Hands up all who watched the spectacle in the HoC yesterday from start to finish! And hands up all who participated in the rally outside Parliament yesterday: well done everybody! By now you’re aware of the results and I have to confess: watching the voting taking place yesterday was very enjoyable. I happen to think that the way Parliament votes, the pure spectacle of it, the traditional words and procedures, can never be ‘bettered’ by ‘modern’ Parliaments such as the EU Parliament. If you want a recap of the amendments and votes, go here.
So here we are on the day after – and what has been achieved?
Firstly that, no matter what the Remainers are now crowing about in their immediate attempt of myth-making, the ‘No Deal’ option is still on the table. The “Spelman Amendment” which has the Remainers so exited – from Corbyn and the MSM all the way down to the EU – is not legally binding. Ms May has no mandate to remove ‘No Deal’.
Secondly – beware the ‘Malthouse Compromise’! I hope this was nothing but a clever ploy by Brexiteers to give Ms May the mandate to renegotiate and that it won’t form the basis of her renegotiations!
Thirdly – the EU. Mr Tusk and his minions have obviously been glued to the screen, watching how we vote in the HoC (with envy, one hopes!), to be able to come out immediately with their reply that there won’t be any renegotiations. If Tusk wanted to show the world that the EU is a monolith akin to the former Soviet Union, for which ‘njet’ is the only answer when asked for renegotiations, then he surely has done that perfectly.
The EU correspondent for the DT, remainer that he is, has good sources in Brussels. I shall pick out a few lines from his (paywalled) report because it shows that and how the EU and our way of governance are deeply incompatible. It’s about knowing one’s enemy:
“Within seconds of the Brady amendment handing Mrs May a notional mandate to return to the table after passing by 317 to 301, the EU issued a statement saying the Withdrawal Agreement “is not open for re-negotiation”. Some will rush to accuse Brussels of not being serious about wanting a deal, but the reality is rather more pragmatic: EU capitals do not want to start a negotiation when they still do not believe Mrs May can carry Parliament.”
Read this carefully: The EU won’t make concessions because Ms May cannot get the majority in Parliament they, the EU leaders, are used to achieving in the ever so democratic EU Parliament!
“But as one senior EU source puts it, the Brady result is not a mandate for discussion, since it does not define what “alternative arrangements” are envisaged […]”
It seems that these senior EU sources have picked up that claim from the Labour benches, from the Brexit wreckers. Not that it would have made a blind bit of difference had Ms May submitted fully formed details, composed in the astonishingly short time between Sunday evening and Tuesday afternoon when this compromise was worked out by Tory MPs! So we come to the main point:
“In short, it is clear, hardline Brexiteers want to bin the backstop; the EU will not agree to this. Indeed it seems increasingly clear that whatever might be deliverable at the margin will not satisfy the bulk of Brexiteers.” (my bold)
Yes, that’s correct: without the Backstop being removed, ‘concessions at the margins’ will not be sufficient. It’s extraordinary that ‘senior EU sources’ still don’t get that. But that’s not all:
“[…] EU officials repeat that Mrs May needs a “stable majority, not a freak one” before serious talks can begin.” (my bold)
Seriously? I am confused: the EU demands a majority for the WA – meaning it has passed the HoC – before they will negotiate? Negotiate what, after the thing has been agreed to? Prettifying the margins while the bulk, the Backstop, the Customs Union and all the rest have been accepted? And ‘freak majority’? A majority is a majority, unless of course by ‘stable majority’ they understand a 98% one, as expected by dictators where Parliament is allowed to agree only. Moving on:
“Downing Street appears to want to run down the clock until, ‘five-to-midnight’, confronting the EU with a choice between allowing a ‘no deal’ […] and forcing the Irish to concede a tweak on the backstop.”
Yes – and? Isn’t that good old EU practice? If it’s good enough for the EU …
“The problem for Mrs May is that […] given her spectacular failure to deliver on the original deal in the first vote, there is no reason for the EU to believe she could deliver on a second.”
Ms May represents us and has now the mandate, thanks to a leave/remain compromise, to renegotiate. It is not for Brussels to demand Ms May ‘delivers’! She is not an EU representative!
The EU however thinks what was passed in the HoC yesterday is ‘unrealistic’ and thus not worthy of a second look. In EU parlance: assure us that you can ‘deliver’ by getting a majority through backroom horse trading and then we’ll give you what you ask. Proper parliamentary scrutiny, to them, is ‘unrealistic’! Another fine example of the democratic deficit in the EU, another fine example for why we cannot possibly stay.
