained to Labour side that the EU summit conclusions published last week – which could see article 50 extended to May 22 – referred only to the withdrawal agreement. “It was a clarification that came up in the course of a wider conversation,” the source said. The source said that in order to satisfy the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, the Commons “meaningful vote” had to cover both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.
Questions and Fears Over Meaningless Indicative Votes
MP Owen Smith says he made the case for a second referendum when he challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership unsuccessfully in 2016. Speaking in favour of the Lewin amendment, he says he is worried that, if there are indicative votes, the government will try to “bamboozle” MPs by offering them a whole smorgasbord of options, including a second referendum. But that would be “tricksy” and “deceitful”, he says, because a second referendum is a process matter, not an eventual outcome. He says he hopes the speaker would not allow this.
Jenny Chapman, the shadow Brexit minister, says different MPs have different views on how indicative votes could be carried out. She says the Labour amendment and the Letwin amendment both avoid being prescriptive on this point.
No One Willing to Accept the Results of the Indicative Votes
Ken Clarke, the pro-European, asks Barclay when the government will schedule its own indicative votes process. He [Barclay] says Labour criticised the government for not committing to definitely accepting the results of the indicative votes process. But Sir Keir Starmer said Labour would not automatically accept the results either.
To Get the Results on the 10 O’clock News
The debate is over. Labour decides not to move its amendment. That means MPs go straight on to the Letwin amendment, which is being voted on now. This means, if the government does get defeated on Letwin, the result will get onto the 10 o’clock news.
Resignations
Business minister Richard Harrington resigned to back the Letwin amendment.
Letwin Results
May suffers fresh Brexit defeat as MPs opt to take control of indicative votes process by majority of 27
MPs has backed the Letwin amendment by 329 votes to 302 – a majority of 27. That is a much bigger margin of victory than many people were expecting.
Three ministers resigned to back Letwin amendment: Richard Harrington, the Foreign Office minister, Alistair Burt, Minister of State for the Middle East, and the health minister Steve Brine.
Dame Margaret Beckett’s Amendment
Beckett’s Amendment would allegedly force May to recall Parliament from Easter recess to request a further extension to Brexit if there is no agreed deal seven days before the new April 11 cutoff date.
This pertains to the Easter Recess Schedule of April 4 through April 23.
The Beckett Amendment went down in flames 314-311.
Real Cutoff Date
The real decision cutoff date is up to Theresa May. If she desires, it’s April 4, not April 11.
Bucking the Whips
Eight Labour MPs did not vote for Letvin. 30 Tories did vote for it.
There is no logic to backing Letwin and not Beckett. But this all appears meaningless anyway.
Hooray! This will make the 10 o’clock news.
Bottom Line
Here’s the bottom line that few seem to realize.
MPs can instruct the Prime Minister to do something but they cannot force the PM to do it. The EU deals with heads of states, not MPs.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
I listened to the Big Lie that remainers keep telling on Radio 5 today. That lie is that Brexit will be economically disastrous. They say that the Government estimates the UK GDP will fall from 6 – 9%.
This figure sounds terrible, and must scare a lot of people. But of course things are not what they seem.
First of all they are dealing with GDP, not GDP per capita. That latter figure is the important one. Brexit was all about decreasing immigration, and of course that means that GDP will be lower than it otherwise was. But GDP capita wont be affected. In fact immigration brings more and more marginal gains to GDP, so we wont lose much here.
Secondly, it is a government prediction. They lied about the economic disaster that would ensue if we voted for Brexit. The proof is that today the UK economy is doing pretty well since the vote. Why on earth do we trust the government when the people in it have a clear remainer agenda?
Thirdly economic models are based on assumptions. As no one has seen an economy leave the EU before, there is no experience on how to model that. So what do they do? They simply assume an economic hit to the economy, and hey presto it is in the eyes of the economic model a disaster if we leave.
If you look at the real effect of leaving the EU, it is very benign. Firstly there is the deadweight of all that money we pay to the EU. Not paying that is a free boost for the UK, and the multiplier effect will magnify the benefit to the UK.
Secondly, we can either go for reciprocal tariffs or negotiate zero tariffs. The first option gives the UK free money from the EU as we are a net importer from them. Very nice, and it will boost the economy some more.
Most importantly, sans the EU, we will restore the single chain of command through the economy. Our government will no longer be able to blame the EU for not sorting problems out. Over time that economic effect will outweigh the two stated above.
It is a shame that the economic argument for leaving the EU isnt put forward and used to shut down the remainer nonsense that leaving is bad. It isnt.
Sooo…if GDP per capita doesn’t shrink, the reason is that all these foreigners will leave, right. So between 5% and 9% of UK residents will leave. YOu know the other name for residents…they are called consumers. This has got to be the craziest argument I have ever heard.
What do you think will happen to the UK automobile manufacturing business — 80% of UK production is exported to Europe…
A 5% to 9% shrinking of the UK economy (independent of the number of people that live in the UK) is certain to be very painful. At least admit that the pain will be real. To say that “I can see no pain now” is kind of redundant.
