Tag: House of Commons

The bill, spearheaded by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and the Conservative Sir Oliver Letwin, passed late into the night, with MPs defeating a number of obstructive amendments from both Brexiters and the government. It finally passed its third reading about half an hour before midnight by just one vote – 313 ayes to 312 noes – and must now pass the House of Lords. The bill was almost scuppered during a frenzied day in parliament after MPs initially voted by a majority of just one – 312 to 311 – to let the snap bill proceed. Cooper and Letwin then had six hours to pass the bill’s second reading, committee stage and third reading through the House of Commons. Bercow said it was precedent for the Speaker to vote with the government, which had opposed the motion and the amendments. The government opposed both the Cooper-Letwin motion and Benn’s amendment. Speaking in the debate, Letwin said the government’s plan to seek an extension was an “enormously welcome development” and he did not have doubts that they would seek to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but there was still a need to pass legislation. “It is right she puts that forward, and then the house will decide.” Labour and the SNP whipped in support of the motion. MPs voted through the second stage of the bill at 7pm and after voting on a long series of amendments passed it around 11.30pm. The newly passed legislation could be debated in the Lords as soon as Friday or Monday, where it is likely to encounter attempts to frustrate its progress by Eurosceptic peers.

Jeremy Corbyn will resume Brexit talks with the prime minister on Thursday, after Labour tensions over a second referendum burst into the open, with the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, writing to colleagues to insist any pact must be put to a public vote. Thornberry wrote to colleagues to say that she was unable to attend for personal reasons – but would have insisted any deal must be subject to a public vote. “What I would have said is that if we look like reaching any other decision than confirmatory vote that would be in breach of the decision made unanimously by conference in Liverpool and overwhelmingly supported by our members and it needs to be put to a vote? by the shadow cabinet,” the letter said. She said the cabinet had held a vote on Tuesday and the shadow cabinet should adopt the same procedure. If it did, she said, “can I – in writing – confirm that my votes are that yes, any deal agreed by parliament must be subject to a confirmatory public vote, and, yes, the other option on the ballot must be remain”. April 3, 2019 That is the careful formulation used by the leadership since Labour shifted its position towards support for a referendum in February – and falls short of Thornberry’s position that any deal should be subject to a public vote. Speaking in favour of the referendum option in the indicative votes process, he told the House of Commons: “At this late stage it is clear that any Brexit deal agreed in this parliament will need further democratic approval.” The Scottish National party, which commands 35 votes in the Commons, has strengthened its demands for a confirmatory referendum on any Brexit deal agreed after May’s cross-party talks, although it has not yet made that a precondition for its support of a new soft Brexit proposal. Starmer, who is one of the more vocal advocates for a referendum in the shadow cabinet, accompanied Corbyn at the meeting, together with Labour’s chief whip, Nick Brown, and strategy and communications director Seumas Milne. Play Video 1:52 But, unlike in previous meetings with the prime minister, Corbyn took the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, who has expressed scepticism about a referendum. If May cannot secure Labour’s backing for a compromise deal, she hopes to win Corbyn’s sign-up for a binding process in the Commons to decide what form of Brexit is acceptable.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has said it should not be taken for granted that the EU would grant the UK a long extension on its departure from the bloc. Welcoming Ireland’s Leo Varadkar to Paris for talks at the Élysée on Tuesday, Macron said that as the clock ticked down and a no-deal Brexit became more likely, it was far from evident that the EU would agree to a British request for a further article 50 extension. “A long extension, implying the UK takes part in European elections and European institutions, has nothing easy or automatic about it,” Macron said. “I say that again very strongly. Our priority must be the good functioning of the EU and the single market. The EU can’t be held hostage long-term by the resolution of a political crisis in the UK.” No-deal Brexit more likely by the day, says Michel Barnier Read more He continued: “The three times rejection of the withdrawal agreement by the House of Commons and the rejection of all alternative plans now puts us on the path of a UK exit without a deal. “As the European council decided in March, it’s now up to the UK to present a credible alternative plan backed by a majority before 10 April in order to avoid that. Publicly, he has positioned France as the toughest-talking nation in the Brexit saga, stressing the need for the UK to present a way forward. Macron said the EU’s priority was protecting its workings and the single market: “We have a future to build together in the EU and a future relationship to build with the UK, which will be an ally, but we can’t spend the next months still trying to fix the rules of our divorce and looking to the past.” Macron met Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach, to discuss no-deal plans for the Irish border as well as how to handle any extension request from Theresa May. Macron said the EU had total “unity and solidarity” with Ireland.

