Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Is Parliament's Brexit fog about to clear?

Laura Kuenssberg

Is Parliament, finally, at long last, really on the verge of giving a clear signal about what it wants to do about Brexit?

As much as I can feel your pain, don't bet on it.

You've probably heard a lot of noise about the amendments that MPs will be voting on tomorrow night, not least from me. But there is no guarantee at all that any of them will pass.

First, some Tory MPs are coming round to the government's deal, if they can cut out the bit they don't like (yes, of course, the backstop.) A lot of them have signed up to a way of making that clear, by supporting Sir Graham Brady's amendment.

And if enough of them get on board it would allow the prime minister, in theory, to go back to the EU and say, tah dah! Look! I can get this deal through apart from this really pesky part, which might, as we've been reporting in the last few days, move things forward, despite the very strong warnings from Dublin that it can't happen.

But, I wouldn't bet very much that Brexiteers will switch to back it in a coherent and decisive way.

As I wrote last week, some Tory insiders are pushing for the prime minister to put her own amendment forward to say what she really wants. And if she doesn't, well, she may well be simply stuck in the same predicament. By the end of today it will be clearer where the numbers might lie.

Iain Duncan Smith, the influential Brexiteer, has just told me:

"The government should now place its own amendment setting out what it wants to achieve in the negotiations. This is the time when the PM must make clear her intentions in the negotiation, to seek support. We need more than back bench amendments with nods and winks from the government, we need clarity and purpose."

In other words, if the PM is willing to front-up and say she will go and demand Brussels changes the backstop, they might play ball. But if she doesn't, don't expect the Brexiteer votes she needs to be suddenly forthcoming.

But the government has an additional dilemma. If they try to stop MPs voting for the Brady plan (you can read more about it and the other amendments here) there's likely to be a rebellion against that attempt too.

On the other side, there are MPs trying to create and take control of a set of brakes to stop the government from heading towards leaving the EU without a formal deal.

Labour's Yvette Cooper's attempt is the most prominent and would be the most significant because it would commit to changing the law in a bill that would put Parliament in charge if the government can't get things sorted out by the end of February.

But it doesn't have much of a hope of passing if Labour's frontbench team don't get behind it.

They have made supportive noises about it, because their priority is to remove the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit.

But they have reservations about potentially delaying Brexit until Christmas, and indeed, just like the Tories, if they try to get MPs to vote for it officially by whipping the vote, they too would face their own rebellion because some MPs are implacably opposed.

Again, by this evening we should have more sense of where the decisions might land.

You wouldn't be blamed for thinking that all seems like Parliamentary fog. But until we see the numbers in the votes tomorrow, this week may not be the occasion when Parliament's view on Brexit becomes that much clearer. (Sorry!)

 

[Rorschach]

Boris Johnson: Theresa May will win 'full-throated' support if she secures Brexit 'freedom clause' from Brussels

Theresa May is planning to fight for a "freedom clause" from Brussels in a move that will win the "full-throated" support of the entire nation if she succeeds, Boris Johnson says.

Writing in The Telegraph, the former Foreign Secretary says he has heard "from the lips of very senior sources" that the Prime Minister is planning to go to Brussels and renegotiate the Northern Ireland customs backstop.

Describing the plans as "unadulterated good Brexit news", he says an exit mechanism or sunset clause will "defuse the booby trap" and give the UK a "way out" to negotiate a Canada-style trade deal with the EU.

He calls on the Prime Minister to now publicly confirm her "change of heart" and reveal "exactly what the Government has asked for", including the detail of the "freedom clauses" she is seeking to secure from Brussels.

The European Union has repeatedly insisted it will not renegotiate the backstop, while Ireland's Foreign Minister said it "isn't going to change".

However, Mr Johnson says: "That backstop is dead, rejected by the biggest ever parliamentary majority; and that is why I hope and pray that I am right about the intentions of Number 10.


"If we mean it, if we really try, I have no doubt that the EU will give us the Freedom Clause we need. So now is the time to stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood and get on that trusty BAE 146 and go back to Brussels and get it.