“What do you think will happen to the UK automobile manufacturing business — 80% of UK production is exported to Europe…”
Probably very little will change. If we have 5% tariffs on their exports to us, we could subsidise the exports so the export prices change and have money left over in our tax coffers. It simply wont mean that UK exports collapse like some fear. Even if we use the taxes somewhere else, the internal economic activity will pick up the slack. And remember, in the long run, imports and exports will always balance.
“A 5% to 9% shrinking of the UK economy (independent of the number of people that live in the UK) is certain to be very painful.”
No it will be a joy if this happens. Mass immigration has made our country overcrowded and overpriced. It isnt only you that cannot buy property in the UK, our young people have a hugely difficult time being able to afford somewhere for example. Traffic and pollution is much worse, and our green land is being devoured by concrete as we try and cope with the massive expansion of our population.
That said, I dont think our economy is going to shrink anytime soon. I very much suspect that even the government’s prediction is based on our population growing less fast than it would have done otherwise. So it isnt going to be a sudden and catastrophic reduction in our economy, but a slow case of not growing quite so fast over a number of years. The trick is to bring that total difference aggregated over many years forward into one shock number, which many people fall for. The truth is we wont miss the growth one little bit.
One thing that trumps even GDP per capita is the quality of life, and the government wont try and calculate that difference honestly because even their figures would be telling us to get out yesterday.
Plus no one really cares about the UK. As a British citizen who lives elsewhere and has no ties to the UK I watch in wonder how much pain this will be and what kind of vulture opportunity will exist for people like me…maybe now I can afford a nice flat in central london!
The Guardian
Financial Times just seconds ago
“The so-called indicative votes, tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, would not be legally binding on the government but could be the strongest indication yet of what kind of Brexit deal could pass the Commons.”
NOT LEGALLY BINDING
What the hell about this does anyone fail to understand
Boles wants a softer departure
Now you brink up Blunt.
You still refuse to answer the question. Answer it or shut up. How do you force May to do anything?
You cannot answer that you just spew bullshit.
Mish is correct here- May doesn’t have to do what Parliament directs her to do with regards to negotiating with the EU. Mish is also correct that really take control of the negotiations, Parliament will have to remove May as PM. If they aren’t willing to do that, then she is in control of the process.
Answer the damn question or stop!
I am interested in a real question: Can the Tories easily change the rules to hold a second vote on a leadership challenge?
No
You’re right: they can’t. The only way to be rid of this evil woman is to lock her in a room with the proverbial pearl-handled and wait for a bang. Even then she would probably try to shoot the lock off and miss.
“Next you will be citing Rachel Maddow in your support. Dear me.”
Dear me, why the Flying F do you believe rebel Tories?
Answer the real question: How the F does someone force May to go to Brussels if she refuses.
You can’t. Period. End of Story. Why the F do you believe obvious Remainer Bullshit?
Mish
Blunt is a leading Brexiteer who voted against May’s deal. Boles voted for May’s deal but realises what May doesn’t. None of this is remainer bullshit. It is Brexiteer bullshit
“he replied that We would enact legislation to force her to go back to Brussels.”
Lovely. So bleeping what?
What if she doesn’t go?
The only option, as I said is to remove her.
Nick Boles a Tory rebel MP was asked by Emily Maitlis on BBC2 at about 22:50 what would happen if Theresa May ignored the result of the indicative vote, he replied thet We would enact legislation to force her to go back to Brussels.”
You quote the NY Times and the Guardian. Why you should believe these teenage scribblers I don’t know. According to them Hilary was going to trounce President Trump and oh my God you mean that President Trump is not going to be impeached.
Sadly the MSM is about as rubbish as it gets in both our countries. Next you will be citing Rachel Maddow in your support. Dear me.
From the New York Times
“Speaking before lawmakers passed the amendment, Mrs. May said she could not commit to honoring the outcome of any of these nonbinding parliamentary votes, particularly if they contradicted the pro-Brexit stance in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2017 general election.”
That’s it.
No one can force May to honor those votes. And if she doesn’t, the EU will not be negotiating with the British Parliament.
Period!
If I were Theresa I would tell the MPs: You can have it, as long as we leave. Good luck!
Anyone from the UK please comment on my idea:
The Tories change the rules in which they can oust May say from once in 12 months to once in a calendar year. Then they dump her.
This would likely put a pro-Brexit MP in charge of things – but it also risks an election
On the Guardian right now:
“The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea – staying in a customs union with the EU.”
I agree 100%. Nothing can Force May
I do have a way forward that I believe is bulletproof. If those disagreeing with me are from the UK and understand the rules, please email me.
This is what I have in mind. The Tories change the rules in which they can oust May say from once in 12 months to once in a calendar year. Then they dump her.
Yesterday a Tory MP was particularly brutal to Mrs May. He said that her conduct was more shameful than the British surrender of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942. 250,000 British and Commonwealth troops surrendered to a Japanese Force of 70,000.
( Crispin Blunt, former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee)
When your own side are telling you this you are in a wretched state.