That report concludes with an intriguing outlook:
“So for now expect Europe [Ed: surely the EU and not the continent?] to sit on its hands, knowing that Mrs May has until February 13 before she must go back to Parliament where, as the passage of the Spelman amendment last night demonstrated, a majority of MPs want to rule out a ‘no deal’. When that happens, the game of chicken will be over before it ever began and – the EU hopes – a serious discussion about a softer Brexit which carries a true majority in Parliament can begin.”
To use a well-coined phrase: ‘In yer dreams!’.
It’s amazing (not!) that the EU, never mind journalists or Remain MPs from Corbyn down simply don’t get it that the ‘No Deal’ they are so terrified of is the legal default position, as agreed by Parliament. It would stand to reason that if the EU wants to avoid this outcome, negotiate it must … but ‘reason’ and ‘EU’ in one sentence … that’s incompatible, isn’t it!
I don’t usually spend too much time watching the Parliament channel, but I watched the HoC yesterday with much avidity, and within mixed emotions, a little pride too ! The Palace of Westminster contains a real Parliament, where good sense and a little stupidity get mixed together in freedom of view and expression. – So different to the EU where ‘freedom’ is on a short rein, and seemingly only by licence. ….. Mrs May has received some welcome, though undeserved room for movement. Lets see what she can make with it !
You all may have seen the proceedings from the European Scrutiny Committee this afternoon (30.1.19) headed up by Sir Bill Cash. If not I urge you to do so. It was recorded for use on the Parliament Channel and shows Steve Baker (resigning Minister) being interviewed over how the “deal” came to be arranged. He resigned, he says, because the Cabinet Office were the ones doing the organising,. He and the other appointees were completely sidelined. A fascinating view. I was sent the film via Messenger and my poor media skills won’t allow me to put it up here. The pertinent times are from 14.30hrs to 15.47 hours. Surely “Newsnight” will utilise it ? HA!
You can watch the whole thing here:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/81a76aba-1e5f-4a02-92c7-248f2a072f42
Viv, Thanks for that. Much of it confirms the unacceptable behaviour of government but it also shows that we still have some politicians with integrity.
Well worth watching to the end.
My sincere Thanks to Roger and Vivian for leading me to the European Scrutiny Committee recording, and I can say that I am most impressed with Steve Baker MP. This highlights the ridiculous situation of negotiations being conducted by a PM that wished to remain in the EU. It goes against the referendum result, and therefore the PM is in fact doing everything possible to subvert the people’s decision. It is also good to have some clothing upon the reasons for Minsters resigning from Government.
We now continue into what I hope is the final throughs of Brexit, but we are still stuck with the same PM and her warped fixation upon the continued connect with the EU. ….. Last year I told my Tory MP that I would not support his efforts for re election, as to do so would be to the advantage of his Party, rather than himself, who I have been well pleased with in the constituency. Following this recording, I now understand clearly that my action and view is well founded, and correct !
It seems then to me that after yesterdays shenanigans in the HoC, we are (or at least our MPs are) indeed back at square one.
It’s Theresa May’s ‘deal’ – which nobody apart from Theresa May seems to want – or the ‘no-deal’ WTO arrangement exit – which nobody in the HoC seems to want either.
The impasse is still there. Theresa May seems to think that she can negotiate some better terms from the EU for her Withdrawal Agreement, which MPs seem content to go along with for now. But they are all missing the “bleedin’ obvious”, that the EU has already stated on several occasions that “the deal is the deal” and there is nothing more to renegotiate.
So is Theresa May going to find herself in the same position as David Cameron? Remember how he boldly returned from his own negotiations from the EU on getting better terms for the UK claiming a victory, when he actually achieved nothing? Apart from a couple of half-hearted ‘assurances’ on a bogus “emergency handbrake” on immigration.
It is laughable that for many MPs the main sticking point in Mrs May’s WA is the ‘backstop’. You get the feeling that if she can remove this non-existent issue from the WA, then MPs will back it. So she’ll go back to Brussells, get the backstop removed and replaced with “alternative arrangements”, but then look closely at what else she compromises on or gives up as a result.
Mrs May is playing a clever game, MPs are demanding that “no-deal” be ‘taken off the table’, but by refusing to do so, she is leaving them with ‘no choice’ but to accept her wretched ‘deal’.
The only other way that the impasse could possibly be broken through, is of course through another referendum. If the MPs can’t decide, then put it to the people, that will be the spin. And yes, Theresa May keeps insisting there won’t be a second referendum, but then again she also insisted she wouldn’t call a snap election in 2017…
The one thing that we can be certain of is that a second referendum would be rigged; if not by outright election fraud by posing more than 2 questions or ambiguous ones. We thought Cameron’s Project Fear was bad but the next one will be far worse and, as before, we will be paying for it. All supported by the corrupt Electoral Commission.
