THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Last night the EU27 (The EU Council made up of the leaders of each EU Country) met – and offered the UK a six and a half months extension until October 31st – or Halloween.

There will be review of the extension, and the UK’s progress in June.

The UK can leave earlier if a deal is ratified before then.

The UK can choose if it will take place in European Parliamentary Elections in May – however, Theresa May hopes an agreement will be ratified by the two Houses of the UK Parliament before then.

Donald Tusk has told Theresa May that she must not waste this time, in what is likely to be the last article 50 extension.

And apparently, because most of the newspapers think this is newsworthy – if only to bring down to Theresa May. Theresa and Angela Merkel shared a joke over their dress sense – as they both worse pretty much the same outfits.

A correction was made to this article, I originally wrote that the EU Parliamentary Elections were in June, that is when they will open the EU Parliament for the new term; the Elections take place in May 2019.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

The Guardian reported last night that ahead of today’s EU emergency Article 50 extension summit, EU leaders have two dates in mind, neither of which is June 30th 2019 – the two dates is the end of December 2019, almost auspicious, as Britian could potentially leave the EU at the end of a decade and start a new one without the EU. The second, and one everyone is focused on is March 2020.

President Macron of France, is in favour of a year long extension with 3 monthly reviews, essentially the ability to kick the UK if Brexiteers attempt to sabotage the EU in their attempts to force a reopening of the Withdrawal Agreement, primarily on the serious issue of the Northern Irish Backstop.

Other EU leaders are believed to have asked Macron not to humiliate Theresa May as part of the cost for an extension to Article 50 today, whether Macron’s position within the EU checks him or emboldens him, only the summit today will show.

President Macron is concerned that Brexiteers, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg are willing and potentially able to disrupt upcoming EU votes, so it seems today he will be trying to secure limitations to the UKs power during any extension period. And it is likely that a good conscience and/or good behaviour condition will be added to any extension agreement.

There’s also talk that if May signed the UK for a longer extension, that MPs, primarily Brexiteers might try to oust her. And that she is for all intent and purposes a lame duck Prime Minister.

Last night 97 Tory MPs rebelled against Theresa May’s bill which ended up winning by 310 votes (420-110). 80 Conservatives abstained; whilst 3 mutinous Labour MPs, and the 10 DUP MPs also voted against the bill.

The bill commanded the majority and was passed, gaining approval for Theresa May to agree an extension until June 30th 2019 – which the EU has already, and since, seemingly rejected.

Over the weekend it was reported that negotiations between the Labour Party and Number 10 had broken down – that doesn’t seem to be true, in the cool light of the week. They are continuing, but there seems to be little headway being made in the negotiations.

Today Ms May will be required to give a more concrete way forward, at the EU summit – she’s been on a whistle stop tour of European Leaders over the past few days trying to convince them, she seemingly failed to do so. Though last night’s metro evening edition reported her touch down with Merkel, who may be more pursuable than Macron, who she will see presumably shortly after her meeting with Angela. It is more than likely Theresa May will face a united EU Summit of leaders, willing but with hands tied.

It has been a tumultuous few days for the Prime Minister; her own party MPs have been venomously and poisonously briefing the press against her.

People such as Mark Francois have been spouting angrily and foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog.

His nonsense reminds me of an angry character or two in EastEnders, more interested in the sound of their own voice and their own supposedly righteous, but clearly unrighteous and unrelenting vapid anger.

And Tory MPs have been throwing their hats, coats, bags, t-shirts, underwear and all manner of clothing into the ring of the Tory Party Leadership race, quite openly, and without care that the race hasn’t even started yet.

Ministers such as Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary (yeah I don’t remember which one she is either) and Matt Hancock, the health secretary (and chief architect of George Osborne’s austerity budgets). Whilst some like Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, (again I don’t have a clue which one he is) have ruled themselves out, despite people thinking they would be running.

Others such as arc-remainer Amanda Rudd are rumoured to be hatching plots with arc-brexiteer Boris Johnson.

Also after May’s “home video” on Sunday, there are suggestions that she is now preparing to revoke article 50 should she not be granted an extension today – the extension however seems almost guaranteed.

On the other side of the house Jeremy Corbyn faces his own issues – around 20 MPs who are Brexiteers (of all varieties) seem to want him to rule out a second referendum all together from his negotiations with May, whilst around 80 MPs demanded in a letter that he make a confirmatory referendum the single most important red line in his negotiations.

He also faces issues from the oft-claimed allegations of anti-Semitism – which polite society does not doubt. The issue here is two-fold – he has the Labour Party’s officially affiliate Jewish Group (Jewish Labour Movement). According to some sources JLM doesn’t require members to be Labour members and/or Jewish, not only passing a motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn, but it also narrowly avoided voting for disaffiliation with Labour on Sunday. On the other hand he has to deal with the Sunday Times article leaks.

According to a) official party sources are just partial lines of leaked emails, which are designed to provide maximum embarrassment. And b) apparently reliable sources for some journalists are now claiming the same thing – but go further to say the claims made in the article are lies.

Online suggestions are that Corbyn and Labour launch a legal campaign against the alleged smears, and if Labour actually believes their not in the wrong on this, to air it all in public, whilst an expensive process, may actually be the only way to save face.

Of course if they are not confident, or the strategy backfires, because they are not believed by the judiciary and possible jury, then it would result in more almost irreparable reputational damage

And frankly I’ve said much previously about the Labour Party’s appalling communications strategy, and I don’t want to go into details here. It’s clearly failing them, and they need to sack their entire Comms team and bring in some fresh blood. Unless the Comms team is being ignored, then Secretary General Formby needs to step in and act like the competent CEO she is supposed to be.

Penultimately I should also mention the important EU elections, which the UK looks set to take part in. Farage is back with his new “Brexit Party”.
Boris Johnson’s dad Stanley has thrown his hat into the ring, as a Conservative. I’m not sure he’s quite as much of a Brexiteer as Boris, but then neither was Boris until essentially the last minute.

Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, looks to be standing. That might be good news, as she’d be giving less of a headache to her Labour peers at the Scottish Parliament, with her constant op-ed petty bitching.

And finally we must mention the Conservative Party’s backbench committee, the 1922 Committee. There’s talk that they will be having a non-binding no-confidence vote before their meeting on Theresa May – because they can’t have a binding no-confidence vote until December, at the earliest.

This would, according to the waste of space Mark Francois, mean Theresa May was morally obligated to resign, and that the UK could go for No Deal on Friday – currently the default position. Though in theory any Prime Minister will be bound by the Letwin-Cooper Act that the Queen signed late on Monday night, which stipulated that the PM must seek an extension rather than no-deal; essentially. Though the Act has holes even I could drive a bus through.