"And if the PM secures that change – a proper UK-sized perforation in the fabric of the backstop itself - I have no doubt that she will have the whole country full-throatedly behind her."

Since quitting Cabinet over the Prime Minister's Brexit strategy, Mr Johnson has been one of her most prominent critics.

His intervention is likely to be seen by Downing Street as a signal that other Eurosceptics are prepared to soften their position and back her deal if she can resolve the backstop issue. Mr Johnson and a number of senior Eurosceptics were invited into Number 10 in recent days to discuss the Prime Minister's plans.


He says in his article that "Team Freedom" - which includes Mrs May's husband Philip and Julian Smith, the Chief Whip - have won out over "Team Remain" in Downing Street.

The Government is expected to signal its intentions this week by supporting an amendment tabled by Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with "alternative arrangements".


The Prime Minister is understood to believe that if the amendment passes it will give her the "mandate" that she needs to go back to Brussels and change the backstop.

However The Telegraph understands that Eurosceptics are pushing the Prime Minister to make a public statement about her approach in the Commons on Monday in order to secure their backing.


In giving his endorsement to the approach, Mr Johnson acknowledges that some will say he is "naive" and "point out that the backstop is not the only defect of the withdrawal agreement".

"They will say that we are all being gulled, and that there is a bait-and-switch plan to get MPs to back the deal on the condition that the backstop is removed," he says.

"And then somehow, alas, it will turn out that this condition was impossible to satisfy and all we will get, after weeks of talks, is another footling letter of “clarification” from Brussels.

"That is why we need to understand, now, what is behind these rumours of the PM’s change of heart. We need to know whether the Treaty really will be revised.

"We need to see the Freedom Clauses written down. We need to know exactly what the government is asking for – and we need to hear it directly from the Prime Minister herself."

However, Simon Coveney, Ireland's deputy prime minister, insisted there would be no changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.


Mr Coveney said the backstop was crucial in preventing a hard border.

He told the Press Association: "Peace and the Good Friday Agreement are more important than Brexit.

"Even in a no-deal Brexit situation every party and every MP in the UK will have a responsibility to ensure there is no return to a hard border and Northern Ireland is protected.

"That won't be easy and those who misrepresent the backstop don't have an alternative to it."

The Prime Minister will on Tuesday face a rebellion by around 20 Tory MPs - including ministers - over a back-bench amendment that will force her to request an extension of Article 50 if a deal cannot be reached.

In a bid to defuse the rebellion and ensure there are no resignations, Mrs May is considering making a commitment to holding a second meaningful vote on her Brexit deal within two weeks.

On Sunday night a dozen pro-European ministers including Amber Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke held a conference call in which they agreed the move would help defer a potential rebellion.

Rebels believe that a "hard commitment" to a second meaningful vote will mean there is still enough time for another backbench bill extending Article 50, effectively deferring the rebellion until later this month.


Downing Street sources warned that the backbench bill tabled by Yvette Cooper, a Labour MP, could see Brexit delayed for years or cancelled entirely.

Lord Bew, one of the architects of the Good Friday Agreement, warned that the Irish backstop would "turn the Good Friday Agreement on its head". He said it had enabled Ireland to "weaponise" the agreement and called for a sunset clause to ensure it is "time-limited".

And around we go. It was the British government asked that the backstop be UK wide to appease the DUP. Turn it back into a NI only arrangement and everyone is happy, the people of NI most of all (well except the DUP). Bew is missing the main point that the backstop is there to stop UK citizens killing each other again. He'll soon discover the true meaning of the word weaponise if it goes back to a hard border.

 

[SpurMeUp]

And around we go. It was the British government asked that the backstop be UK wide to appease the DUP. Turn it back into a NI only arrangement and everyone is happy, the people of NI most of all (well except the DUP). Bew is missing the main point that the backstop is there to stop UK citizens killing each other again. He'll soon discover the true meaning of the word weaponise if it goes back to a hard border.

