Tag: Amendment

Another week, another neutral government motion on Brexit, and yet another set of amendments. Here are the amendments tabled, some of which will be voted on later on Monday. It will be the Speaker, John Bercow, who will decide which of these are selected. The backbench indicative vote plan Led by the Tory former ministers Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve, and signed by more than 120 cross-party MPs, this calls for Commons business on Wednesday to be set aside for a series of indicative votes. It does not specify what options will be voted on, or how the votes will take place. Read more B. The pro-Brexit amendment Tabled by a cross-party group of Brexiters, and signed by more than 80 MPs – the great majority Conservative – this notes that the Tories and Labour both stood in the 2017 election on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, and says parliament “reaffirms its commitment to honour the result of the referendum that the UK should leave the European Union”. D. The Labour indicative vote plan Less prescriptive than the Letwin/Grieve amendment, this notes support for various Brexit plans, and calls on the government “to provide sufficient parliamentary time this week for this house to find a majority for a different approach”. E. Independent Group calls for second referendum The first amendment tabled by the former Tory/Labour breakaway MPs, and also signed by Lib Dem MPs, it calls for a second referendum to choose between a final deal and staying in the EU. It seeks a two-year extension to Brexit to hold a new referendum.

MPs will then vote on the motion as amended, or not. The amendments being voted on, in order: H. Cross-party request for second referendum Tabled by former Tory Sarah Wollaston, now of the Independent Group, and signed by around 30 MPs, this seeks a delay for a new referendum, which would have remain as an option. If it passes, amendments I and E would not be voted on. If it is voted on (if amendment H loses) and passes then amendment E would not be voted on. E. Labour amendment Led by Jeremy Corbyn, this notes the rejection by parliament of May’s Brexit plan, and of no deal, and says the government should “provide parliamentary time for this house to find a majority for a different approach”. If this amendment was passed it could give the Speaker the power to block another vote on May’s deal as it has been voted down twice by parliament already. This will be voted on whatever else happens. Plaid Cymru amendment This amendment, signed by Plaid’s four MPs, called for a delay to Brexit until 2021, and a second referendum at the end of this. D. Liberal Democrat second referendum plan Tabled by the the Lib Dems’ 11 MPs, this also called for a Brexit delay and a second referendum. F. SNP/Plaid second referendum plan Yet another extension/second referendum amendment, this also called for remain to be an option in the referendum, and for the revocation of article 50 to be possible in the interim.

Theresa May would go back to Brussels with “enormous firepower” to renegotiate her Brexit deal if the Commons backed an amendment watering down the Irish backstop provision, a senior Conservative backbencher has said before a crucial series of votes. Blow for May as Ireland stresses it will not yield on Brexit backstop Read more Graham Brady said he was hopeful of ministerial support for his amendment, which says the backstop should be replaced by “alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border”, even though Ireland has repeatedly stressed such a change cannot happen. There is speculation that the government could formally back Brady’s amendment, which is intended to bring back onboard the many Conservative and DUP MPs who voted against May’s Brexit plan when it was overwhelmingly defeated in the Commons earlier this month. The vote against May’s deal “didn’t necessarily indicate that the agreement is dead”, Brady, who chairs the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, told Today, just that MPs had “a very, very fundamental problem” with the backstop. Brady said his amendment was intended to break the impasse: “I’m hoping that the way in which the amendment is crafted can attract that very broad support. And if we can win the vote on my amendment, then I think it gives the prime minister enormous firepower when she goes back. Brady agreed that the change must be legally binding, adding: “I don’t think anybody’s going to accept something which is just warm words.” The Cooper and Boles plan seems set to get formal support from Labour, but the government is unlikely to allow ministers a free vote. This is probably the only opportunity parliament is going to have to intervene in this process, to take control.” He added: “29 March is an entirely arbitrary date, just two years on from when we sent the letter. And the truth is the prime minister has wasted time. She delayed the vote by a whole month over Christmas and New Year, as she thought she would lose it.

