Profile picture
Simon Usherwood
@Usherwood
, 3 tweets, 1 min read Read on Twitter
procedure for indicative votes
Note, by not asking for preferential ordering, risk of compromise positions not getting through to 1 April
On further reading, I'm not clear if preferential voting will happen or not.

All feels rather hands-off - probably to let all feel they had a role in setting up the selection - which might cause issues down the line
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Simon Usherwood
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Usherwood see all

Profile picture
Simon Usherwood
@Usherwood
Off to give evidence to @CommonsEUexit this morning on #EUCO, but since #IndicativeVotes is likely to come up, let's run through the options to consider the EU's probable view on them

1/
A) "Constitutional and accountable government" is about not changing Standing Order 14, so not an EU concern per se

2/
B) "No deal" is what it says and raises no technical issue for the EU, especially in light of recent statements that prep from this is all set

3/
Read 19 tweets
Profile picture
Simon Usherwood
@Usherwood
Some thoughts on #EUCO deal:

1/
Rightly, lots of comment last night about how clever the proposed mechanism is. Protects EU interests, while still keeping screws on UK to decide what to do

2/
But also worth noting that EUCO came up with deal at all. Much expectation (not least by me) that they'd kick it into next week, due to lack of prep time

So why didn't this happen?

3/
Read 8 tweets
Profile picture
Simon Usherwood
@Usherwood
Let's consider where #EUCO is at right now on extension:

1/
Yes, there are some (FR especially) then aren't keen on giving more time at all

But several (IE, NL, DE, etc.) that are very much focused on avoiding a no-deal, so extension is an essential first step (given where UK is right now)

2/
Hard to see that French ambivalence outweighs pressing interest of others, so likely to be a push to offer extension of some kind.

Thus Q has to be what kind of extension

3/
Read 10 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Edwin Hayward🦄🏹🗡️
@uk_domain_names
INDICATIVE VOTES
(Baron) No Deal 160 y n 400
(Boles) CM 2.0 188 y n 283
(Eustice) Efta & EEA 65 y n 377
(Clarke) CU 264 y n 272
(Corbyn) Labour 237 y n 307
(Cherry) Revoke to avoid No Deal 184 y n 293
(Beckett) Confirmatory vote 268 y n 295
(Fysh) Managed No Deal 139 y n 422
No majority for anything but there is clear blue water between the nutty unicorn/suicidal stuff and everything else.
Just a reminder that nobody really expected majorities to emerge during stage 1 of this 2-stage process.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Tom Kibasi
@TomKibasi
THREAD

If parliament backs a customs union in the indicative votes, why shouldn’t it back May’s Withdrawal Agreement?

First, let’s be clear: the backstop is a misleading name. In the absence of any known alternative, it isn’t a fall-back but rather the default.

(1/11)
Given the absence of alternatives for the Irish border, and the fact that the withdrawal agreement has no mechanism for exit and allows only for a one-time extension of the standstill transition, the backstop must be assessed as the future destination (see Robbins, O.)

(2/11)
But for advocates of a soft Brexit—including the Labour party—why should this matter?

The problem is the lack of control—too little attention has been paid to the risks of being within a customs union without a say.

(3/11)
Read 12 tweets
Profile picture
Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
Indicative Votes menu, selected by Speaker:

B Baron: Leave with our a deal
D Boles: Common Market 2.0
H Eustice: EEA/EFTA, No CU
J Clarke: Customs Union
K Corbyn: Perm CU
L Cherry: Revoke
M Beckett: Confirmatory Ballot
O Fysh: Malthouse
B - Leave WITHOUT deal... obviously.
O- is managed No Deal - Malthouse part 2. A different Malthouse amendment N not picked
Read 9 tweets
Profile picture
Adam Payne
@adampayne26
Big news on Labour whipping for indicative votes:

• Labour MPs *whipped* to vote FOR: Corbyn’s alt plan, Beckett’s public vote, and the 2 customs union amendments (Snell, Clarke)

• Corbyn will be voting FOR Common Market 2.0 and is “encouraging” Labour MPs to do the same
There's some annoyance among Common Market 2.0 backers that Corbyn isn't whipping for it (yet)

"Labour whip and Tory free votes and we would’ve done some serious damage today," one MP supporting it says
Starmer says Common Market 2.0 is not Labour's "preferred" Brexit *but*...

"We do recognise that it would deliver a close economic relationship with European Union.. It'd protect jobs... It is credible and deliverable. It should remain an option."
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Robert Peston
@Peston
Commons passes motion that confirms indicative votes will now happen - by 327 to 300. MPs now take control of route through Brexit mess from PM. @jeremycorbyn immediately says house must decide if “any deal should be put to people in confirmatory referendum”
Tetchiness from Brexiters on display. Tory Brexiter MP David TC Davies asks Letwin how he can be held to account for his rebellion against the government
And after extraordinary uproar, Speaker Bercow apologises to Greg Hands MP for previously being “not a very good whip”
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Steve Baker MP
@SteveBakerHW
“Indicative votes” are a dreadful idea, apparently to force upon us what could not be achieved through the subterfuge of the Withdrawal Agreement: Customs Union (CU), against the Conservative manifesto

In any meaningful sense, Brexit would be lost

1/12
The excuse, free circulation of goods, is not achieved with *a* or *the* CU

*A* CU, requires movement certificates into the EU

In both *a* and *the* CU, all checks other than rules of origin are derived from the rules of the EU “single market” (SM)

2/12
So to get free circulation through CU, you need the SM too

That means no scope for domestic regulatory changes or independent trade policy: all countries will need us to have regulatory flexibility to do trade deals

3/12
Read 12 tweets

Trending hashtags

#ByElectionNow #RevokeArticle50 #Manifesto #histsci #Compromise #localelections2018 #STS #readingrainbow #reading #ObstructionOfJustice #books #indicative #Economy #Brexit #poll #USSstrike #worldbuilding #Belgariad #ussstrikes #IDanielBlake #BetterDeal #Practice2018 #MuellerReport #voting #GTTO
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!