Thread by @IanDunt

Leadsom waxing lyrical about how people need to come together and show mutual understanding parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bc…

How people who have spent the last three years insinuating their opponents are traitors to the country and democracy have the gall to talk this way is beyond me.

Leadsom says today's motion is not about forcing House to decide a short or long extension, it is just laying out the reality of the options.

On second question rule: She accepts that Erskine May doesn't allow the same motion to be put down, but says any new deal would reflect new information (ie: They'd add in some wanky tosh about the Vienna convention).

Bercow selects amendments H, I, E, and J.

If H is agreed, I & E fall. If I is agreed, E falls.

This means that the amendment which attempted to kill the second referendum has not been selected.

Mark Francois calls a point of order and complains that Speaker has not selected it. Bercow: "It is not uncommon for a member of this House to be mightily pleased when his or her amendment is selected, and mightily displeased when it is not."

He reminds him that he selected Malthouse amendment yesterday, even though some thought it incompatible with another amendment. "That brought a smile to the face of the hon gentleman. Today he is disappointed his amendment has not been selected."

OK so here's what happened with the amendments.

First of all, there will now, finally, be a vote on a second referendum. Amendment H will be voted on first. It reads like this.

Hold on. Bernard Jenkin: "What are we to conclude of your own views on these matters? Standard Brexiter tactic to smear anyone who does not do what they want.

Now Ann Main having a go. Insisting it shouldn't be voted on because it hasn't been costed. Bizarre and tedious. Now Caroline Flint up. She says she is "delighted" there will be a vote on a second referendum.

That's the better argument (even if it isn't a point of order). By virtue of voting against a second referendum, the House is doing what the Brexiter amendment would have done.

Now Rees-Mogg gets up to again suggest Bercow has somehow not followed the rules on selection of amendment. "I wonder if it might be helpful for you to update your advice so we will be clearer on how these decisions are made."

Here is amendment I: It is the cross party move to wrestle control of Brexit from the govt.

https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1106149862909857792

There's also a manuscript amendment from Labour's Lucy Powell to I, which I haven't seen and I don't think has been published yet.

Then there's E, Corbyn's amendment - basically a kinda indicative vote amendment, but much more vague (WHO'D HAVE THOUGHT) than I from the backbenchers.

And then finally we have @RhonddaBryant amendment ruling out May bringing forward her deal to the House again

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1106154926902784001

@RhonddaBryant David Lidington is now up in the Commons putting forward the motion to the government.

@RhonddaBryant This is the govt motion (sorry about the page break)

@RhonddaBryant Mark Francois says AMENDMENT H as AMENDMENT HAITCH. And it is fucking killing me.

He wants guarantees the govt will whip against second referendum amendment. Lidington: "The govt's collectively agreed policy has not changed."

The argument over the Brexiter amendment is so pitiful. If you want to stop a second referendum, just vote against the amendment proposing one. Fucking conspiracy theory bellends, really.

Fwiw, I do not expect second referendum amendment to pass. But if - big if, despite their olficial position - Labour backs it, it can come pretty close. Opponents will obvs paint that as shattering defeat, but in reality it would show it was viable option.

I've never been much of a believer in this 'last man standing' strategy from the People's Vote guys. Better to keep testing these options, see if majorities open up for second referendum Norway etc.

When you're trapped in a dungeon, you don't check the furnishings of the escape route.

Lidington: We expect EU to allow short technical extension if deal gets through, If that;s not possible, we would have to chose a long extension, during which House would need to face up to choices before it.

He confirms govt would facilitate process in two weeks after March EU Council to allow House to seek a majority on the way forward.

Basically confirming govt would support indicative votes. But then says we would need to take part in European elections.

Makes out that this is the worst thing in the world. It really isn't.

Lidington acceptance of indicative votes is an attempt to bribe off any rebels tempted t vote for that amendment.

From now on I'll call that the Benn amendment.

Clarke says no-one wants British participation in European election, not least on continent. Suggests they make minor change to treaty on Article 50 members not taking part in election.

That was an unusually foolish contribution from Clarke. LIdington tells him, rightly, that "there is no such thing as a simple and easy change to EU treaties".

The govt position today, as ever, is to take on as its own policy those amendments it does not think it can defeat.

So even though it gives way, it keeps control of the process. But every time it does this there is a sting in the tail, a cynical sleight of hand.

It's best that whatever comes next comes without govt control. Parliament must be in charge. They've fucked it. That much must surely be clear to everyone.