So whilst No Deal looks increasingly unlikely on Friday it is still not safe to say it won’t happen.

2019-04-07 11:33:13

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

I’m experimenting with different formats of posts; predominantly to allow my regular readers the chance to work out which kind of post approach they like. This is a ‘listicle’ with commentary. Let me know what you prefer in the comments.

Philip Hammond – Second Referendum & No Red Lines

Chancellor Phillip Hammond has said the government has (or should that be should) have no red lines in their negotiations with the UK Labour Party. This comes just a few days after he told Robert Peston that a Second Referendum was not out of the question. It seems however that someone forgot to tell Number 10’s negotiating team; as one of the reasons cited for the breakdown of negotiations was that Number 10 was not negotiating, but was actually just trying to get agreement with its deal; whilst not altering the political declaration (which I’m not sure they can, anyway) but also were trying to wrap the Labour Party’s choices into some form of non-enforceable, but we can “try” and add it to the statue books, but really that’s up to parliament. Basically Number 10 has kept its red lines and isn’t negotiating, as First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon seemed to suggest had happened in her heart-to-heart with Theresa May.

Heidi Allan & John Redwood – Can’t Read the Numbers

One of Saturday’s comedy moments came when the two conservative MPs – Heidi Allan and John Redwood, whose vision of Brexit is contradictory – Ms Allan wants a second referendum, Mr Redwood wants no deal – declared that polling supported their viewpoints, and that the majority of the British public supported: in Ms Allan’s words “a second referendum”; and in Mr Redwood’s words “a no-deal brexit”. Channel 4 News’ Krishnan Guru-Murthy was there to argue against their nonsense. And I would like to highlight that I recently wrote an article, here, about some particular polling data was ignored by its own commissioning body (Progress Scotland) – primarily because, and this happens a-lot, although the data is incontrovertible it doesn’t support the narrative they wished to tell; so they broke it down (that’s normal) and then ignored the rest of it (pollsters would should be angry at this – blatant manipulation of the data) – but essentially that’s the same principle that either and or both Heidi Allan and John Redwood were working under when they made their claims.

Daily Mirror – Prematurely Explodes Brexit

Friday’s Daily Mirror proclaimed that Brexit was dead – because a brexit constituency had voted in a vocally remain MP in Labour’s Ruth Jones. And whilst the Daily Mirror’s article makes some great points, their particular headline was a step to far in the realms of reality. What they are right to point out, and which Labour could take some courage from is that just because a Constituency votes Brexit, doesn’t mean it rejects the MP who voted remain, of course we can’t extrapolate that beyond this local bi-election; but we could at least hypothesis that Labour Heartlands with large majorities may not end up switching to non-Labour candidates in any forthcoming General Election.

Diane Abbot Thinks Leave Would Win Second Referendum – Also Won’t Say Labour’s Negotiating Red Lines

Diane Abbot has been on the Today Programme on Saturday morning, which may not have been the best idea for her – she seems to have spent a large part of it refusing to spell out if Labour Party Policy (a Second Referendum) would be a Labour Party “red line” in the negotiations with Number 10. She then went on to say that she believed in any second referendum Leave would actually win. And perhaps she is right; perhaps she simply believes it, I don’t know – but I would like to see why she believes that, maybe she’s been reading the same parts of the same poll that Mr Redwood has been?

UK Passport Office sends out Red-Not-Blue Post-Brexit Not-Yet-Had-Brexit Passports

Whilst Brexit is yet to happen, the UK Passport Office has already started issuing red coloured Passports which omits the words “European Union” from the cover – I was sure they were supposed to be blue post-brexit; but maybe that was another false hope Mr Johnstone sold me – I want my beaten black-and-blue (by Brexiteer’s notorious U-Turns, it’s called whip lash) self to recieve my black-or-blue (but no one can seem to remember) passport back.

Financial Times – Pro-Europeans Unite

The Financial Times has called for pro-Europeans to united around the EU Parliamentary elections… I don’t have access to the Financial Times, I’m not snobby enough to pay for that; but I can’t help but wonder what they mean – I mean, what are we gonna do, gather round a sacred blue ballot box with yellow stars which we ceremoniously drop into the box, to signal to the box we’re are pro-Europeans? Or do they simply mean we should all vote Liberal Democrate/SNP/Plaid Cymru/Change UK? I don’t know, I also, frankly, don’t care!

Conservative Party Suicide Note

A Conservative MP and the Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi has told Ms May that a long brexit delay “could deal a fatal blow to the conservatives” (so good news) and that taking part in the forthcoming EU elections would be the Conservatives “Suicide Note” – and for those that are traumatised by this concept – which I am not; just remember the Tory’s have spent most of the last decade declaring the mentally ill “fit for work” – but don’t worry, I’m sure once the ERGers are locked up in mental health hospitals, I’m sure Mr Corbyn’s kinder-gentler politics won’t deprive them of food and good health-care; because you know, he’s not a Tory.

Ireland’s Premier Seeks Extension to Article 50

The Irish Premier, Leo Varadkar, has stated that any EU member state who vetoes the UK’s Article 50 extension will not be forgiven. He does not, he says, believe any EU member would do so; but obviously Ireland prefers and in my opinion deserves from her nearest neighbour that any brexit be orderly; and not the proverbial crap-fest it has been up-and-until now. Clearly Ireland like myself would prefer no Brexit (though I’m sure some of them would probably wish the world’s longest gap between a suicide note and the cliff actually not be so bloody long – If you’re going to jump, just do it Britain (sorry too much?)… Anyway the Irish Premier does not believe the UK will leave the EU on April 12th with no deal. And it does look like Donald Tusk [not as I stated last night, Jean-Claude Junker] has rejected Theresa May’s June 30th extension request (again) in favour of his flexit – flexible extension of one year with the ability to shorten once a deal is actually agreed, if agreed too, the UK would have no choice but to take part in European Parliamentary elections – who knew the EU had democracy!