Cancel the whole thing. Monumental waste of time and money. What an embarrassment the UK is. The actions of the Tory party can be traced through this nonsense, yet we have an opposition who don't seem able to offer a credible alternative.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Cancel the whole thing. Monumental waste of time and money. What an embarrassment the UK is. The actions of the Tory party can be traced through this nonsense, yet we have an opposition who don't seem able to offer a credible alternative.

Labour manifesto:

"Britain and the EU
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the EU was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy.

The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Single Market are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.

For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the EU is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of the world.

We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Single Market and other EU treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other international governments - both in the EU and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.

The process of withdrawal

On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EU member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the EU. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EU legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members."

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

And around we go. It was the British government asked that the backstop be UK wide to appease the DUP. Turn it back into a NI only arrangement and everyone is happy, the people of NI most of all (well except the DUP). Bew is missing the main point that the backstop is there to stop UK citizens killing each other again. He'll soon discover the true meaning of the word weaponise if it goes back to a hard border.

I should just clarify, Im posting that so none of you need to go on the Telegraph site and give the cretin clicks.

I do not post that because I agree with him!

Labour manifesto:

.....

As if it wasnt clear enough Corbyn wants us out.

Which is why I find his current stance somewhat baffling, it runs counter to this whole piece.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I should just clarify, Im posting that so none of you need to go on the Telegraph site and give the cretin clicks.

I do not post that because I agree with him!



As if it wasnt clear enough Corbyn wants us out.

Which is why I find his current stance somewhat baffling, it runs counter to this whole piece.

Just for clarity, that was an old Labour manifesto. The one Corbyn was first selected as a candidate to deliver.

But it's basically the clearest articulation there is of the Corbynite wing's position on Europe

My point really just was that leave is the majority position (and yet a highly divisive issue) for both political parties, not just the Tories.

 

[SpurMeUp]

"It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy."

Okay interesting. What is Labour 'international policy'?

The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Single Market are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.

For all the talk, the only concerete thing they referance is buying food. Generally food is best sourced locally. Fresher, cheaper to transport, and has a lower environmental impact. Would leaving the EU actually help? Sure we could get red meat from the US and Australia that has levels of hormones that are outlawed in the EU (and hence is cheaper to produce). But for fresh veg and fruit, unless its flown in, the EU makes far more sense. Shame they couldn't give any more examples, maybe there will be in the following...

For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the EU is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of the world.

We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Single Market and other EU treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other international governments - both in the EU and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.

No examles of the 'burdens' or the benifits for that matter, bar food above. That is really poor. Its hyperbole. Dreams. With literally one example cited, which in itslef is far from conclusive as being a benifit.

Why is it hard (impossible?) to outline the benifits of withdrawl from the european union with real examples that stand up to scrunity? On the flip side you can outline many clear examples of why leaving worsens prospects for the UK.

Politics has become a sham, with many many politicans going along with Brexit because they fear for their jobs. Rather that cut through the hyperbole and outline the reality. The official Labour party manifesto is no different. Though you might argue its out of date now.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Just for clarity, that was an old Labour manifesto. The one Corbyn was first selected as a candidate to deliver.

But it's basically the clearest articulation there is of the Corbynite wing's position on Europe

My point really just was that leave is the majority position (and yet a highly divisive issue) for both political parties, not just the Tories.

Didn't Corbyn campaign for Remain? His Islington constituency has to be a remain seat by some margin.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Didn't Corbyn campaign for Remain? His Islington constituency has to be a remain seat by some margin.

Yes he did, but apparently in the eyes of some that makes him a leaver, a friend of terrorists, an anti Semite, a communist...you know the rest.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Didn't Corbyn campaign for Remain? His Islington constituency has to be a remain seat by some margin.

I thought he just ducked out of it, because he was in an unsecure position and scarred of the Blairites. But for 35 years he's been about the strongest pro-leave MP in the house

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Theresa May has said she will talk to the EU later about reopening negotiations on how the UK leaves the bloc on 29 March.

She is expected to have phone calls with key EU leaders throughout the day ahead of a series of Commons votes over the future direction of Brexit.

The EU has ruled out making changes to the legal text agreed with the UK PM.