Lidington say importance of European election is that it is fundamental that every citizen must be represented in the parliament.

New European parliament not properly constituted if any member state doesn't have MEPs. All that parliament's actions then at risk. And no mechanism for UK to return MEPs without participating in elections.

This is all exactly as expected.

Odd moment of clarity and sanity from govt. In the absence of a deal, opting for such a short extension would be pointless, reckless, and would be turned down by EU, he says.

This may be because it is Lidington speaking, or it could be simply because it is currently part of the govt strategy to spook the ERG.

Cooper: "His credibility in making these arguments about the timescale is rather undermined by the fact that a couple of week ago he was saying we were going to be able to get everything through, including all the legislation, by March 29th. And now we need 3 months to do so."

Jim McMahon, Labour: "The 2014 European elections cost £100m, which seems like a lot of money, but the transport secretary can spend that in a morning."

Lidington dealing with the amendments. Says obvs doesn't support People's Vote. Attacks Benn amendment as parliament usurping role of executive.

Charming to watch Letwin and Lidington clash. "I really admire the ingenuity of his logic," Letwin says.

Offers Lidington deal. If govt will bring forward precise motion describing express votes for House on Brexit, they'll give in. "None of us prefer to grab the order paper. None of us prefer these elaborate devices."

Brilliant intervention from Letwin.

Lidington very vague in response. Goes on about facing up to to decisions. But does not make the offer Letwin demanded. Talks instead about "consultations with other parties through the usual channels".

Lidington rules out Corbyn's alternative Brexit dealon the basis that it was "decisively rejected by 323 votes to 240". This is after repeatedly telling the House to pass May's deal, which was rejected this week by 391 votes to 242.

Starmer up. If May had got up yesterday and passed a simple motion on no-deal she would have got a "hefty majority"> But "for reasons best known to her" she tacked on unnecessary additions and now there are questions on ability of govt to govern.

Today she hasn't learned. She's done exactly the same thing again by wrapping a third meaningful vote into the motion. "The idea of bringing back the deal for a third time without even the pretence that anything has changed is an act of desperation."

Once again, Tory benches largely empty.

Francois up again. "I popped i to the gents," he says. The man can't be stopped.

Soubrey asks if Labour will vote for amendment H on People's Vote.

Starmer says he's said Labour supports People's Vote. "But today is about whether Article 5 can be extended. Many colleagues in and out of this place are absolutely supportive of the cause she supports vehemently disagree with this amendment being tabled today."

Starmer now reads out the official People's Vote statement from earlier. So there it is: People's Vote, by putting out that statement, have given Labour an out. Ridiculous.

Starmer: "We will not be supporting H tonight."

Soubry: "Shame on you. Shame on you."

Ian Blackford, SNP: "I wouldn't necessarily have chosen to put down the amendment the way it has come forward."

"But we have that opportunity with the amendment today to express the views of the people in the Commons that we must have a People's Vote and I implore him not to stand against the amendment today."

Starmer dismisses it, saying "great rhetoric, no substance".

That People's Vote statement really was so powerfully foolish. They've fucked it. And all because they are being utterly inflexible.

Ben Bradshaw says many in Labour tempted to vote for that amendment, because many Labour spokespeople do not always speak with Starmer's "clarity" on second referendum.

So Remainer organisations are now telling Remainer MPs to abstain from supporting a People's Vote, before organising a march next weekend for a People's Vote.

Try explaining that to someone. Fucking hell.

Ugly, dreadful scenes. Streeting attacks Soubry for saying 'shame on you'. Starmer then claiming Tiggers are pushing amendment "for another reason".

Dreadful. All the best people fighting one another. Total collapse in the Remain ranks.

Maybe the Tiggers were wrong to put down the amendment. Maybe not. I dunno. But once it was down, Remain organisations were crazy to kick back against it.

Anyway, this'll pass. It;s not the end of the world. But today has been catastrophically badly handled. Completely tone deaf tactical rigidity from PV types.

Lots of people saying they'll refuse to go on march for a people's vote. Do not do that. March. It should be massive, despite the crappy timing, despite the silly shenanigans today.

Next weekend must be massive and their silly bullshit today shouldn't get in the way of it.

SNP's Ian Blackford effortlessly gets exactly the right response to the Amendment. "It's not our amendment, it came from others. I didn't choose the timing."

"But the fact is that amendment is in front of us today. This House has got the first opportunity it has had - perhaps the only opportunity - to say that the people of the UK deserve a People's Vote."