Owen Smith MP, Being Owen Smith MP

Owen Smith, MP, the former challenger to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour; and former shadow cabinet member – has written an opinion piece for the Guardian (also known as an Op-Ed). Mr Smith’s opinion piece argues essentially that Leave is wrong; Lexit is dead; Labour has been too-slow and should have chosen the correct remain side a long long time ago (and I’m guessing Mr Smith is in that fantastic land where Labour is in charge – a galaxy far far away). Mr Smith’s contention is that Lexiter’s only real issue with the EU is solved, just not among the people. The issue, as he sees it, is around models of national ownership – which Mr Smith claims is not prohibited by the EU; and that it was, was argued against by knowledgeable legal experts, however, this legal advice has not quite made it into common parlance, unlike the 1980s original Lexiter’s viewpoints, which had been thoroughly rebuffed and sorted when the EU became the bastion of human rights and workers protections. Mr Smith contends further that there could never have been a “leftwing brexit” because that would be an oxymoron.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”

According to John McLellan in The Scotsman, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in their attempts for a soft-brexit will keep us paying EU dues and being a member with none-of-the-voting power – which I think a lot of us kind of knew anyway – what he describes it as is the “worst of all worlds” – but if we’re honest it is probably better overall than being continually screwed over by Tories as they turn us into a low-cost tax haven for their friends who buy the NHS, because EU rules have come into effect preventing that disaster, if we’re wedded to the EU in way – and frankly Mr Mogg wants out because, ya know, money talks.

World War II Heroes Love EU

According to new research from London School of Economics finds that “Britian’s wartime generation are almost as pro-EU as millennials” – probably because they lives through the horrors of World War II and know that it takes one-snake-oil salesman (and we’ve got at least five – Mogg; Johnson; Farage; Gove; and Mr “My Name Isn’t Actually” Tommy Robinson) to screw over the rest of Europe.

Manufactoring Industry – Revoke Article 50

UK Manufacturers according to the Times are seeking an end to the damage of short-term decisions and are “urging” Theresa May to revoke article 50 is the “deal fails”.

Theresa May Singing “Clown’s To The Left of Me, Jokers To The Right” To Herself, Not Realising She’s The Clown, Mogg Is The Joker, & The UK Is “Stuck In The Middle” With Her. And This Is Too Long For a Segment Title…

The “Voice of the Mirror” wrote in their paper “The Mirror” on April 5th that “It is not hugely surprising that Brexit talks between the Government and Labour broke down.

Theresa May’s door was finally open but her mind remained closed, as she is a blinkered Conservative Prime Minister incapable of dealing fairly with other parties.”

Voice of the Mirror: Theresa May alienated Corbyn and the Right, now she’s stuck

The mirror article also highlights how she has no only alienated Jeremy Cornbyn, but also her narrow-minded hard-no-deal maniacal fanatic ERG right-wing zealots within her own party; and that the now-not-as-crazy-as-the-Tory-Party and we-have-our-own-yet-at-least-consistent-morality Democratic Unionist Party aren’t playing ball – that Theresa May is up a proverbial creek without even an idea of what paddle looks like, let alone an actual or imagined paddle.

The Mirror essentially argues that the Brexit fiasco and the Government & Prime-Minister in name only can only be solved by putting it back to the people – oh, and we’re likely to be in the EU a little while longer.

I don’t know if that’s all that happened in Brexit on Saturday (and some from Friday) but it’s probably the major stories – I was working, at a real job, so not actually trawling the internet for the whole day (you know I was for some of it) – sorry.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Mr Jeremy Corbyn is between a rock and a hard place, and Brexit is that special rock and remain that rather instransigent hard place.

For Corbyn the Brexiteers do not value or believe in his Brexit or even Lexit credentials; and for those that do he is rather too left of the maniacal right-wing brexit project, too left-wing to be credible; and clearly his supposed “half-hearted” campaigning for remain, as was his duty on behalf of the Labour Party’s official party, was not “half-hearted” enough, nor was it as inconspicuous as it should have been. It is fair to say he is an EU skeptic, many Brexiteers would argue, but he probably isn’t one of ‘us’, they might claim.

Then you have the Remainers at large, who consider Corbyn’s EU skepticism, Lexit tendencies, his apparent “half-hearted” and apparently fairly inconspicuous remain campaigning to just be too Brexity, for their liking. His remain credentials are therefore also in doubt.

And then we have Mr Corbyn’s position as leader of the opposition, where MSM has painted him always in a fairly bad light, as continual academic evidence from no lesser an institution as The London School of Economics, which shows that the MSM has had it in for Corbyn since day one, in effect. But the argument has been that Mr Corbyn has not effectively opposed the government’s poor Brexit proposals – which seems to be something both the Brexiteers and Remainers agree on.

Continuing on from this, and digging deeper, we have Labour voters, around 60% of them voted Leave; and around half of Labour constituencies Brexit voting constituencies. So Mr Corbyn has tried to respect their vote, even if that vote was held after highly illegal campaigning by Brexiteers.

On the other side of this are Mr Corbyn’s bred and butter; his in excess of half-a-million party members, who are probably also about 60% remainers. How does he respect the vote of those who elect his party; and also respect the desire for second referendum by those who put money in the party coffers, and predominantly pay for those campaigns that help the party to get elected.

On top of this we have Corbyn supporting MPs who fit into both camps.

Now my solution is not the one Mr Corbyn will follow, no one likes or supports the idea of a preferential voting referendum; and yet that is probably the only way to actually find out effectively what the will of the people actually is.

What Mr Corbyn has, until this point, done rather effectively is represent both sides fairly well, he’s managed to toe the line of supporting neither side more than the other; and it also because he has walked this tight-rope that he is in this position. His way out of it? I’m not sure, but perhaps we will find out soon enough. From a purely tactical perspective, the moves he has made, the loosing-but-virteous gestures made and words spoken, are tactically, politically, a master-class; but it doesn’t feel like that.

Primarily because some politicians have been dealt the “easy hand” – which is now for them, getting harder. I think of the illustrious First Minister of Scotland (Nicola Sturgeon) who has been able to campaign against Brexit and to remain, because that helps her narrative – this might become more difficult for her soon.

Mr Corbyn’s line has had to be concillitory, and circumspect, to win points for both sides. But in this day and age that just looks like fence sitting. Or because of your own viewpoint as winning and campaign for the “other side”. So Mr Corbyn although politically acting like a genius, has not be understood to be as brilliant as his movements in this sphere has actually been. And until he is seen to clearly pick a side he will continue to get it in the neck from everyone.

Mr Corbyn has deftly played the hand he has been given; and respect for that should be given. Mr Corbyn has also tried to steer the narrative in another direction, perhaps to the wider issue. Why did people vote remain?

Was it to “regain sovereignty”; was it to “kick” the establishment? Was it a protest against how awful our politics has been, arguably since the departure of Gordon Brown?

Whatever reason, and there are many given, until a Labour government is in power, and able to deal with the root causes and empower everyone.