Aa Aa Running out of bad options? British MPs are trying to break the Brexit deadlock in a series of dramatic votes on Monday. The string of indicative votes, as they're known, comes after British lawmakers took control of the Brexit proceedings last week. MPs will have another chance to cast their ballots on the eight indicative votes — some of which are being voted on for a second time in the House of Commons — after being struck down last Wednesday. Political outsiders Presidential elections in Slovakia and Ukraine have thrust political newcomers into the spotlight. Both countries saw politicians with little prior political experience win important presidential votes. Zuzana Caputova won the runoff vote in Slovakia on Saturday, making her the country's first female president. In Ukraine, preliminary results indicated comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy defeated the incumbent, President Petro Poroshenko, in first-round votes on Sunday. The duo will face off in a runoff vote on April 21. Policing Facebook Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is calling for more government intervention when it comes to social media content.

Decisive rejection of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons for a third time, following hot on the heels of the House’s rejection of eight alternative approaches, raises uncomfortable questions about the quality of the UK’s decision-making process. But why is this system so apparently helpless, and can anything be done to resolve the UK’s ambitions for a new relationship with the EU? The constitution First, reliance on an “unwritten” constitution is an impressive achievement – if it can be pulled off. It could spell out the currently ambiguous relationship between government and parliament. The opposition “opposes”, biding its time until the mercurial electoral system brings it back to power. But it can be corrosive when (as in Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972) there is no such alternation, or when (as in the case of Brexit) the stakes are very high. Geopolitical perspectives Third, the criticism that many leading Brexiteers are insufficiently familiar with EU structures and procedures carries weight, but it may be that they also misperceive Britain’s place in the contemporary world. Put differently, when negotiators on behalf of the EU27 face their British counterparts, they speak for a bloc that is six to seven times more substantial than the UK in these areas. Recognising that there is nothing sacrosanct about a consultative referendum, that government and opposition need not be deadly enemies and that the UK is by far the weaker player in the Brexit negotiations may be a big cultural challenge. Might it not also facilitate a more productive outcome to the UK’s negotiations with the EU?

The EU has pencilled in April Fools’ Day 2020 as a leading option for Britain’s first day outside the bloc, should the UK government ask Brussels for a lengthy extension of article 50 in three weeks’ time, it can be revealed. The date was to be offered at the leaders’ summit last week if Theresa May had followed through on her promise to request a short extension in the event of passing her Brexit deal, and a longer one should it be rejected again by the House of Commons. A one-year extension, ending on 31 March 2020, was, however, written into internal EU papers before the summit as an offer that could be made to May should she formally seek a longer extension, sources said. “That would safeguard our work during this year and basically allow us to turn to it again early next year,” the official said. So such a time limit is not a bad idea.” Play Video 6:17 Sources emphasised that no decision had been made and it would be the subject of intense debate among the leaders at a summit, likely to be held on 10 April in Brussels, should May come back again for extra time. We want to do other things and not have this dominate.” The source added: “It may be up to two years, but that is the span of the imagination of those who are talking about a long extension. It is not up to this October because we can’t do this all the time. The European parliament’s lead Brexit negotiator said he was very pleased MPs had voted to take control of Brexit from the government. This is the first time that there is a vote for something – cross-party cooperation. We have long called for that.