Interesting speech by Christopher Chope, hardline Brexiter. "Instead of accepting verdict of House she is stubbornly continuing to assert that her deal is a good deal. And now she is holding a pistol to our heads by threatening that we will lose Brexit altogether."

Doesn't sound like the Brexiters are folding too quick.

Oooph. Graham Stringer, Labour: "If the opposition lay down a motion of no-confidence, will he vote for it? That is the logic of his position."

Chope: "Frankly I would seriously consider that issue."

Sarah Wollaston: "There are many in this Chamber who made the point that 'now is not the time'. But it has been a bit like waiting for Godot. I'm afraid it'll never be the time. We are now just 15 days from falling off the cliff."

John Hayes, who looks like a Spitting Image puppet of himself, says "Glyndebourne, the Henley Regatta and the People's Vote march are all part of the season for a certain kind of people".

Guessing that bloke has never been on a march.

Apparently the liberal elite have a "self-serving entitlement that prohibited views other than their own, that wants to delegitimise the opinion of the vast majority of law abiding patriotic decent British people who voted for Brexit."

Soubry: "Can I say to the honourable gentleman, a knight of the realm of course...Is he saying the people of Nottingham are an elite. Indeed in Streatham. Are they the elites?"

Soubry is consistently good quality. Not taking any guff.

Hayes has now entered my top five worst MPs list. It is a special list. There is a fair amount of churn.

This has not, it must be said, been a debate for the ages.

Lots of grandstanding, lots of internecine Remain attacks, lots of will-of-the-people guff. Almost no debate so far about the practical implications of extension.

David Jones attacks campaigners for a second referendum because they want to stop Brexit. "I've no doubt that ambition is not shared by the people who sent us here." He just really, really doesn't want to check.

Chris Bryant: "All of this just reminds of of the Muppets. It's just going on and on and on, and every two weeks we go around on the merry go round and make the same speech all over again."

Bryant says his amendment is on an old parliamentary tradition - a question once made can't be made again in that session. "This ruling has been made many many times."

"It's not as if the govt doesn't have enough power. They get to decide every element of the timetable in the House. They get to decide what we can table, when we can table it, when we sit."

"The one limit is: They can't keep bringing back the same issue time and time again in the same session of parliament."

Govt benches now almost entirely empty

Soubry apologises if she "caused offence by crying out 'shame'" at Starmer.

Mhairi Black is top class.

OK we're wrapping up. Labour says it'll support Bryant amendment. SO it'll be backing Bryant, Benn and Corbyn's.

And we're off. Wollaston moves amendment H on a second referendum.

This'll be heavily defeated. Labour will either vote against or abstain, maybe a few will back it. Tories will mostly oppose, apart from maybe a few rebels. DUP oppose. Just Tiggers, SNP, Lib Dems and other opposition parties supporting.

Won't make a difference either way. Brexiters will claim it kills People's Vote. It doesn't. Not even a fair assessment of numbers, given most supporters instructed to not support it.

But it is a missed opportunity, has prompted a spasm of Remainer in-fighting, and shows the tactical weakness of the most prominent Remain organisations.

God I never want to have to watch another Commons debate again.

Feel like whenever there's silence I can hear Bercow shouting DIVISION CLEAR THE LOBBIES

Wollaston defeated 85 noes 334

So deeply silly.

They are now voting on the amendment to amendment I (I know).

Amendment I is by Benn. It basically takes control of the Brexit process from the government next week and allows MPs to start exploring alternatives.

The amendment to it, which MPs are voting on now, is by Labour MP Lucy Powell. It accepts the system, but places a new Brexit date of June 30.

If the amendment to the amendment passes, then it'll become part of the Benn plan. If not, then Benn plan goes up for a vote with no set time limit on Article 50 extension.

Labour has 262 seats. 85 MPs voted for People's Vote amendment. Put those numbers together, you get 347. It was defeated by 334 votes.

Now these are not the real numbers AT ALL. We don;t know how many Labour MPs backed it today, yet. Also many Labour MPs with Brexit constituencies would never support it.

Oh and my numbers aren't even right, cos I forgot to take TIGs opff it. I am so shoddy at the parly numbers stuff.

But from what little we can learn by that vote, and my shit parly maths, I still think you need whipped Labour leadership support + about 50 Tory MPs to switch (not including existing rebels) for People's Vote to win.

Powell amendment to Benn amendment defeated 311 to 314

Fuckinell that was close. Closer than I thought.