Corbyn will continue to be a Brexiteers’ Remainer; and a Remainers’ Brexiteer; placating only his die-hard and die-in-the-wool supporters; and truly placating them so long as they think he’s acting for what they think he believes about Brexit.

And that is nothing compared to the other stick currently beating Labour and Mr Corbyn, the scandal over Antisemitism and just how extensive it actually is, which should be an argument for another day.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

This letter, however, really wasn’t about an extension to Article 50; I mean it was, but it had another, almost sinister purpose. It was to force the hand of Jeremy Corbyn, virtue signal the ardent Brexiteers within her own party and also to crush the hopes of Second Referendum-ers.

And that’s probably where the next story comes in. The talks between Labour and the Conservatives have broken down, number 10 is blaming Labour, but in many respects the letter she sent at the beginning of the day was an attempt to get Jeremy Corbyn to sign the Withdrawal Agreement, and the accompanying Political declaration almost word for word, and in doing so consigned an already twice (and half) defeated deal back to the commons. The “significant” change Bercow would require? Mr Corbyn’s support. According to the Conservatives some extra Acts of Parliament to tighten up protection for workers and a few other bits & pieces to be enshrined in law, maybe. But ultimately these would depend on the next Prime Minister, which in all likelihood would be an ardent Brexiteer, such as Gove, Mogg or Johnson – so, you know, someone who can and wants to rewrite the rules at the drop of a top-hat.

Ironically, Ms Sturgeon pointed out, that would imply they always had the power to influence the EU that Mr Mogg and others claimed we didn’t have. She would be right. Mogg is signalling to those militant ERG-ers and Brexiteers, possibly in hopes of shoring-up support for his own leadership bid.

May’s letter also spoke to those ERGers and also Second Referendum-ers by essentially saying there isn’t time for a Confirmatory Referendum; and that No Deal is still essentially possible within the extension period, especially if Mr Corbyn won’t come over the dark-side, and it appears he won’t.

It seems that while this is all going on the day for me was rather sunny, and though there was a wind-chill-factor, it was rather a nice day.

“What has disappointed Corbyn and his Shadow Brexit Minister Keir Starmer is – they believe – the government is ruling out asking the EU to rework the Political Declaration on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

What the PM has proposed is a so-called wrap-around statement, that would toughen up proposed protections of workers’ rights, and would give a greater role for parliament as and when the future relationship is being negotiated, including a prior “entrenchment” process to embody whatever kind of future relationship MPs favour within the forthcoming Withdrawal and Implementation Bill.

There is in the memorandum a nod to MPs having a vote to decide whether there should be a confirmatory referendum. But apparently it is desperately non-committal.”

ROBERT PESTON, ITV NEWS, Why New Brexit Talks Are On The Verge Of Collapse

Before finally writing:

But Labour fears Theresa May has tacked back to placating the Brexiters in her party, which means she is as far from securing parliamentary approval for her deal as ever she was.”

This all suggests that the PM is backtracking and trying to make it look like it’s Corbyn fault – but the combination of the Brexit Extension Letter and the Memorandum (detailing the “agreements in principle” supposedly made in the Tory-Lab negotions) sent to Labour this afternoon by Number 10, clearly show she is being instransiant and isn’t really willing to budge on her red lines – almost certainly if a Second and Confirmatory Referendum is involved as a bargaining chip.

ROBERT PESTON, ITV NEWS, Why New Brexit Talks Are On The Verge Of Collapse

Flexit would be a flexible extension of at least a year – flexible in that it can be shorter, but it is of such a length so that during the configuration of the next European Parliament (the institution that votes on absolutely everything the EU puts into Law), so that during that reconfiguration, Brexit is not overshadowing the process.

Strangely; and it is strange, he can’t see his own hypocrisy, or perhaps he can, which is why he has said he won’t be happy to take part, but I’m sure he’ll be more than willing to accept the paycheck and pension contributions.

What I can’t understand is how Farage can set up new political parties on what essentially is a whim, but the Non-Political Party formerly known as The Independent Group, but which is now a Political Party called Change UK struggled to do so, at least initially, if it’s a question of the cost, one has to wonder whose bankrolling Farage?

EDIT: It seems Ms May is bringing her Withdrawal Agreement back next week to the Commons, hoping she’s scared enough ERG and DUP members into supporting it, and maybe a few Labour MPs who support Brexit. The numbers suggest it’s going to fail, again, at this precise moment.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Sir Oliver Letwin, MP (Conservative Party, Left) and Yvette Cooper, MP (Labour Party, Right)

On April 3rd the Letwin-Cooper bill, one I didn’t fully understand, but have come to understand better because of the debate through the House of Lords today. The Letwin-Cooper bill made it through the House of Commons, on 1 vote. On April 3rd the Letwin-Cooper bill, one I didn’t fully understand, but have come to understand better because of the debate through the House of Lords today. The Letwin-Cooper bill made it through the House of Commons, on 1 vote. The bill as it stands requires Theresa May to seek an extension with the EU to our period before leaving (also known as an Article 50 extension). The bill’s design is actually not very good, and if anything the Lord’s today has shown that. The design is actually not very good, and if anything the Lord’s today has shown that.

It looks like the House of Lord’s will be voting on Monday to attach several amendments, the concerns are the precedent that the bill would set if turned into the Law – that the Prime Minister would be duty bound to gain approval for every choice; and that the House of Commons would in-effect become a second cabinet, capable of making policy, and then effectively forcing the government to enact this.

Another amendment will probably detail how long such a measure should last – most argue for just a couple of weeks; at most, I would percieve that it would involve a trigger clause – that is that once the final withdrawal agreement is signed by the Prime Minister with the EU that the Act (which this is not yet) would become spent in law. But that will depend on how the House of Lord’s view that particular issue.

There are a few other issues. Interestingly the debate today (which was properly about procedure – the attempt to speed the bill through the House) and the debate this evening – although of different temperatures (this evening is far more Lordly, than this afternoons debate, which was at points close to venomous, and I will add that a lot of that was coming from the ERG linked Peers.

During the afternoon the ERG peers attacked Sir Oliver Letwin, MP, almost relentlessly; and yet not all Conservatives supported this ERG bunch. In fact they showed themselves to total around 50-100 in the House of Lords (at most) they probably total about 30, in actuality.

The bill was delayed for so long through filibustering – via the attempt to schedule business on an “important” report from Lord Forsyth, right in the middle of the afternoon; as well as more than 7 amendments which approached the delaying of the bill process in every slightly different ways – which prevented the block voting – the majority of the house prevented this from delaying for too long – though the delay is long enough to extend the commitee stage and the third reading, on Monday. The Chief Government Whip in the Lords advised that the House of Commons would remain open awaiting the word of the House of Lords. It is likely that if this bill, as I suspect, is sent back to the Commons, it might not pass there a third time.