Interestingly the Electoral Commission is looking for a new Chairman. Although it’s meant to be a politically neutral post, only Remainers and Momentum collaborators need apply.
It is clear Stuart, that we have an able Tory Politico, but a bent PM who is supposed to honour the people’s decision ! I guess we won’t have too long to wait to see how this pans out. She might give thought to her retirement, in another country !
from PMB I 100% agree with what Viv has written re last night in Parliament – including that it is good to watch HoC in action on such occasions. Have almost no faith in our present Members of Parliament to represent their constituents BUT in spite of various stitch ups I have high hopes that Leave No Deal WILL prevail on due date. Up Yours EU. It does look more and more like the USSR doesn’t it. Why can’t the Remainers see it?
Mind you – it was NAPOLEON wanted to impose Metric Time on all Europe. And he did impose the Napoleonic Code of law.
But not on us of course.
A high up euro panjandrum has pronounced: ” The cost of hurting the Single (Regulated” Market ) is judged on this side of the channel as bigger than the cost of no deal Brexit.”
I take that to mean that they would rather cut off their noses than see us free to blossom as a third country released from their shackles, because we would be a shining example for the other 27 member states who would realise they would be better off leaving. It was fear of UK competition that inspired them to dictate the Maybot capitulation document.
I copied this from a comment on fb and it was credited to an article by Tim Johnson of the Telegraph:
***Providing they don’t pull any underhanded move, it would appear that come the 28th Jan we are guaranteed an NO DEAL Brexit.
Remoaners seem to have overlooked that 21st January was the deadline in the Withdrawal Act for having agreed a deal. We haven’t agreed a deal.
There are five “sitting days” from the 21st January, in which to agree to the altered deal presented. This means that it must be agreed by 28th. If no agreement is reached, the default position is No Deal – the preferred option for the vast majority of Brexiteers.
Theresa May is not presenting her altered deal until 29th January.
The European Union Withdrawal Act, (2018), which became law 27th June 2018, when the Queen signed the Royal Assent, states in section 13:
“… if by Monday 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in the negotiations on the substance of the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom, the government must publish a statement setting out how the government proposes to proceed, and must arrange for debate about that in Parliament.”
In other words, the UK leaving the EU is already legally binding and will take place on 29th March at 11pm***
Further, just over a week ago Jacob Rees-Mogg mentioned in a speech in Parliament that the Bill of Rights is still the Law of the Land. Now JMR appears to have an encyclopaedic memory when it comes to the law so I wrote to my local MP and he swiftly replied and confirmed that it was very much so.
I really do not know why those fighting our cause are not mentioning either of the above and am genuinely confused as to why more is not made of it. If the Bill of Rights is still in force then the EU and all the agreements and treaties made were illegal in the first place and, secondly, section 13 of the Withdrawal Act should now be in place.
Nobody is talking about it. Why not?
Sandy,
An interesting point you bring up here. But I think the government has already explained its intentions, albeit ambiguously, in the aftermath of the agreement (prepared a while before Jan 21st) being soundly defeated in the Commons.
It would have been great if the 2018 Act had stated,”If an agreement has not been reached AND ratified by Parliament by Jan 21st, we will leave on March 29th under WTO rules”. We can all envisage the problems getting that wording passed in the HoC, so at least the Act is the law of the land and we are out end of March.
This means a delay to Brexit can only be achieved by legislative change and every day that passes makes that less likely timewise.
Well Sandy, the answer to that is simple. ….. It’s just not convenient to a ‘certain section of this Nation’. Good grief, you will want Democracy next ! ! !
The way I understand this is that if we want a ‘no deal’ exit on 29 March we are now dependant on EU intransigence to deliver it. If I am correct, then this is a bit of a sorry state in our own Parliament.
I’m still betting on a last minute stitch up, you can just see it, at the very last minute, a break through, much accolade and agreed supposedly in haste at the very last minute.
I’ve written about this and although things may not be panning out in exactly the way I anticipated, they are similar enough: we’ve certainly had and are continuing to have the project fear that I talked about.
“The Fix”
https://independencedaily.co.uk/the-fix/
We’re not out until we’re out and I wouldn’t trust any of our politicians even half as far as I could throw them and the Eurocrats even less. Theresa May has been collaborating with the EU all along, this fix will already have been carefully planned.
Flyer,
Preplanned, by all involved.