Regret it Brexit Part 2

Mostly, which amendment is that?

The Conservative Party lost seats at the General Election but gained share of vote. In fact their share of vote was greater than it had been since 1980's

Robert Peston:

Theresa May has won today's Brexit battle but may have lost the war.

What do I mean?

We have confirmation that MPs will (narrowly) reject the Lords' amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill, that would give parliament the power to force the PM back into negotiations with Brussels if MPs and Lords reject whatever Brexit deal she ultimately negotiates (phew - that was a mouthful).

But the price she is paying for that victory, the price she is paying to Tory Remainer rebels led by Dominic Grieve, is that she has agreed to redraft the Bill, when it returns to the Lords, to take account of the substance of Grieve's own latterly drafted amendent to the bill.

The wheeler-dealing happened in fraught and dramatic negotiations involving Grieve, the chief whip Smith and the solicitor general Buckland, some hugger mugger in corridors, some (unusually) on the floor of the Commons.

May is conceding

1) that within seven days of May agreeing a Brexit deal, a motion to approve said deal must go to the Commons

2) that if there is no Brexit deal agreed by 30 November this year, the government must seek approval for its next course of action from MPs,

and 3) May will consider how to capture Grieve's other demand that MPs and Lords must be able to instruct the government on how to proceed should there be no Brexit deal by 15 Feb 2019.

Arguably this transfers considerable power to MPs over the shape of a future Brexit deal. And it probably means that a no-deal Brexit is no longer any kind of realistic prospect.

It means that if May really believes she was able to put negotiating pressure on the rest of the EU by threatening to Brexit without a deal, she has lost that leverage.

In other words, one of her favourite catchphrases - that no deal is better than a bad deal - is dead. And that will be official in just a few days, when the bill returns to the Lords

allyg the New Government Amendment has been promised for next week.

You can watch the current proceedings live on here:
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

Can't agree with you Maizie on "party before Country", for the simply reason, that both Government and Opposition stood in the General Election on a Pro Brexit platform written into their mandates. Therefore all MP's who stood on that mandate which would be all of them, accepted that that is what they promised the electorate that voted for them. Therefore as far as I am concerned any issues of 'conscience' should have been at that stage, they should simply not have stood for re-election or election if they did not intend to uphold the promises in their party manifesto's.
Crisis of conscience now, is just not acceptable, they deceived their electorate if they now have decided not to support Brexit on that pretext. Shameful, hypocrisy.
Well done those many MP's who voted remain who then stood for re-election or election on a Pro Brexit party mandate and are now upholding that promise. Honourable and trustworthy MP's.

Fennel you can also watch it on TV BBC Parliament channel.Which is what I have been doing all afternoon.

Mostlyharmles. Thanks I know what your talking about, although I think it is just a discussion on an internal Conservative party amendment. But as you say, it will be a deal to ensure more support during this Lords amendment debate and votes.

...for the simply reason, that both Government and Opposition stood in the General Election on a Pro Brexit platform written into their mandates.

That's as maybe, Ally. I think it is a trifle disingenuous to suggest that every voter carefully studied the party manifestos and voted on the strength of them, but that's another debate altogether.

However, since the 2017 GE we have had the publication (reluctantly conceded by the government when forced to publish them) of the impact assessments which clearly showed that any variety of Brexit will damage the UK's economy. AS MPs have a duty to consider the good of the country as a whole they have every right to disregard the manifesto and put the interests of the country (i.e the UK) first when considering legislation.

To persist in a course of action despite serious warnings that it will inevitably lead to a dangerous situation seems to me to be highly irresponsible.

Of course, it might be that the threat of civil unrest should Brexit not happen is playing some part in influencing MPs but to give in to such threats is not only cowardly but also completely inimical to our system of government. That truly would be opening the gates to mob rule... I'm not terribly sure that people would like the experience...

Simply saying that anti Brexit MPs should not have stood for re-election is rather simplistic and is trying

Stating that anti Brexit MPs should not have stood for reelection is rather simplistic. They were selected as candidates by constituency parties happy with their stance on that and other issues. The GE was not fought on a single issue. Plenty of manifesto promises end up undeliverable or u turned. As we know from recent history. Lots of candidates from all parties declared themselves anti Brexit and were elected on that basis in their constituencies. Simply reiterating that all candidates were elected on a pro Brexit ticket is wishful thinking . One of May’s achievements yesterday was to make concessions to Tory rebels in order to win the parliamentary vote. This buys her time to continue kicking the can a bit further down the road.

Apologies for the duplication at beginning! Phone error. .

The man who bankrolled the Leave.EU campaign today told a parliamentary inquiry into fake news that he wasn’t averse to leading voters “up the garden path” over Brexit.

Leave.EU founder Arron Banks and the organisation’s communications chief Andy Wigmore were being grilled by MPs on the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee over the conduct of their campaign in the 2016 EU referendum.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/leaveeu-founder-arron-banks-we-would-lead-people-up-the-garden-path-if-we-had-to-on-brexit-a3861026.html

If I had been "led up the garden path" by Banks and his millions, I would certainly regret voting Leave.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has moved his investment fund “Somerset Capital Management” to Ireland because of fears about the effect on the company of a “hard” Brexit.