And that’s probably right, however much I support the spirit of the bill, there are issues with it – ironically it would probably make the seeking of an extension to Article 50 more difficult; and therefore a default No Deal Brexit on April 12th more likely.

The bill appears to be badly written, with references to sections and acts of parliament that may not exist.

But even if the Act is passed, and it is passed in the spirit of the a bill, rather than the letter, would be acceptable to some; as long as at the earliest convenience of the Commons and the Bills writers, if there are any elements of the bill that should be made into permanent law, that they would be written in a better bill, that also repeals this one.

But in the House of Lords this evening the arguments have not been so much about the actual bill; but ERGers have argued and asserted the desirability of a no-deal brexit; whilst just about everyone else from soft-brexiters and remainers in the house have continuously argued against this.

When the House of Lords hasn’t been waxing lyrical about Brexit itself – the failure of Theresa May to agree a reasonable deal, etc. they have looked to discuss whether this bill should have entered the Lords as a private members bill, when in fact it should have been brought by the government on behalf of the lower chamber – the argument for this was that those who brought the bill did not allow time for the government to do this – which is why many Conservative peers have been whipped to vote against the motion to raise the bill and then on the bill itself; however Conservative peers are also refusing to vote on the bill; and there will be some interesting challenges over the next few days.

It seems that whilst the Labour and Liberal Democrat peers command the majority in the house, that the cross-benchers may end up being the voice of reason; and able to force through some amendments – which may mean the bill is sent back to the lower chamber to die.

And that’s essentially what this bill is likely to do – even if placed on the statute books, if Theresa May agrees her Brexit extension with the EU, then the bill becomes fairly redundant.

But frankly, even if the bill passes its 3rd reading in the Lords and is not sent back to the Commons; but onto Buckingham Palace for Royal approval – it’ll probably be too late.

And if May’s extension request is rejected on April 10th, then we leave at 11 pm on Friday 12th April 2019 without a deal, and that is the fear of many.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

The following is unedited content from my Live Feed, from April 4th 2019.

04/04/19 – 12:30 The House of Lord’s has moved that an amendment on the Letwin-Cooper (Commons) bill is moved – at least that seems to be what they’re voting on; the speaker of the House of Lords seemed a little bit confused.

04/04/19 – 12:40 The House of Lord’s has voted; the division stands as Contents: 239 Not Contents: 118 Now they are clearing the bar for the next vote – on Lord’s Forsyth‘s motion, which is:

(2) Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

Correction: This was not the motion that was being voted on.

04/04/19 – The Motions Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town to move, further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that:(1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day; and(2) Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.   Lord Forsyth’s of Drumlean’s motion was passed. The Lord’s is currently voting on the 1st Standing Order 46 motion.

04/04/19 – 13:05 The motion: (1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day. 94 Contents to 204 Non-Contents

04/04/19 – 13:11 Lord Forsyth claims that the bill is defective because of its lack of previous debate in the House of Commons; but also because of its issues – which include, according to Forsyth, is to make no-deal more likely (or at least that seems to be what he was saying).

04/04/19 – 13:19 The government believes that the Cooper-Letwin bill is actually pointless, and will hold up the process of negotiating an extension to our membership of the EU.

04/04/19 – 13:21 A member of the house of Lord’s has to be reminded that the House of Lord’s does not have “points of order”; as the Upper chambers votes on another motion, which I will announce the result for once it is announced.

04/04/19 – 13:19 The government believes that the Cooper-Letwin bill is actually pointless, and will hold up the process of negotiating an extension to our membership of the EU.

04/04/19 – 13:21 A member of the house of Lord’s has to be reminded that the House of Lord’s does not have “points of order”; as the Upper chambers votes on another motion, which I will announce the result for once it is announced.

04/04/19 – 13:34 The house of Lords voted 227 (Contents) to 111 (Not Contents) this was one the about seven amendments; they have just moved to vote on the next amendment from Lord Forsyth.

04/04/19 – 13:40 From what I can understand, and believe me the House of Lords seems to actually only make sense to them – even BBC Parliament is in the commons, yet the real thing is happening in the House of Lords – So we’ll break down what’s being voted on this morning… Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town to move, further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that: (1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day; and (2) Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

04/04/19 – 13:42 Ammendments from: Lord Forsyth of Drumlean to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “move” to the end and to insert “that the Standing Orders of the House relating to public business shall apply to all proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill.” and Lord True to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, to leave out from “move” to the end and to insert “notwithstanding the non-binding resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that this House does not consider it is in keeping with the traditions and procedures of the House of Lords, its proper scrutinising role or its function as a safeguard of the constitution to apply unprecedented procedures to this Bill, and therefore declines to dispense with normal Standing Orders.” and Baroness Noakes to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, to leave out from “move” to the end and to insert “notes that the Prime Minister has already indicated her intention to ask for a delay in the date for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and considers it unnecessary, as well as undesirable and unprecedented, to apply exceptional procedures to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5 Bill) and therefore regrets the proposal by Her Majesty’s Opposition to do so.”

04/04/19 – 13:45 Further amendments in the name of: Viscount Ridley to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, to leave out from first “that” to the end and to insert “the attempt to accelerate procedures on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill is not in accordance with normal practice in either House of Parliament and the provisions of Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) should be dispensed with only to the extent necessary to allow the First and Second Readings of the Bill to be taken on one day, the Committee stage on a subsequent day, and the Report and Third Reading to be taken on the same day subsequently.” and Lord Robathan to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, to leave out from “Commons,” to the end and to insert “notes that more than one day is required for this House to have sufficient time to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill received from the House of Commons that has had less than one day of consideration in that House, and had not been received by this House by the end of business on 3 April.” and Lord Hamilton of Epsom to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, at the end to insert “but in view of the exceptional constitutional implications of the proposal put forward, regrettably without agreement in the Usual Channels, for its exceptional consideration in the House of Lords, the House shall not resolve itself into a Committee on the bill until at least 24 hours after a report from the Constitution Committee on the bill has been laid before the House.” and Lord Blencathra to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, at the end to insert “but the House shall not resolve itself into a Committee on the bill until at least 24 hours after a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the bill has been laid before the House.”

04/04/19 – 13:46 I think the amendments have been voted on in reverse order: Lord Blencathra; Lord Hamilton; Lord Robathan; Viscount Ridley; Baroness Noakes; Lord True and now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean; whilst Baroness Hayter of Kentish town motion were voted on at the start. It is also possible that Lord Forsyth‘s extra “filibustering” motions are the ones being voted on, but the announcements of whats being voted on have not always been clear this morning.