But Mrs May has told her cabinet she will seek legally binding changes to the controversial Irish backstop.

Senior Brexiteer rebels - who voted down her deal last month - have indicated they would be willing to back her deal if she gets legal changes to the backstop.

The backstop is the insurance policy in Mrs May's plan to prevent checks on good and people returning to the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which some MPs fear could leave the UK tied to the EU's rules indefinitely.

MPs have put forward a string of amendments to modify the prime minister's Brexit plan after it was voted down by an historic margin on 15 January.

Speaker of the House, John Bercow, will decide which of the amendments can be debated at around 13:45 GMT and Mrs May will then open the debate.

A vote on the amendments is then expected at around 19:00 to see which ones have the support of MPs.

Conservative MPs have been instructed by the government to vote for an amendment calling for "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, proposed by senior backbencher Graham Brady - if it gets chosen by Mr Bercow.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has said the "Brady" amendment would give the PM a "strong mandate" to return to Brussels, adding: "If you compromise with us on this one issue, on the backstop, we would be able to a get an agreement - an agreement that is almost there."

Former foreign secretary and leading Brexiteer Boris Johnson gave a boost to the plan, saying he "gladly" vote for the amendment, if Mrs May confirmed she would re-open negotiations with Brussels.

But it is not the only amendment on the table.

The Labour party and a number of Remain-backing MPs are supporting an amendment by Labour MP Yvette Cooper that would create a bill enabling Article 50 - the mechanism by which the UK leaves the EU - to be delayed by up to nine months if the government does not have a plan agreed in Parliament by the end of February.

Labour said it was supporting the amendment because the bill it would create could "give MPs a temporary window to agree a deal that can bring the country together".

But they would "aim to amend the Cooper bill to shorten the possible Article 50 extension".

Some members of Mrs May's cabinet, including Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd, had called for a free vote on Tuesday's amendments to allow them to back Ms Cooper's proposal, but the government is whipping against it.

Mrs May is said to have tried to reassure her cabinet this will not be their last chance to vote on the next steps of Brexit, promising to return to the Commons "as soon as possible" with a revised deal and offering a second "meaningful vote" on her proposals.

If no new deal is reached by 13 February, the PM will make a statement to Parliament that day and table an amendable motion for debate the following day, re-opening discussions on how to move forward with Brexit.

Separately, Conservative MPs on both sides of the Brexit argument have been planning for a no-deal scenario.

Former Remainers, including ex-Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and government ministers Stephen Hammond and Rob Buckland, have been working with Brexiteers Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker on the plan - in talks co-ordinated by Conservative MP Kit Malthouse.

According to a leaked document, the proposal drawn up by the rival factions would extend the transition period - during which the UK would continue to follow EU rules and pay into its budget - from the end of 2020 to December 2021, to allow more time to reach a free trade deal.

EU citizens rights would be guaranteed during this time, there would be no customs checks on the Irish border and the UK would pay the £39bn so-called "divorce deal".

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - which props up Mrs May's government - has endorsed the "Malthouse" proposals.

DUP leader Arlene Foster said the plan could "unify a number of strands in the Brexit debate" and was a "feasible alternative to the backstop proposed by the European Union".

But the EU was "standing tough" on its position of no renegotiation and they were "mesmerised" with what was happening in Parliament, BBC Europe editor Katya Adler said.


Senior EU representatives have repeatedly ruled out reopening negotiations with the UK over Brexit, and have insisted the backstop must be included in any deal.

And Ireland's European Affairs Minister, Helen McEntee, said: "There can be no change to the backstop. It was negotiated over 18 months with the UK and by the UK."

The European Research Group, led by Eurosceptic Mr Rees-Mogg, had initially said the group would not back the amendment.

But Mr Rees-Mogg told the BBC on Tuesday that if the Brady amendment had government support and if it meant reopening the withdrawal agreement - the part of Mrs May's deal that lays out how the UK will leave the EU - it would be "very different" from a backbench plan.

"Let's see what the prime minister says at the despatch box today and what the Brady amendment really means," he said.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: Will Brussels budge on the Irish backstop?