Mrs May hasn’t got a year. Number her Premiership in days.
Let me put this a bit differently.
Eurointelligence agrees with me. So I guess we agree to disagree.
Don’t rely on Eurointelligence-partial and usually have holes in their assessments like a Dutch cheese. Consult Vernon Bogdanor the UK’s foremost expert on Constitutional affairs at University College London
avidremainer is correct.
It’s all orchestrated. The outcome is known, just needs to be made to look like there was a struggle before the conclusion.
Every single Prime Minister since Thatcher doesn’t want to see Brexit, neither does the Civil Service. They won’t let the people get in the way.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron have all let it be known. May was on the staying in side too but wanted to be a PM so has gone along but gradually dumped all her hard Brexiteers on the way to where we are. A slow manipulation.
They will ask for a longer extension that the EU has said would only be granted if there was a good reason. 2nd referendum will be offered as the reason in order to get the extension. The need for a longer extension, and it’s need to have a good reason in order to be granted, will be used as excuse for a new vote.
Etc etc.
Letwin is well connected.
Not at all a bad chap, a thinker, but wet.
“You couldn’t be more wrong.”
No, you are wrong.
Precisely how can Parliament force May to do something? Yes, they can remove her, but that is it.
When have heads of foreign states or foreign processes (the EU) ever taken orders from Parliament not the PM or Chancellor, or Congress not the President?
How about never? But you can prove me wrong.
If Parliament passes a law that instructs Mrs May to go back the EU and negotiate, for the sake of the argument, a customs union and membership of the single market, she either obeys or resigns. As to your second point, 1642-1660, 1688-1689 and I don’t need to remind you of your own war of independence.
The UK has never had a written constitution. Our ” constitution” is what Parliament says it is from day to day. What happened today is exactly parallel to what happened in the dates I quoted. The Executive ( Prime Minister or Monarch ) acts unreasonably and Parliament tells them to go to hell.
This is a huge moment in our history.
1. Parliament cannot ‘pass a Law’: it passes a Bill but without Royal Assent that is meaningless. Mrs May controls that, and whilest the power to refuse assent has not been used since 1708 it is very much alive and kicking and no one can challenge that.
2. Our Constitution might not be ‘written’ but that does not mean vast amounts of it are not written down. Some is Law, ancient Law, some custom.
Members of Parliament are not behaving properly. They are seeking to try and subvert the proper working of the Constitution. The negotiation of Treaties is a Crown Prerogative, and it is only now that Parliament has declined to approve Mrs May’s Treaty. This is constitutionally correct. By rejecting it then the only option is to Leave without a withdrawal agreement which is the Law that Parliament has already passed. That is what should happen this Friday.
Mrs May has behaved disgracefully by bringing her squalid ‘deal’ to the house twice and now the stupid c** wants to do so for a third time. She really is thick. Having lost by over 300 votes and then 140+ votes if she had any honour whatsoever she would have resigned.
Sorry to pick you up on a minor point but our head of state is Elizabeth II not May.
Mish
You couldn’t be more wrong. If your Prime Minister acts like Charles I or his son James II or George III then the lesson has to be taught all over again. Parliament is sovereign or in your case the American people are sovereign.
All these Tory ministers are fools when they say it is only a motion of the House it is not binding. They had better obey or Parliament will introduce laws to make them obey. You witnessed a very British coup and were absolutely unaware what was happening.
You say ‘Parliament is sovereign’, but as King Charles I observed Parliament is not just the Commons, it is the ‘Crown in Parliament’, that is to say the ‘Crown, Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled’. And you seem not to understand the Constitution.
The Government is the Queen’s Government and for all its arrogance the Commons cannot instruct the Crown to do anything – that is quite improper. Nor are you correct when you say ‘They had better obey or Parliament will introduce laws to make them obey.’ Parliament might introduce a Bill, but no Bill can become Law without Royal Assent. Whilst this power has not be exercised since 1708 when Queen Anne refused to Assent the Scottish Militia Bill, it is nevertheless Constitutionally active. Were it used there is not a damn thing the Commons could do about it. Also if the matters the Commons wishes to debate touch on the Prerogative this requires ‘Royal Consent’ and this is not infrequently withheld, even in this reign. If Mrs May had any balls at all she would use these powers to full advantage. But she is a Remainiac and hopeless, so don’t hold your breath. It is this wicked and evil woman who would see or Constitution trashed by people like you actually and for what ? The f****** EU.
Charles I got his head cut off. Charles II was a traitor and his brother James II was run out of the country.
I added this important conclusion to my post to explain why it isn’t binding:
MPs can instruct the Prime Minister to do something but they cannot force the PM to do it. The EU deals with heads of states, not MPs.
Technically the EU deals with heads of government, which is Mrs. May for the UK. The Queen is head of state.
mpower, they cannot say that directly. They don’t want to accept the blame. France may very well feel and act that way. Germany won’t
Waiting for the inevitable twist when Brussels changes its’ mind and tells May/UK, “…um, upon further reflection, we’d rather not have you in… Sorry!”.