It’s ironic considering that he has been pushing for a hard Brexit for UK. But he can protect his millions from the worst effects of Brexit by relocating his company in Dublin!

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/13/tory-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-defends-setting-hedge-fund-branch-ireland/

JRM and his like have no shame. If I had ever been taken in by his rhetoric, and voted leave because of his bland assurances, I would be truly ashamed.

Theresa May’s fragile truce with pro-EU Tory MPs is close to breaking down after Downing Street limited talks on allowing the Commons to shape Brexit if it rejects a deal with Brussels.

Mrs May avoided a defeat in votes on the Brexit bill last night with a promise to hold talks over what happens if MPs reject her deal with Brussels.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, has tabled an amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill that seeks to maximise MPs’ influence in that scenario including a section that empowers them to “direct” the government.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/government-cannot-have-its-hands-tied-by-parliament-as-brexit-fight-with-tory-rebels-continues-hd373z682

Conservative MPs preparing to face down Theresa May next week are not rebels or traitors, but pragmatists who want to stop Britain going over a cliff edge, a leading member of the pro-Europe group has said.

Antoinette Sandbach told the Guardian the media toxicity surrounding even the most basic scrutiny of Brexit was transforming British society. “We are not rebels. We are pragmatic leavers. We don’t want to go off the edge of a cliff which would be a disaster for my constituents,” she said. The MP for the largely rural Cheshire constituency of Eddisbury has voted against the government line just four out of 631 times since being elected in 2015, twice on a free vote about restoration plans for parliament, and another two on the ‘meaningful vote’ amendment.

“People put a label on you and call you a traitor and it’s ridiculous, it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Sandbach said. “This is the most complex thing that we have done for 40 years. There’s a level of debate and drilling down into the detail which has to be done. To try and do that, you’re accused of betraying the will of the people. Britain used to have a reputation for being polite and courteous; have we really turned into this shouty society that just screams at each other?”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/16/brexit-withdrawal-bill-tory-mp-antoinette-sandbach

Found the link to an interesting article this morning.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-conservatives-brexit-grenfell-windrush-a8401961.html

Thanks for the link Welshwife, but sorry to say I think it is totally ridiculous .

This is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has to say about the so-called "brexit bonus" trumpeted by the right wing tabloids - the fact is we will have less to spend on the NHS than we would if we reamained in the EU.

"In other words, so far the implication is that Brexit has reduced rather than increased the funds available for the NHS (and other public services), both in the short and long term. Although subsequent growth after the OBR’s forecast has been slightly stronger than expected, the medium-term outlook is now gloomier than in November 2016.

All forecasts are uncertain, and the fact we do not yet know what the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU will be adds additional uncertainty. However, the OBR forecast is predicated on a relatively smooth transition, putting it at the optimistic end of the spectrum; in a ‘no deal’ scenario, in which the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the economic dislocation would be much larger. Moreover, the OBR has not as yet incorporated any longer-term negative impacts of Brexit on productivity, and some economists expect these to be significant. "

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10354

No. Never. What sort of weak-kneed appeaser are you?

And your point is Dauntless?

weak-kneed definition: 1. not brave or determined enough to defend your beliefs against others: 2. made to feel weak and likely to fall by emotion
Are you saying Varian is not brave enough or determined enough to defend her beliefs about Brexit? I don’t think you’ve been following her strong advocacy of Remain on Gransnet, if you think that dauntless.

If Angela Merkel is toppled in the next couple of weeks all this angst and hand wringing will have been for nothing.
Negotiations will take a very different turn.

It is also quite possible for Theresa May to be toppled in the next couple of weeks as there are a significant number of Tory MPs who will never agree to a "deal or no deal" scenario if "no deal" means crashing out of the EU and inflicting untold damage on this country.

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve vowed not to bow to pressure and risk leaving the EU without an agreement – which he called a demand to “sign up to a slavery clause”. It asked that “however potentially catastrophic it might be for my constituents and my country, I’m signing in blood now that I will follow over the edge of the cliff”, he warned. “That I can tell you I am not prepared to do"

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-latest-dominic-grieve-collapse-government-theresa-may-final-vote-eu-a8403041.html

Another sad day for our parliamentary democracy as TM has "seen off" a vote by the pro-EU Tories. Only six of them- Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston, Heidi Allen, Antoinette Sandbach and Phillip Lee - rebelled while four Labour MPs backed the government and six other Labour MPs abstained, as did Kelvin Hopkins, who sits as an independent after having the whip withdrawn.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44542156

Dr Sarah Woolaston tweeted- " I continue to be concerned about the risks of a cliff-edge, no-deal Brexit which I think would have devastating consequences for individuals, businesses & communities. That is why I voted for Parliament to have a meaningful final vote. I am disappointed by today’s result"