The reports in this morning’s MSM on yesterday’s session in the House of Posturing Peacocks demonstrate nicely how reports from witnesses of the same event never agree in the particulars. Everybody has seen something different even though they agree that ‘an event’ took place.
The various writers and reporters were clear on one point: a car crash did take place. That was the expected decision of the Speaker John Bercow to reject the clear vote on Johnson’s deal. It felt like High Noon in the Westminster corral, Bercow regarding himself as the sheriff. Reports say he spoke for eight minutes. Friends and colleagues – let me assure you, it felt as if he was speaking for eight hours!
His ‘explanation’ may have been eight minutes long, but it was followed by a debate where he again took at least twice as long to refute the questions and points of order made to him by MPs. His mantra is ‘never use three words where ten will do as well’.
While we were watching Bercow perform, a colleague wrote: “JRM will shortly return with silver handled antique pistols and place them on the dispatch box, then take out a silk glove, and then… “ – well, we had to alleviate the tedium!
The Remain peacocks, not disappointing us in their show of plain ineptitude, nevertheless managed to produce some more stellar proof of that ineptitude. For example, Jo Swinson, LibDem, accused the PM of breaking his word (!) because he’d sent the letter demanded of him in the Surrender Bill! Well, he only ‘obeyed the Law’, as she had demanded … hadn’t she understood that?
Meanwhile, Labour MPs were seeing conspiracies everywhere, perpetrated by the PM who surely must be hiding something! Iain Duncan Smith skewered the demands for a 2nd Referendum asking if they were going to tell voters: “we didn’t trust you last time, now you have to trust us that we will trust you again on a second referendum?” Indeed!
Next came ‘Urgent questions’ – one from Mr Corbyn about why the text of that Bill (it’s now officially the WAIB, the ‘Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill) hadn’t been made available. Steve Barclay, Minister of DExEU, politely pointed out to him that the convention demanded such texts to be made available to MPs on the next working day which happened to be this Monday after that Saturday. Ah well … more time wasted.
Next the Leader of the House uncurled from the bench and gave his business statement. Never has this routine event become so eagerly anticipated, never has it been so entertaining! JRM has a way of killing the opposition with kindness that is unsurpassed. The best example was when he told Bercow that “I, like you, Mr Speaker, like to hear the sound of my own voice and therefore like to have the House sitting …” He really knows how to slip in the stiletto while his victims keep laughing and don’t notice they’re actually dead.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was followed by Michael Gove who explained to the House that the government is now implementing ‘Operation Yellowhammer’ so as to be fully prepared should there be a ‘No Deal’ exit on October 31st, whereupon opposition MPs screamed that this was ‘an artificial date’. They had still not grasped that this date is the Law, not just something dreamed up by the PM.
Winding down, the last wails came from opposition MPs who were aghast that they had 110 pages of that Bill to read overnight for today’s debate. They were like kids complaining to their teacher that reading is too difficult …
Inevitably, Remain MPs were united in howling that the timetable was far too short to scrutinise the Bill. It must have escaped their notice that they’ve been debating versions of if for what felt like three hundred years. It has also escaped their notice that we all know that their faux outrage is simply their trying to veil their true aim – to prevent Brexit altogether.
Unto today’s events then. This is what will be happening today in that House of Posturing Peacocks. It is indeed another crucial day:
“Today there will be two important Brexit votes in the Commons. The first will be the bill’s second reading. Labour is preparing to abstain on this vote, so it should pass easily. Shortly afterwards there will be a vote on what is known as the programme motion. This, in effect, is the parliamentary timetable for the remaining stages of the bill. […] If the programme motion is defeated it means that there is nothing to stop MPs who oppose the bill from talking it out beyond the October 31 deadline.” (link, paywalled)
Reinforcing this point is this paragraph:
“The prime minister has little to no chance of driving the bill through the Commons before the end of the month if MPs vote down the so-called programme motion, which sets out the number of hours for which it will be debated, on which days and when votes will be held. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, tacitly admitted as much when he said: “People who do not vote for the programme motion will not be voting for Brexit on October 31.” (link, paywalled)
The Programme Motion is crucial because this is where the whole thing can become derailed:
“If the Programme Motion falls, MPs will be free to string out the debate on the Bill for weeks potentially delaying the UK’s exit for weeks to a date to be agreed with the EU.” (paywalled link)
If the Programme Motion gets through, the HoC will debate the whole thing tomorrow:
“[…] in what is known as a “committee of the whole House” because of its constitutional significance. During this period MPs will be able to put forward amendments in line by line scrutiny of the Bill.” (paywalled link)
The MSM reporters are speculating on those prospective amendments, but we must keep in mind that the aim of such amendments is to wreck Brexit, not to make Brexit smooth and easy. Here’s what the unsurpassed Sir John Redwood writes in his Diary this morning about such amendments – I prefer quoting him because he knows more about Brexit, amendments and HoC shenanigans than our ever so esteemed MSM ‘correspondents’:
“They may wish to move amendments during committee stage to add a second referendum or a full customs union or single market membership or one of the many other permutations they have argued for over the last long three years since the referendum decision they regret. Anyone of these if carried could be unacceptable to the government, and in some cases could require returning to Brussels for renegotiation were Parliament able and willing to proceed with the legislation despite the government” (link)
That’s it in a nutshell – Sir John Redwood needs just a few sentences were the MSM write whole articles … It is indeed an ‘ambitious timetable’ the Government is putting forward. It feels as if No 10 is tightening the screws on the Rogue Parliament. I can’t help but give way to a secret little snigger because the Remain Harlots have brought this on themselves:
“MPs will sit until 10.30pm today and past midnight tomorrow in the ambitious timetable that would see the implementing legislation passed to the Lords on Friday if the Commons approves it. The House of Lords will then be asked to sit over the weekend before the legislation returns to the Commons on Monday with a view to gaining royal assent the next day. The Commons leader said the schedule was needed to ensure that the deal was in place before October 31, the deadline the EU set for departure after the first Brexit delay in March. […] Jacob Rees-Mogg […] said last night that it was possible that MPs “could sit through the night for three nights” if it is what MPs want to do.” (paywalled link)
Yes: make them work for once, make them sit into the night! The time is running out for the Remain Harlots. Their bloviating, posturing and ‘amending’ so Brexit can be killed off is coming to an end. It’s cards on the table, for all of us to see. The longer they keep thwarting what is not just the Law of the Land but EU Law the more of us voters outside their cosy Westminster Bubble realise what inept, lying and corrupt representatives we have elected in good faith.
I’ll keep watching and noting what transpires in the HoC today and in the coming days. Please forgive me if this daily column will therefore appear a bit later than usual. It’s because of the surfeit of dross in the MSM that needs wading through. Still, I’m sure you’ll join me as I
KBO!
I think I know bits of what is wrong with this deal where can I see a comprehensive summary?
I think JRM just said yes we leave 31/10 with this ‘deal’ or not. Hope I heard right. This WA is still May’s BRINO. AND it traps us in even tighter than we are now.
The whole thing stinks.
@Viv “… it just goes to show that I’ve spent lots of time on US sites and some words stick.”
MeToo. I like to read what others think.
Now a very ‘positive approach’ site which I follow (mainly financial) has interesting views like – “Remainer Failure Commeth”
and “Forget Bercow”. It may be on your list – I don’t know – but it manages to keep my spirits up.
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/brexit-coin-toss-heads-johnson-wins-tails-johnson-wins-fszFfzmuQUC79eUL5tj4qw/
Thanks for allowing me another ‘linky’.
Your hard work is much appreciated. I recommend this site to all my family & friends. KBO.
But, Bernard, the headline is : “Brexit Coin Toss: Heads Johnson Wins, Tails Johnson Wins”
It should: “Heads Leavers lose; tails Leavers lose.”
Vivian You really are going from strengh to strength with your articles, they are a delight to read and it keeps me sane . Look after yourself though.
Thank you, Mary – your praise is much appreciated!
“The longer they keep thwarting what is not just the Law of the Land but EU Law the more of us voters outside their cosy Westminster Bubble realise what inept, lying and corrupt representatives we have elected in good faith.”
Indeed, but I hope you meant to apply that to both sides, Viv. Because we now have no one and nothing, except the sands of time running out and yielding a WTO exit, that is offering us Brexit.
As Bohma says: “the ‘new’ withdrawl agreement … is NOT BREXIT.” So, odious as they are, we must, as he also says: “sincerely hope that the remainer clowns in Parliament manage to stop the ‘new’ withdrawal agreement in its tracks.” Never ever dreamt I would be saying that.
I am a lifelong brexiteer but sincerely hope that the remainder clowns in Parliament manage to stop the ‘new’ withdrawl agreement in its tracks because it is NOT BREXIT. Boris is attempting to rush this travesty through parliament before it can be properly scrutinised – exactly the same tactic used by MAY at Chequers. If this betrayal gets through, the UK will be permanent vassals of the EU with no hope of ever getting out. There is a good of the horrors contained in the bill here
https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_oct_eu_treaty_for_uk_colonisation
Very true, I even voted not to join but it went ahead and if this does we will be finished, a 500 billion liability to the eu bank and all our assets which they have said we will not see 1 penny of
Boris resigned from the Cabinet in July last year over what he called the ‘entirely preposterous and deranged ‘ deal that May bounced on them at Chequers. Here he is presenting a very similar treaty to parliament. Our politicians treat us with contempt, as nothing better than tax paying flotsam.
Vivian! “Bloviate”! Where did that come from? I had to look it up (in a paper dictionary) and it wasn’t there, but it was in an American dictionary found online. Good word though, even if it is American. I shall be using it whenever possible from now on.
Excellent column may I say. Many thanks for your hard work. Does a lot for my sanity.