Theresa May has said she was surprised that the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, had allowed MPs to vote on Dominic Grieve’s Brexit amendment on Wednesday, and called on him to explain himself before parliament. John Bercow: Speaker unafraid to hold the government's feet to the fire Read more The prime minister said there should be “consistent interpretation” of the rules as she waded into the row about Bercow’s decision to allow Grieve to submit an amendment on a government motion that was intended not to be altered. May has no power to dismiss Bercow, who has been in the job for over nine years. His appointment is a matter for the whole House of Commons, and the Speaker retains the support of pro-remain Conservatives as well as opposition MPs. But she warned that the Speaker was at risk of making up the rules as he went along. “Members of Parliament need to know that there is a set of rules in the House of Commons; they need to know that there will be consistent interpretation of those rules so that they know how they can operate within the House,” May said. Grieve’s amendment passed on Wednesday by 11 votes after Bercow allowed it to be debated. Government business managers had submitted a procedural motion for the Brexit debate that they said was unamendable, but Bercow directed his clerks that it should be taken for debate. Earlier, a defiant Bercow had told MPs that “there was nothing arbitrary about the conduct of the chair yesterday” when he was accused of arbitrarily changing the rules by Leadsom in the Commons. “This Speaker is well aware of how to go about the business of chairing the proceedings of the House because he’s been doing so for nine and a half years,” Bercow said, describing criticism as “water off a duck’s back”.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that Amendment 1, known as Clean Missouri, dealt with "two different and extremely broad purposes," which violates the Missouri Constitution. Attorney Chuck Hatfield, who represents the Clean Missouri campaign, said in a statement that the campaign will appeal the ruling immediately. "We have always thought that this legal matter would be decided at the Appeals Court level," Hatfield said. The petition would have amended the Missouri Constitution to: Drastically change the process and criteria for drawing state legislative districts. Require state legislators to wait two years after they have left the General Assembly to become paid lobbyists. Require state legislators to be subject to Missouri's open-records law. In Green’s ruling, he said that the proposed changes to the Missouri Constitution covered two different purposes: "(1) the organization of the General Assembly; and (2) ethics or campaign finance regulation aimed at avoiding misconduct by public officials in multiple branches and levels of government." Two weeks ago, attorneys representing Clean Missouri and Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, whose office approves ballot measures, insisted that the proposed amendment dealt with one issue: accountability measures for the Missouri legislature. At the hearing, Green stressed that his judgment was not on the proposal's value, but whether it met the the requirements of the Missouri Constitution. While Conway said she was in favor of transparency, she couldn't support the petition's proposed redistricting process, in which "nobody’s interest is going to be served."

Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic amendment that would have provided states with more election security funding ahead of the midterm election. Senator Bob Corker was the only Republican to vote in support of the amendment. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc…

The House of Commons will this week on Tuesday and Wednesday consider whether or not to accept the fundamental amendments made by the House of Lords to the EU withdrawal bill. It may be defeated on the amendment requiring it to “inform Parliament of the steps it has taken to negotiate British participation in a customs union”, but it can live with that, since the amendment does not commit the government actually to remain in the customs union. But the most dangerous amendment, from the government’s point of view, is that proposed by Lord Hailsham, which would require both houses to approve the agreement by 30 November 2018, and to pass an act providing for the implementation of the agreement by 31 January 2019. The amendment would also allow parliament to refuse to accept any agreement. The government’s position is that if the withdrawal agreement is defeated by parliament, then instead of re-negotiation, Britain will exit from the European Union on 29 March 2019 without a deal. The Hailsham amendment, therefore, lights a powder keg that threatens both Britain’s negotiating position with the EU and the survival of the government. But it does draw attention to the fundamental problem facing the government, which is seeking to implement an instruction from the British people in the Brexit referendum to which the majority of MPs and peers are opposed. For the first time in British constitutional history, parliament is passing legislation in which it does not believe. But what has been decided by the people can be undone only by the people. All that parliament can do is to give the people a chance to decide on the deal.