04/04/19 – 13:51 Lord Forsyth’s amendments have been defeated (123 Contents to 251 Not Contents, to the amendments). Lord True is now speaking, in favor of his amendment. Someone has just asked Lord True why he bothers coming every day (he has just accused Labour of basically being pointless in the Lords). It seems that Lord Forsyth‘s motions were voted on after Baroness Hayter’s motions.

04/04/19 – 14:02 Lord True (Conservative) is arguing that the Labour Party (The official opposition) is trying to usurp the Houses of Parliament and the Government – and that the attempt to run through the bill in one day and lay aside standing orders is to avoid proper scrutiny. An intervention has pointed out that this house has already passed motions and bills that have not followed the process of impactassessments. Lord True does not accept this is the case. And continues to argue that whilst the other house has asked the Lords to pass the bill, probably quickly, but that they do not have to do so quickly, and that an act of parliament must go through sufficient consideration, otherwise the Lords is not doing its job properly (and following proper procedures). He is now accusing Baroness Hayter of hypocrisy after a tweet on 24th February about May‘s desire to rush the Withdrawal agreement in 10 days – whilst today she wishes to run a bill through in a single day. And that the motion was tabled so late.

04/04/19 – 14:06 Lord True believes that this bill is nonsense – as the PM has already committed to do what it asks. And that whilst also arguing that the Lord’s does set aside standing order in times of emergency – but that today’s bill is not an example of this. He has now moved onto attacking the Liberal Democrats with going along with the “pre-cooked” plot of Sir Oliver Letwin (Conservative, MP) and the Labour Party.

04/04/19 – 14:08 Lord True is arguing that the Official Opposition should be cautions as if this sets the precedent for setting aside standing orders – for IF they end up in government they may find that others (the Conservatives) use it against them.

04/04/19 – 14:13 Lord True: “There is no argument in logic, There is no argument in process that we pass this motion today” on the grounds that the Prime-Minister has already committed to fulfilling the objectives of this bill. Lord True appeals to freedom (of the Lords) to amend and debate. An Intervention (from a fellow Conservative peer) is that if the Official Opposition stand up (after Lord True) and move rather than to allow further debate; and against the silencing of the “minority” and that the cross-benchers are to be the balance in this argument; as the Conservatives are actually smaller in number in the HoL than the Labour and Liberal Democrat peers – appealing to the Cross-Bench peers are the ones who must prevent the “tyranny” of the majority (of peers) and allow all (the Conservatives) to be heard.

04/04/19 – 14:17 I’ll be honest to me Lord True seems to be filibustering – that is to draw out in an extension (beyond the 15 minute time limit that was set for today’s speeches) – he has now hit over 30 minutes; and the claims that everyone must be heard – is to delay the hearing of the bill itself – these are still just arguments about whether to hear the bill in one sitting, rather than 2 or 3 (his preference of course is for 3, so it can be sent back to the commons, when it was too late). Now the house is about to debate Lord True’s amendment.

04/04/19 – 14:18 The peer following Lord True has just called him out for his 30 minute speech and all these amendments for filibustering.

04/04/19 – 14:21 The Labour Peer who has followed Lord True is arguing that the Commons would have been negligent in its duty if it had not filled-in the vacuum left after the effective collapse of the government. And that this bill needs to be debated in full today as time is of the essence. And denies the bill is not unnecessary – as despite the PMs commitment, she does not have the confidence of the commons in fulfilling her commitment – and that this is the Commons way of ensuring it. And that the bill can be debated more fully IF the house of Lords was not wasting time debating these procedural motions.

04/04/19 – 1426 Last peer (thought was Labour, was the Leader of the Liberal Democrates). Another peer (Conservative, I believe) has described this as a constitutional crisis (not sure if he’s talking about the standing procedures or Brexit). His issue is about the lack of written constitution (which is fine when the interpreted by the appropriate courts) and that Britain hasn’t needed one because we haven’t had a ruling discontinuity whether through cession; wartime or revolution – and that the UK has been uniquely blessed in this. However, the price we pay in not having a written is that standing orders which is what we base our way of protecting our unwritten constitution – and that in ignoring the standing orders is constitutional vandalism.

04/04/19 – 14:28 The Conservative Peer (Constitutional Crisis guy) is now arguing that he is rather worried (he’s using very emotive language to describe) the division between parliament and the United Kingdom. A female peer (former Teacher of Constitutional Law) is now talking…

04/04/19 – 14:29 Previous Peer was Lord Lawson. Current Peer (Former Professor of Constitutional Law) is arguing that respect for the law is internalised. And is now arguing that the constitution is being trashed and that there is a risk of a breakdown in trust between the two houses, the government and the courts. She is arguing that the UK does not have its sovereignty and that it is with the EU.

04/04/19 – 14:31 Former Lecturer in Constitutional Law Peer is now arguing the EU is effectively evil and has damaged this process – naming Junker as being “appointed” even “when we didn’t want it”.

04/04/19 – 14:35 Conservative Peer: “The excuse that we are in a time of national emergency – is the excuse used by tyrants down the ages…”

04/04/19 – 14:42 Peer: “Ironically I think the proposal coming forward in this bill does more harm than good…” essentially because it weaken’s the PM’s negotiating hand for an extension with the EU, as she is not in control.

04/04/19 – 14:45 Baroness Hayter argues that the Leader of the House should have tabled this bill, as it was moved by Parliament, but did not, and thus were negligent (by implication) in not doing so.

04/04/19 – 14:47 Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town argues that at this “time of national crisis” people in the gallery must be wondering what is going on when the house of Lord’s is not debating the actual bill today, but rather the procedure about even tabling the bill.

04/04/19 – 14:49 Lord True’s amendment goes to the vote.

04/04/19 – 14:59 The Peer’s are returning to their seats, which means that the results of the vote on the amendment should be announced shortly.

04/04/19 – 15:01 The Lord’s has an “archaic” way of voting – it seems from looking – they vote on whether to move a motion for voting and then they vote on the actual motion or amendment.

04/04/19 – 15:04 The results should be announced shortly, I imagine the major broadcaster will switch to the Lords (i.e. BBC Parliament) once they get onto substantially debating the actual bill, at the moments its amendments, which could be viewed as attempts to delay the process.