Thanks, Michael – and apologies for using that American expression … it just goes to show that I’ve spent lots of time on US sites and some words stick.
Let me also say that writing this column keeps me sane …!
They say that when you are explaining you are losing.
And indeed Mr Bercow did a lot of explaining yesterday. And the jist of his explanation is that not only is he a referee but he also writes the rules.
We know that there is no such thing as a fair referee. That is why in ball games now there are strict rules and television is used to make sure they are enforced.
And to continue in ball game parlance the referee is not the only problem but some players of one side refuse to play for their own team but to add insult to injury have decided to play for the other side.
It is obvious that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue and even though Boris’ team have been doing brilliantly there is now no option but to clear the decks if today’s vote is carried. So! I believe that we will know today whether Brexit becomes a reality or whether it is forced to wither on the decayed political system we like to think of as democracy.
What do they know, that we don’t?
I’ve just watched three videos on YouTube with – “Will we ever leave the EU?” as the question.
Julie Hartley Brewer interviewing Lord David Owen – “Yes we will eventually.”
Paul Goodman interviewing Jacob Rees-Mogg – “Yes”.
Douglas Carswell interviewing Simon Heffer – “Yes, but by accident”.
Is this all wishful thinking or do they know something we don’t?
Linkies, please!
Thanks
JHB – David Owen. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N0tVj86_j4
DC – Heffer – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZsIjjTULw
PG – Rees-Mogg – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNukIT7V3k&list=WL&index=33&t=0s
.
I wasn’t sure the first time if we were allowed too many links?
Thanks, Bernard!
Generally, two links only are allowed – but we live one extraordinary times, so the odd 3rd link is ok.
Jonathan Isaby, another indefatigable watcher of the Brexit proceedings in the House of Peacocks, has sent this text of a question by Sir John Redwood to Michael Gove, quoted in his email newsletter. Isaby has obviously more stamina than I do – I’d given up at that time:
“There is no such thing as a no-deal exit; if we leave without the Withdrawal Agreement, there would be all sorts of agreements and arrangements in place. So will the Government do more to tell the country about the 2017 facilitation of trade agreement between all World Trade Organisation members to ensure smooth borders, the Government international procurement agreement to allow governments to transact business, and the customs, haulage and aviation arrangements and agreements, which are all in place? People should stop scaremongering.”
Gove concurred and you can watch a clip here.
Gove’s answer in the video is important as well.
Jonathan Isaby, another indefatigable watcher of the Brexit proceedings in the House of Peacocks, has sent this text of a question by Sir John Redwood to Michael Gove, quoted in his email newsletter. Isaby has obviously more stamina than I do – I’d given up at that time:
“There is no such thing as a no-deal exit; if we leave without the Withdrawal Agreement, there would be all sorts of agreements and arrangements in place. So will the Government do more to tell the country about the 2017 facilitation of trade agreement between all World Trade Organisation members to ensure smooth borders, the Government international procurement agreement to allow governments to transact business, and the customs, haulage and aviation arrangements and agreements, which are all in place? People should stop scaremongering.”
Gove concurred and you can watch a clip here.
These Remainer MPs are living in a completely different world.
They have obviously never tried taking a juicy bone from a hungry dog?
And – as if by magic, from Paul Goodman on ConHome –
“If MPs carry on delaying Brexit, they risk the most savage ravaging of their reputation since the expenses scandal.”
Surely, if the alternative to delay is Johnson’s Surrender Treaty (which Paul Goodman supports) then delay is the better option?
Very true Bernard. They are aware of this, hence no GE. Due to the abomination called the FTPA they could string this out until 5/5/2022. Why bother when in the House of Bercow the opposition can bypass the Government and rule the country from the backbenches. They will wait until Brexit’s been stopped and forgotten or until they have to, “put themselves back to the people” in a GE.
What is to stop these rogues from bringing in a law which postpones general
elections indefinitely?
Wouldn’t be surprised at anything these unrepresentative scoundrels come up with to preserve their job of dictating to the electorate.
During the War Parliament did do exactly that; this was accepted since an election campaign with the attendant uncertainty as to outcome would have disrupted the war effort..
The problem would be if it did so in peacetime, simply in order to avoid a judgement of the people on its performance.
In the 1960s there was an (easy) A-level exam called “British Consttiution”. I remember a text-book for it, which answered your question by saying that the People could storm Parliament and drag out the offending MPs and hang them from the lamp-posts usefully provided in Parliament Square.
Actually a right of rebellion is laid down in Magna Carta article 61, if the Monarch (today, the State) fails to keep his undertakings.
Let us hope we can set right the current situation without having recourse to these extreme measures.
Strange that repealing the FTPA wasn’t in the Queen’s speech. I would think in any sane world it would be top of any PM’s wishlist. Unless they thought it quite a useful excuse to avoid elections for a whole FIVE years.
And yes I can easily imagine a situation when some political operators think amending said act to extend the life of a government would be a great solution to some crisis or other. Nothing would surprise me anymore with this rotten parliament.