Brexit delayed

[Digby]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

[Banquo]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

[Stom]

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

[Banquo]

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

[Stom]

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

[Digby]

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

[Banquo]

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

[Digby]

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

[Mellsblue]

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

[Banquo]

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

My point is the composition of the list amendments/options will affect the voting bias.

[Puja]

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

Because there's no point in gaining a majority for a fantasy - we've spent enough time doing that. The one that's "May's deal without the backstop" can be binned straight away.

Puja

[Banquo]

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

Because there's no point in gaining a majority for a fantasy - we've spent enough time doing that. The one that's "May's deal without the backstop" can be binned straight away.

Puja

They are voting on a few already rejected. You could also reject anything that says WA plus Customs/Single Market Access/Unicorns as being batshit crazy on logic grounds.

The point you are making is exactly the point the govt made when it wouldn't commit to implementing whatever commanded a majority (that would be Remain then ), because it couldn't guarantee having to deliver (yet another) fantasy

[Banquo]

absolute carnage today. Sack the lot of them.

[Digby]

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

My point is the composition of the list amendments/options will affect the voting bias.

That's an ongoing issue with the role the speaker has, but looking at the list there's something almost for everyone so it would seem it's not overly biased. Also if parliament has an issue with the role of the role of the speaker when it comes to amendments they possibly haven't looked into it for so long it's hard to claim they've been had now

[Banquo]

MPs approve the business motion by 331 to 287, and will now start the main debate on Brexit options.

Speaker John Bercow announces that he has selected the following eight choices:

No Deal (B) – John Baron (Conservative)

Agrees to leave the EU on 12 April without a deal.

Common market 2.0 (D) – Nick Boles (Conservative)

Government joins the European Economic Area (EEA) through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and negotiates a temporary customs union until alternative arrangements can be found.

EFTA and EEA (H) – George Eustice (Conservative)

Remains in the European Economic Area (EEA), and applies to re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

Declines to form a customs union but seeks “agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade”.

Customs union (J) – Ken Clarke (Conservative)

Enshrine the objective to form a customs union in primary legislation.

Labour’s alternative plan (K) – Jeremy Corbyn

Negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to secure Labour’s position, and pass these objectives into law.

Revocation to avoid no deal (L) – Joanna Cherry (SNP)

If the Withdrawal (Agreement) Bill has not been passed before exit day, the government will ask MPs to approve no deal. If this does not pass, the government will revoke Article 50.

Confirmatory public vote (M) – Margaret Beckett (Labour)

Government cannot implement or ratify the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration unless and until they have been approved in a referendum.

Contingent preferential arrangements (O) – Marcus Fysh (Conservative)

Malthouse Plan B: The UK makes its budgetary contributions to the EU to the end of 2020 and agrees with the EU a period of two years in which UK goods have full access to the EU.

over and out

[Banquo]

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

My point is the composition of the list amendments/options will affect the voting bias.

That's an ongoing issue with the role the speaker has, but looking at the list there's something almost for everyone so it would seem it's not overly biased. Also if parliament has an issue with the role of the role of the speaker when it comes to amendments they possibly haven't looked into it for so long it's hard to claim they've been had now

This is a novel way of doing things, so that's what I was waffling on about, however, as you say, nothing to be bothered about now as there are so many Options.

[Digby]

This is a novel way of doing things, so that's what I was waffling on about, however, as you say, nothing to be bothered about now as there are so many Options.

Having indicative votes and the method of voting is novel, but the speaker selecting which amendments pass forward for debate isn't anything unusual

[Mellsblue]

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

Because there's no point in gaining a majority for a fantasy - we've spent enough time doing that. The one that's "May's deal without the backstop" can be binned straight away.

Puja

I’m not suggesting they vote for a unicorn shaped cake but there may be some more leeway if we can go to them with something that can guarantee a parliamentary majority, will avoid no deal and avoid us taking part in the EU elections.

[Banquo]

This is a novel way of doing things, so that's what I was waffling on about, however, as you say, nothing to be bothered about now as there are so many Options.

Having indicative votes and the method of voting is novel, but the speaker selecting which amendments pass forward for debate isn't anything unusual

That’s enough novel gazing

[Digby]

This is a novel way of doing things, so that's what I was waffling on about, however, as you say, nothing to be bothered about now as there are so many Options.

Having indicative votes and the method of voting is novel, but the speaker selecting which amendments pass forward for debate isn't anything unusual

That’s enough novel gazing

A recent report noted the complexity of language in a famous political work The Grapes of Wrath was comparable to the Mr Men & Little Miss series. I wonder which our MPs are more inclined to ponder on?

[Banquo]

Lol or FFS whatever is your poison. So they can't agree on anything. Tell you what...lets have another vote.

We are heading for no deal....or long extension.

[Zhivago]

So Customs Union ... that's like the Turkey option in this graphic.

[Puja]

Every time I think we've hit Peak-May, she finds a new and exciting way to try and push things till later. This decoupling of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration is brazen gaming of the exact letter of rules that the EU set over the extension and is literally being done for the sole purpose of buying her more time in which to avoid doing things.

There are phD students looking on in awe at this quality of procrastination.

Puja

[cashead]

So is it mid-April now, then?

[twitchy]