What is happening with Benn’s bill in the lords? Are they killing it via filibuster? I’m not sure I understand who, if anyone, won today.
Live Lords coverage here https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3ee21ab2-8e9e-4ea5-aa0c-ee785b88212c
There are a large number of amendments proposed (about 90-ish, I think), most of which will need to be dealt with, so it is an attempt at a filibuster.
However, the House of Lords dances to its own drum, and a Bill can’t strictly be talked out. There’s a method where their Lordships can decide that one of their fellows has spoken too long, and a vote can be held to shut them up.
So for each attempted filibuster amendment there needs to be a “sit down, you dolt” vote, and then a vote on the amendment itself. It’s not the most youthful and athletic legislature, so these all take some time. Remember, the Lords need to physically walk into a one of two lobbies to vote, just like the Commons.
It’s essentially an endurance test - there’s certainly a strong majority in the Lords for this Bill to pass, and they’ll keep going at it all night and longer if they have to.
Also, and this is weird, if they are still in session by 10:30am BST on Thursday 5th September, the Lords consider the whole of that day a continuation of Wednesday 4th.
3 defeats in 2 days for BoJo the Clown, eh.
And now he’s lying to his peers and to the country about any actual negotiating going on with the EU; lovely. Brits must all be so very proud to have this man representing them and their interests!
The Lords have decided - after about 20 endlessly-dragged-out amendments being heavily defeated - that they’ll just let it go. There’s obviously been some hot Whip action behind the scenes.
It also seems like they’ve committed to passing the actual (Benn) Bill that the Commons has sent them by close of play on Friday.
:: Golf clap ::
Judging by local Facebook groups and the like, a depressing number of people seem to have the ‘yeah, Boris, don’t let the stinking EU and those weak MPs boss you around!’ attitude. There are many who basically seem to think that ‘no deal’ a) is somehow ‘sticking it to the EU’ and b) will be the end of it, then they can just get back on with normal life.
True, but there are an equally depressing number of people who think that simply notdoing it will be the end of it as well. From the start of this process there has been an unwillingness to honestly acknowledge the implications of a vote either way or of not having a vote in the first place.
Notice that the Liberal Democrats spend all of their time saying that they want to cancel the whole thing and precisely 0% on what the likely implications would be of doing so.
Politically, UK governments would be in a difficult position in terms of influencing any future developments within the EU (though our number of votes in the Council can have a pretty powerfulf effect), and the Brexit party people in the parliament would continue to be an annoying sideshow until Farage gets sick of them.
But there’s no indication that revoking the Article 50 withdrawal would bring any particular legal penalty with it, or that the legal frameworks for any of the things currently within the scope of EU law would be any different from what they are now.
The E.U. would not be so clumsy as to overtly threaten anything but a complete revocation would not be taken by the E.U. as a return to the status quo. The thought that everything returns to how it was is fanciful. When the dust settled, moves would be made.
Boris Johson’s brother Jo has quit Parliament, saying:
Ouch.
That kinda says it all, doesn’t it? “I want to support my family, but you’re acting too much like an asshat, bro, sorry.”
But legally, nothing substantial could change without our concurrence - either those “moves” would require a treaty (i.e., unanimity) or the kind of majority in the Council that can be blocked with our allotment of votes. Plus, politically (though this is a card to be played carefully), the point can be made to enough other member states that they might, in their turn, have reason to resist an increase in punitive attitudes in the central institutions of the EU.
And this on mine, a suggested tabloid headline
But do you really think that a complete revocation of the article 50, with no intention invoke in the future, would see the E.U. and the UK’s position in it carry on exactly as before?
One would hope not as it would mean that we (and they) have learned nothing from the last three years.
If there is ever another referendum, I would hope the Remain side would highlight the benefits of remaining in the EU but I hope they’d also point out some of the many defects of the EU and explain how they plan to remedy them.
I would also hope that the leadership of the EU would recognize that some of those defects helped cause these three years of chaos and would want to remedy them.
For instance, the EU could create some limitations on Freedom of Movement while still allowing genuine migration. IMO, without Merkel’s promise to admit 1 million refugees just before the referendum, Vote Leave would not have won. I think the EU should reflect on that and amend the policies that made Merkel’s promise so daunting (and not just for British voters).
It’s been well-documented that the British government had levers to restrict the massive immigration from Eastern Europe over the last 20 years but they did not use them. Why not? What could we (and they) do differently?
The press in the UK shines a spotlight on the Ever Closer Union rhetoric coming from Brussels but these policies are unpopular in many EU member states. Britain could become a champion for national sovereignty within the EU.
I hope we don’t carry on exactly as before.
I agree with all of the above but it is a conversation that the remain side singulalry fail to engage with. Also, given that for the E.U. the solution is always “closer political union” regardless of the problem, it is right to raise the possibility that a UK revocation will be taken as implicit endorsement of that destination and show a lack of will to think otherwise.
Also, I think that if all we do is learn from just the last three years then that will be a monumental failure as well. The seeds of this have been long in the ground
Without meaning to sound like a jerk here, have you been paying attention to the Brexit negotiations at all? Because the main lesson from them is “The UK does not have nearly the bargaining power that it seems to think it does”. The idea, especially after failed Brexit negotiations and the bad faith and ill will involved (not to mention the projections of just how insanely damaging it would have been to the UK!), that the UK will be in any position to be giving marching orders to the union just strikes me as batty.