Good news though. Means that if Benn amendment passes, it does not come shackled with a demand for only a very short extension.

(Counter-argument is that by not having that time limit attachment, it will struggle to win more widespread support. Let's see.)

This to me is a critical amendment. If it passes, we are well on the way to MPs finally wrestling control of Brexit from the govt.

However, it would still need to pass in the final vote. And you could argue that it passing would encourage ERG lot to vote with govt when May puts her deal next time.

If this amendment passes, the govt will whip against its own motion again. If it does not, it'll be a free vote on the main motion.

Urgh this is fucking tense.

Defeated 312 votes to 314

Fuck

Fucking disaster.

OK. So. Looking on the positive.

God it's tiresome having to pick yourself up after this shit again and again.

1) That was as close as it gets. Plainly winnable next time. Although exactly when that'll be is another matter.

2) In order to stave off rebellions - rebellions which would quite plainly have won it, the govt basically promised a series of indicative votes. So those will still happen.

However, MPs have still failed to take control from a govt which is completely dead. It is, at this stage, an abdication of democratic responsibility.

It also means that when govt tables its indicative votes, it'll come wrapped in its standard cynical manipulations.

Next up is Corbyn amendment, which looks like this

It doesn't do much really. Wipes away all the contorted silliness of the govt motion. Pushes for space for exploratory votes. I mean, it's better than govt motion, but it's still extremely blah.

Anyway, it'll lose.

Corbyn amendment defeated 302 to 318.

As expected.

Bryant did not move his amendment to a vote.

I'm not sure why. His was important - on blocking May holding one meaningful vote after another.

Perhaps he thought he was going to lose and that would make it harder for Bercow to rule that it was against the rules to put down the deal over and over again?

But that was not the impression I had this morning - most thought govt could easily sidestep the rule by just changing the motion a bit.

Anyway, they're not voting on the government motion. Free vote. Pretty much certain to pass.

This means the govt will officially seek an extension of Article 50. However, because things are not allowed to be simple, there are a couple of ways this could happen.

1) May has another go with her deal, passes it, and asks for short extension until June 30th.

2) May cannot get her deal agreed and has to ask for a longer extension.

However, that is only what the govt is saying. This is going to break your heart, but the govt lies. It lies with rather alarming regularity.

It's quite likely that it even if it does not get its deal passed, it will not ask for a long extension.

However, even that might not matter, because without a deal it is likely EU will demand a long extension, if indeed it allows one at all.

The EU's decision on this will then be brought back to the Commons for an absolutely fucking frenzied and horrible debate right at the end of March, I'd expect.

Fun times.

I had a rule, for weight loss purposes, that I would not drink when at home on weekdays. I have broken that rule very consistently this week and will do so again tonight.

I might have the posh wine.

Motion passes 412 to 202

The official policy of the British government is now to delay Brexit.

This does not guarantee it will happen. Any member state can veto our application.

Corbyn up. Wants May to stop putting her deal down. And insists his alternative plan can win support across the House. "And I also reiterate our support for a public vote...." Uproar.

"Not as political point-scoring but as a realistic option to break the deadlock."

Leader of the opposition expressing support for the thing he just abstained on. Another day of the weirdest nonsense.

Lots of people out there saying Britain is no longer leaving the EU on March 29th. That is not right.

It is no longer government policy to leave on March 29th. There is no guarantee that EU will grant the request.

And I don't mean that just in an EU-has-ultimately-got-the-power sort of way. I mean that decision really is political and will taken after a discussion of heads of states. And there are voices who want to close it all down now.

A lot will depend on whether May can get her deal through. And if not, is there any real plan from the British side about what it wants to do with an extension?

It is also possible that the EU's conditions for an extension, for instance if they say it is two years or nothing, could be rejected by MPs when they are brought back to the Commons.

We'd then be on for no-deal on March 29th. Tonight's vote fixed govt policy. It did not *guarantee* a god damn thing.

Ok, I'm going to write this up, whatever the hell it is.

Britain pleads to extend Article 50: The stark humiliation of Brexit politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/…

We're all lost in the parliamentary shittery, but don't lose sight of what has happened today. We used to be in control of our country.

Now we face calamity in two weeks, unless the leaders of foreign states throw us a lifeline. We are completely lost control.

It has taken just three years of nationalist political leadership to utterly reduce the status of this country.

But there is still time to wrestle back control of the wheel.

Thought I'd end on a positive note. Right, now for that wine.