Katya Adler

Boris Johnson insists on them, Graham Brady is pushing hard for them, Prime Minister Theresa May seems to be praying for them and Dublin is deeply worried at the thought of them but will the EU ever actually "give in" and make changes to the backstop - that guarantee post-Brexit to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

It's a tough one.

The EU certainly never intended to budge on the backstop - painfully negotiated with the UK over 18 months and signed off last November by Mrs May and her cabinet.

But Europe's leaders didn't imagine the UK would still be in such flux over Brexit so very close to B-day on 29 March.

Conversations I had with EU figures before Christmas saw my contacts confidently predicting that 2019 would see a no-deal Brexit (which they didn't believe UK MPs would allow to happen), Theresa May's Brexit deal being passed by parliament with cross-party support when MPs realised the looming risk of no deal (they thought this outcome the most likely), or no Brexit at all.

But now there is spreading concern, as the EU's deputy chief Brexit negotiator, Sabine Weyand, pointed out on Monday, that the UK could end up "crashing out" of the EU - not intentionally but simply because time allotted by law for exit negotiations could run out before any agreement is reached.

"The only reason there's still relative calm in EU circles about a no-deal Brexit is because we still have the popcorn out," one EU diplomat told me.

"We're mesmerised by the goings on in the House of Commons. But give it a few weeks: if nothing has changed, you'll soon see signs of panic in the (European) capitals."

Of course the EU wants to concentrate minds - for negotiating purposes - on the pain a no-deal Brexit will cause the UK but it will inevitably be costly and difficult for European citizens and businesses too.

Game planning
EU leaders won't want to be punished at the ballot box back home for not having done their best in the view of their voters to avoid all that, but you would be mistaken to then conclude Brussels will - when push comes to shove - pay any price to head off a no-deal Brexit.

Behind closed doors, of course, there is a certain amount of game planning going on but the EU is currently in watch and wait mode.

EU leaders believe the Brexit debate still has a way to run in parliament and they want to see which way the wind is blowing.

They hope if they stand firm and refuse to reopen the Brexit withdrawal agreement, then MPs could be tempted to unite around a softer Brexit than the one advocated by Theresa May - in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit.

Some EU leaders dream of a second referendum, resulting - perhaps - in a Brexit reversal.

So put yourself in the EU's shoes for a moment: why make a move now as long as the above options appear (to varying degrees) to still be possibilities in the UK?

This is why we've recently heard the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, insisting that there is flexibility in the Brexit text on EU-UK future relations, whereas the backstop text is unchangeable.

The EU, as I mentioned earlier, wants very, very, very much to avoid making changes to the backstop.

A reminder again as to why:

• Though sometimes scoffed at in the UK as an idea, the EU does indeed feel very much wedded to the Northern Ireland peace process, including cross-border co-operation, which it sees as having been very much facilitated by EU money and EU membership
• The provisions in the backstop are not being forced by the EU on the UK. The text was negotiated bilaterally and no other alternative found. Brussels feels it's often forgotten that the UK-wide customs provision in the backstop was a UK request rather than an EU imposition
• The EU will not want to sacrifice the concerns of member state Ireland "just" to achieve an exit deal (not even a final trade deal) with departing club member UK. Remember how the EU stood by Spain over Gibraltar when it came to the wording of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement? Well, solidarity with Ireland over the Brexit backstop is considerably stronger amongst EU leaders than it was with Madrid at the time
• The backstop is also a guarantee for the EU's single market. Don't forget, the land border between the single market and post-Brexit UK will run through the island of Ireland.

And the EU is thinking bigger picture too. If Brussels "caves in" to the UK over the backstop, there's a fear that could encourage Brussels-sceptic governments in member states Hungary, Italy and Poland, for example, to flout club rules. It could also send a message of weakness to international trade partners.

Ticking clock
Yet despite all that, if EU leaders were staring into the no-deal Brexit abyss come 1 March, then blink they might over the backstop. And there are the beginnings of whispers to that effect in some EU corridors.

Who knows now what changes the EU might eventually accept and it's very hard indeed to imagine them doing it without the OK from Dublin.