04/04/19 – 15:05 The Amendment in the name of Lord True is about to be actually voted on, the previous vote seems to have been on whether to vote on the amendment or not: the results for that vote are: Content: 249 and Not Content: 97

04/04/19 – 15:08 Whilst we wait, some interesting factoids about the House of Lords. The Lords is self-regulating (something they pride themselves on) which means they don’t have a speaker in the way that the commons does, and no single person therefore oversees debates.

04/04/19 – 15:11 Like in the commons before a ‘division’ (vote) the Speaker (or caller) will ask the Ayes (Contents) and the Nos (Not Contents) to call out, this is arguably archaic, but if, as is most often the case, the person calling does not hear a clear majority they will call for the vote – quite often those with less seats will shout very loud to make it sound like there is more of them, so that it goes to a vote – this will probably happen a fair bit today, as it will delay moving to the actual bill in questions’ first reading – once its there, it should process through at a reasonable pace – assuming the delay amendments aren’t approved – the numbers don’t look to support the delay amendments, and one assumes the bill will be supported by a majority of the Lords, whether that is a good thing is a matter for debate.

04/04/19 – 15:15 The commons can over-rule the House of Lords by invoking the Parliament Act 1911 (and technically the Parliament Act 1949) – anyway this piece of legislation has been used probably less than half a dozen times. And now to the results on Lord True’s amendment…

04/04/19 – 15:18 Lord True’s Amendment: Contents: 122; Not Content: 248 – Which means the amendment has been rejected. It is now Baroness Noakes’ amendment which “considers it unnecessary, as well as undesirable and unprecedented, to apply exceptional procedures to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5 Bill)”.

04/04/19 – 15:22 A few arguments and interjections across the chamber primarily that each amendment (though very similar) are distinct and different – and therefore rather than being debated and voted in one; but that we have to debate these amendments and now we will not have time to debate the full motion and bill. It’s very much a too-and-fro between those who support the wrecking/filibustering amendments and those who wish to proceed the Letwin-Cooper Bill (Commons) – in the Lords known as the Baroness Hayter Bill. Lord Forsyth* has some “important” motions which MUST be debated fully (randomly) in the middle of the evening tonight – which is seen as blocking the proper full debate of Baroness Hayter’s Bill.

04/04/19 – 15:28 I’m going to sign off for now – and let the Lord’s argue out their motions – as frankly the motions appear to be the same (although worded differently) and are likely to be defeated. It may be that they filibuster the bill itself by extending Lord Forsyth‘s motions and the debate on the actual bill this evening. Baroness Noakes believes we must trust the Prime Minister.

04/04/04 – 15:53 They’ll be voting through the amendments quickly now – as those in support of the actual bill are pushing to get through the blatant filibustering. There has been the suggestion from one Conservative Peer that these amendments represent the [Anti-] European Research Group (ERG) – who arguably have never researched the EU – anyway, that these amendments represent the ERG’s contingent in the House of Lords.

04/04/19 – 16:15 Most of the arguments being made in the HoL is based on the constitutional abnormality of this attempt to push this bill through today. Arguments surround whether the bill supports the referendum or is in favour of a “remainer” parliament. These arguments are coming from Peers who desire a no-deal brexit.

4/04/19 – 16:16 Brexiteer Peer describes the HoL as an “Echo-Chamber of Remainers” and swiftly moves backs to the constitutional issues.

04/04/19 – 16:20 Oliver Letwin’s comments in the debate in the House of Commons are being used against him, primarily his belief that there is a majority in the HoL for this bill before they’ve seen the bill.

04/04/19 – 16:21 Arguments are focusing now on the way the bill passed through HoC – with terms like “usurped” and “improperly” being used to push the bill through.

04/04/19 – 16:26 You know a Hard/ERG/No- Deal Peer when they use phrases that describe a “long extension” as a bad idea, or their love for no-deal or even for other options… But this is a procedural debate, apparently, and the HoC is effectively breaking the constitution and breaking the rules of our parlimentary democracy. This is a debate on respect for the HoL – whether getting the bill through quickly is seen as breaking the constitution or not doing it quickly enough is seeking as usurping the will of the commons and by extension the public… So many arguments in circles… Clearly everyone is talking past each other.

04/04/19 – 16:49 At the speed they’re moving through these wrecking amendments, I imagine they’ll move onto the bills debate around 7pm latest.

04/04/19 – 17:10 I’m just hoping they get to the bill to be debated before 9pm! With any luck they’ll make it by 6pm, but probably closer to 7pm (and I believe that’ll be what is called the second reading, but the HoL is rather confusing).

04/04/19 – 17:11 No Brexiteer Peers are being accused of using the constitutional arguments not because they genuinely believe them, but because the desire a No Deal Brexit.

04/04/19 – 17:15 It’s probably treason or something to say this, but I’m not convinced that these arguments saying it’s unconstitutional is because they really want to scrutinize the bill, because essentially they all seem to have made up their mind, this is about delaying the bill they hate, on the whole.

04/04/19 – 17:20 Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town seems to agree, these amendments aren’t about the bill, but fillibustering. Because everyone has basically stood up and stated they were against the bill, and then outlined their constitutional issues.

04/04/19 – 17:25 The reason they want to drag it over 3 days? Because if they can send it back to the lower chamber on technicality on day 4, it’ll be too late.

04/04/19 – 17:51 “The question is, will the question now be put” is a common refrain in the HoL – essentially, we will now vote on whether to vote on the amendment/motion/bill – yeah rather an odd archaic approach, but that’s the way they do it.

04/04/19 – 18:00 The important amendment actually happened at 1:30pm today which means the HoL can sit until 3:30am today to get the bill through – that amendment tried to prevent its passage today, it clearly failed, as have all the amendments so far, as again expected.

04/04/19 – 18:10 Starting with constitutional arguments, as each amendment has been defeated on larger divisions than the one before; Lord Hamilton of Epsom has admitted that he doesn’t want the bill to “ever make it onto the statue books”.

04/04/19 – 18:11 Lord Hamilton (Con) admits that if in opposition they would use the precedent of the process to get this bill through to frustrate the gov. of the day. Seems like he desires to be obstruct rather than facilitating the HoC.

04/04/19 – 18:16 Lord Hamilton amendment which limits the time before the second reading of the bill, which requires the Constitutional Committee to submit a report, and then a minimum of 24 hours before second reading of the bill can begin.

04/04/19 – 18:15 Lord Hamilton’s bill has been moved, “let’s ask the question”. Though he seems to have left the chamber… But they move on irregardless, voting to vote.   

04/04/19 – 18:18 Lord Hamilton’s amendment is the third to last before the actual bill, it should be moved shortly.