Strangely enough, the imminent economic catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit only came second in the reasoning to political assessments. Hence Theresa May’s demand for a short extension until June 30th, which she hoped could avoid that election participation. On the European side, too, electoral considerations carried weight. National leaders want to show their own voters the clear costs of an EU exit, which is much easier with the UK outside. The British minister failed to grasp the extent to which his country’s exit from the European order is experienced by Germany, Ireland and other EU member states as an existential political attack on the foundations of the union, to be withstood at all costs. In sum: politics above prosperity on both sides (albeit with far lower relative costs for the remaining 27 members). The Brussels machinery is utterly ill-equipped to deal with border issues. A border is pure politics: an arbitrary line between us and them. Borders, in other words, cannot be “depoliticised”, not reasoned away thanks to a legal fix or technological trick. Just as light-heartedly, London first pretended the issue could be solved with technology before running into the sand of legal explanations.

Theresa May’s hopes that she can force her withdrawal deal through parliament faded on Monday after the Democratic Unionist party leader, Arlene Foster, rejected a personal plea for support. In a telephone call, Foster told the prime minister she would not change her party’s stance, which is to vote against the deal, if as expected it comes before the House of Commons this week. Support from the DUP is critical to May’s hopes of getting parliament to approve her Brexit plan. DUP leaders have been unimpressed with the way May and her team have negotiated with the EU, and believe they will have to be closely involved if the government is to leave with a deal that keeps Northern Ireland closely aligned with Britain. In unusually critical language, Dodds said last week: “The government has consistently settled for inferior compromises when they didn’t need to and when there was, and is, more negotiating with the EU to be done. An informed source said: “Confidence and supply two is nearly upon us. If anything, C&S2 will have to be even tighter than C&S1. Not talking about putting people in cabinet or anything like that, but deeply involved in every decision, especially on Brexit.” The party negotiated £1bn in spending for Northern Ireland as part of a first confidence and supply agreement with the Tories in 2017 – giving the government a working majority. Claims of splits in the DUP over whether to support May’s deal have been denied by the party. A DUP spokesman said: “The party is focused on securing a way forward as we exit the EU which respects the referendum result and protects the Union.

The government has conceded it is likely to hold the third meaningful vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal next week, following intense pressure from MPs for more clarity on the next steps after the extension of the departure date. In an often difficult appearance in the House of Commons, the Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng initially rebuffed questions on when the vote might take place, saying the timetable would be outlined soon. Kwarteng responded: “The government fully intends to have a meaningful vote next week.” The secondary legislation needed to change the departure date would also be tabled next week, he said, but declined to give any further details on timings, adding: “On this Friday I’m not going to say the exact hour and time of when the meaningful vote will take place.” Separately, No 10 said the EU’s agreement to extend article 50 was contingent on holding the vote next week. “The consideration is to hold it when we believe we have a realistic prospect of success,” May’s spokesman said. “My understanding of last night is that the extension to 22 May was contingent on winning the vote next week.” May will meet cabinet ministers in Downing Street and spend the weekend working at Chequers, her country retreat. “But we have made a decision – voting down her deal twice, by historic margins,” he told MPs. “It’s just that it’s a decision the prime minister is clearly incapable of accepting. It is her intransigence, her pandering to the hardliners in her party, and her refusal to compromise that has brought us to this point.” He asked Kwarteng to say when the third meaningful vote would happen, as well as how the government would comply with the ruling by the Speaker, John Bercow, that a new vote will only be allowed under Commons procedures if it is a notably different proposal. He added: “Ministers have constantly told us that responsible governments prepare for all eventualities. Asked by Labour’s Karen Buck if the government still planned to seek a consensus way forward if May’s plan fell again, he replied: “I think that if the meaningful vote is voted down then it would be reasonable to have a wide debate in the house to find what the house would tolerate and how it sees things going forward.”