But mindful of the ticking clock, the European Commission appears to be trying to focus minds in the Irish government and beyond (remember Theresa May's repeated pledge to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland?) on harsh realities.

Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas - a man known to be extremely careful about what he does or doesn't say - last week pointedly announced that a no-deal Brexit would inevitably lead to some kind of hard border/ie physical checks.

But anyone in Westminster who thinks the backstop issue could magically disappear should definitely think again.

Not just in the context of the Brexit agreement but what comes after.

Ireland - as every other EU member - has a veto over any future EU-UK trade deal and could use it if Dublin felt the border wasn't adequately protected.

In conclusion, the EU will wait until the last minute to make concessions over the Brexit deal on the table.

It's not in the market to make changes here and there only for Theresa May to come back again and demand more.

That's why the message from EU leaders to the prime minister has been loud and clear. They have told her: "Don't bother coming back to us in Brussels until you can convincingly (i.e. not just by a couple of votes) show us once and for all that the majority of parliament is behind you."

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

On Labour's amendment, Theresa May says "we should not indulge" this amendment. She states that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn "now wants a permanent customs union".

"He hasn't got a clue, he's still facing both ways on whether Labour would keep freedom of movement," she continues.

She says it is time for Jeremy Corbyn "to step up to the responsibility of being Leader of the Opposition" and to sit down with her for talks on next steps.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Theresa May says MPs will have the right to decide if they agree with the revised agreement that will come forwards, but she advises MPs to "look at it carefully" before they decide where their votes will go.

Winding up her speech, the prime minister says she believes the government is "in reach of a deal the House can stand behind".

She says that when she goes back to Brussels she needs the strongest voice behind her, adding that the amendments "provide a cacophony of voices when we need just one".

Theresa May urges MPs to "give me the mandate I need" to return to Brussels and demand the Withdrawal Agreement be reopened.

"The time has come for words to be matched by deeds," she says, "if you want Brexit you have to vote for Brexit."

I think she is right, its about time they actually all pulled in one direction. And if they give her a mandate it gives the EU something to think about (and dismiss).

However, its all just pantomime isnt it? While I think what she is saying is correct, its too little too late and is really only theatre to pay lip service to the process.


Jeremy Corbyn says his amendment calls for sufficient time for Parliament to vote on options that prevent leaving with no-deal.

He says it is now "inevitable" that the government will have to extend Article 50 in any scenario, and that he hopes the amendments taking no-deal off the table pass this evening.

If the government is serious about keeping the threat of no-deal on the table then "it is not even close to being prepared", he says, noting that "the exit date would have to be extended".

He says there is "no chance" that primary legislation and secondary legislation, including over 600 statutory instruments, could clear the House between now and 29 March, even if a deal supported by the majority was found.

Jeremy Corbyn says in his scenario, a customs union would be negotiated that is designed to ensure that jobs, investment and frictionless trade are protected.

In taking no deal away as an option, are we not just neutering ourselves in any further discussions with the EU?
Theyve taken every advantage they can over us in negotiations, this is essentially handing them the noose to put around our neck.
Despite all the focus on how disasterous a no deal might be for us, it is also a big blow for them, which shouldnt be forgotten.



Jeremy Corbyn asks if the prime minister is "seriously" suggesting that 14 February should be the date for the next debate on Brexit.

A second referendum would be like asking the public to vote again until they give the right answer, but so far, that is precisely what she is asking this House to do, he says.

He says he hopes MPs back amendments to avoid the UK crashing out without a deal, as "everyone except the prime minister says this would be disastrous".

"To crash out without a deal would be deeply damaging for industry and the economy," he says, noting that he backs Labour MP Yvette Cooper's amendment, with a three months' extension of Article 50 for "renegotiation".

What "renegotiation" can either side really expect to achieve?

The EU have been absolute in a total lack of negotiation.


It will not be any comfort to say "I told you so" when a no-deal Brexit happens, Mr Corbyn says, when cancer patients can't get medication and there's chaos at ports.

"Tonight we have the opportunity to take no-deal off the table," he adds.