04/04/19 – 18:19 Baroness Hayter suggested that with the way the amendments had been blocking the bill tonight, it would actually be about 11am tomorrow before the HoL could debate, in line with Lord Hamilton’s amendment.

04/04/19 – 18:32 Even once all these amendments have been defeated we still have Lord Forsyth’s [not-so-urgent] urgent debate on a completely unrelated topic. Which means they will possibly get to the first reading at about 9pm.

04/04/19 – 18:45 Whilst the reasons for tabling these amendments is at best dubious; the constitutional arguments do actually have merit, unfortunately.

04/04/19 – 18:50 I may have miss-heard but I believe #LordRobathan who is proposing his amendment said he does not wish to push his amendment to vote? Maybe I miss-heard that though.

04/04/19 – 18:48 Clearly I did miss-hear, #LordRobathan ‘s amendment seems to be off to a vote.

04/04/19 – 19:02 Baroness Hayter is being urged to withdraw her motion by the Chief Whip. She has refused.

04/04/19 – 19:05 Issues being discussed about when the bill’s business will be completed – deadline at some point Monday, Chief Whip suggests that is flexible, as HoC remains open until HoL decides on Monday.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Today in the House of Lord’s the Letwin-Cooper (Commons) Bill is being debated. The debate in the House of Lord’s has not been so much on the issues of the board, but rather on the procedure. MP Sir Oliver Letwin was accused in the Upper chamber by the Government’s Lord’s Front Bench of orchestrating a constitutional crisis – in Letwin’s words the desire is for the house of commons to become a cabinet.

The Lord’s primary arguments against the bill have been that the debate does not need to be done in one day; however, a second argument is that the bill isn’t needed because the Prime Minister had already announced that she was working towards the same end as the bill.

The government’s Lords still trust their government; as you would expect. However, a Rogue Speaker is the description of John Bercow given by the government’s front bench leader in the House of Lords.

There are a few things to know about this bill and procedure in the House of Lords. It is likely that the bill will pass, the numbers in the upper house seem to support it; but, its delay could be until Monday. Though arguments in favour of doing it in one-day, are that the House of Lords has previously passed a motion that emergency legislation on Brexit could be passed in one day.

There also seems to have been an issue with the legislation papers – that this was a) a private members bill; and that extraditing this process is beyond the comprehension of the process of the upper chamber. And b) that the sponsors name in the upper chamber wasn’t on the papers.

Further to this there is arguments against the way that the bill processed through the commons (and that one vote by which it processed). There issues that the Letwin-Cooper bill did not have a committee/reports stage and a truncated 3rd reading.

The debate in the House of Lords is arguing about how the perception of the debate will be perceived; as well as the ignoring of the standing procedures in the commons. The government’s frontbench in the Lord’s is essentially both right – but it does come across as essentially attempts to block the passage of the bill. And that’s the point being made by one of the Lord’s as I write – that if the Lord’s is seen as blocking or preventing the bill from going forward, it will also be a constitutional crisis in the making – and could involve the total re-organisation of the upper chamber.

The tone and debate in the Commons and Lords is actually, argued, as having an effect on how the government negotiate with the EU. There is a sense, listening carefully that the House of Lords is divided, not quite so much as the commons – but not so much on Brexit itself but on the necessary nature of the progress of the bill.

The Lords’ is also usually less rowdy than the lower chamber, but there have been a few moments today where one thought one was in that other chamber. But on the whole, it has been less rowdy, if slightly more cheeky towards one another.

Whether the bill will pass today; tomorrow or on Monday is a matter of debate, that may take up most of the day!

One hopes that the filibustering will soon be done so that the upper chamber can vote and this bill, which seems to be popular; and for the Lords to filibuster, rather than amend, or send back to the commons on technical grounds, would be in itself a negation of the constitution.

The Lords’ seem to be trying to be putting the question of should the motion be moved, but there are many arguments at the moment is “what’s the question”? – And they’ve gone to division (i.e. to vote).

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

So something has happened in the House of Commons, a bill proposed by the Conservative MP Letwin and the Labour MP Cooper – yes that bill, that Letwin-Cooper bill, that one we’veprobably been hearing about for a few weeks passed by 1 vote (or maybe I’m thinking of the Letwin-Cooper amendment, or the Letwin-Cooper dinner party?).

But what is this bill about? Essentially it says Parliament wishes for the Prime Minister to negotiate a further extension with the EU. She was already going to do this, from her speech on Tuesday, but the stark difference here is that Parliament will get to decide how long she asks for – how long do parliament want, we don’t know.

The bill passed through the lower house of the Westminster parliament last night by 1 vote, but it can’t become law until being passed through the upper chamber, which could be today, Friday or Monday. And then presumably it has to await royal ascent before being actual UK law.

Apparently the bill prevents no-deal brexit, I’m not entirely sure how, but I think it’s a trigger clause (I don’t know that, I haven’t seen the bill in full)- essentially if there is no deal by this date, Parliament instructs the Prime Minister to negotiate an extension etc.

There are issues of course, from come corners. The bill was “rammed through” the house according to die-hards in the ERG. And the government’s own amendment, which somehow was designed to limit the power of the bill was defeated by 180 votes. I have been informed this is the second largest defeat in recent times, the first being on that withdrawal bill.

And during the amendments process for the bill, the Speaker, John Bercow, was forced to follow precedent and vote – something that hasn’t happened since 1993! That amendment would have handed MPs the control of this coming Monday’s order papers (basically the agenda) for the House of Commons on Monday, so that they could hold more of those highly productive indicative votes. The amendment was tied, which means the precedent of the house is for the Speaker, who never votes, to cast the deciding votes. And precedent for the Speaker’s vote is for the vote to be in line with the governments position, in this case the no’s won.

The Letwin-Cooper Bill is designed to make sure, essentially, that the PM does actually negotiate an extension to Article 50.

So whilst all this has happened, Theresa and Jeremy were probably having tea, and maybe some scones, as they discussed in what was apparently open and constructive but not conclusive talks. And it seems Corbyn has asked for a confirmatory referendum on the final deal, as part of these talks.

We stand at a point where we wait to see if the Letwin-Cooper Bill passes the House of Lords (likely), and then for the PM proposes the length of extension for the Commons approval. After all this, it looks like No Deal, Second Referendum, Long Extension. And maybe the explosion of the Conservative party, whilst the Labour party is rumoured to not be far behind. Essentially not much has changed, whilst everything (in terms of the way forward) is now different, concretely set against the a no-deal brexit and in favour of a longer extension. However, from my understanding, no deal is still the default on April 12th and it’s possibile, even post any extension, so anti-no-dealers, don’t celebrate just yet.