Labour have always called for no-deal to be taken off the table, and if MPs vote to do this, he says he will be happy to meet with the prime minister for Brexit talks.

The prime minister's red lines must change, he says, with the primary part of Labour's amendment about finding a consensus.

The EU has always said it would be happy to return to negotiations if these red lines were shifted, he says.

However, the PM has still given no indication of what red lines will be changed, despite her support for the Brady amendment.

Of course the EU will talk more if we are willing to cede more to their will. I wont argue that Mays red lines are "right", but they are for her what defines Brexit/why the vote was to leave. To start giving those up the question has to be asked - why even bother with Brexit?


Jeremy Corbyn asks which of the red lines the PM has changed since the deal was defeated two weeks ago.

"She is refusing to accept the clearly stated will of this House," he states.

He says that a "permanent customs union" is a "pragmatic solution that helps deliver the Brexit that people voted for".

I think it is painfully obvious it most certainly is not. From what Ive read of a Corbyn brexit it is effectively no brexit at all having neutered ourselves.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove intervenes to ask why Jeremy Corbyn is scared to take an intervention from Labour MP Angela Smith, believed to be wanting to ask a question about a second referendum.

Jeremy Corbyn thanks Michael Gove for "that brief statement of his leadership intentions".

The Speaker intervenes to call order, saying there have been attempts to shout the leader of the Opposition down from Cabinet members and that it is up to Jeremy Corbyn who he decides to accept interventions from.

Mr Corbyn says the International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, has "failed to replicate trade agreements", and that the UK may lose 40 or 50 trade agreements in a no-deal scenario.

He says the government has shown "no leadership or willingness to listen to Parliament", and that Labour will back amendments that give Parliament a greater say.

Jeremy Corbyn concludes by asking MPs to "lead where this government has failed".

A pretty valid question expertly avoided. Although he is right, Gove is just trying to position himself as leader in waiting.

 

[scaramanga]

Can anyone explain to me why MPs would spend all this time on non-binding vote(s)?

If there were nothing important to do right now, I could maybe understand it, but I'm fairly sure they've all got important brick to do.

 

[Baleforce]

The entire charade is on a non binding vote isn’t it?

 

[SpurMeUp]

This conservative party is dragging the UK through the mud...while May dances around the politics of the conservative party. Corby's leadership 1. has not put the boot in on a haplass government 2. doesn't offer any strength or vision to lead the nation out of this mess. There is an opening for a leader to show statesmanship in the face of chaos. That said, Labour are not in power and May's shambles is beyond precedent. She is not in control and the UK is rudderless. The right wing Tory tail are wagging the dog - May - our nations Prime Minister.

May maintained to the nation and MPs there is no way to renegotiate the exit deal - as recently as this morning - yet tonight she voted against her own deal, and to renegotiate it!! The EU, both nation states like France and Germany and those in Brussels have said the exit deal is done, they can't remove the backstop.

Has anyone in the ERG or elsewhere proposed a viable alterative to the backstop?? What is May to propose!? Something the ERG want but can't outline themselves? An magical Irish border with Leprechauns who scan all goods from the trees?

When history looks back at this, there will be disbelief at the shambles of our parliment and government. How could the UK get itself into such a mess where its actively engaged in self-harm? What asnweres will scholars propose?

This is new territory. It's not like watching politics, it's more like watching a game managed by Ossie Ardiles. That's not fair to Ossie, he was courageous, where this lot couldn't plot their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So proof again that the only parliamentary majority is for Canada +

 

[r-u-s-x]

So proof again that the only parliamentary majority is for Canada +

jettison NI? it will probably get the votes but going forwards politically Tories cant govern if they do that.

 

[scaramanga]

jettison NI? it will probably get the votes but going forwards politically Tories cant govern if they do that.

Going forwards, neither party will be able to govern anyway.

There's no flavour of Brexit that avoids each party losing half of its supporters and possibly MPs.

If I were in May's position (not that I'd ever allow that) I'd deliver a final Brexit deal and call an election as the party that delivered Brexit whilst the opposition sat on their arses being Islington types.