UK General Discussion: 2019 and onwards, The End of May

[brucejoel99]

If the deal got rejected a third time, then I don't see a short extension happening - or even a No Deal. It would be a long one.

Yes, that's already May's plan.

[brucejoel99]

If the deal is rejected in the 3rd meaningful vote and the EU refuses UK's request for a long extension can May put the deal to the vote for a 4th time before March, 29? And if it's the case will Labour vote for the deal in order to prevent an imminent no-deal Brexit?

She could, yes (presuming the Speaker allows the vote), but if there's an imminent no-deal Brexit, then Labour might very well vote against the deal so as to potentially force a revocation of Article 50.

[brucejoel99]

Another note - the change of date legislation would just be a Statutory Instrument instead of a full Act of Parliament. The former only requires a single vote each in the Commons and the Lords.

Got it, thanks!

[jaichind]

It seems Bercow has banning another vote on May's deal unless it changes significantly which will for sure not take place by 3/29.

[Silent Hunter]

The only way that could be got round would be for a prorogation of Parliament that terminates the current session (which has been going since the last election) and starts a new one.

That means another Queen's Speech and vote on it. Also any legislation currently ongoing would fall and have to be done again in the new session.

Another issue is the need to get any extension through as a Statutory Instrument.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It seems Bercow has banning another vote on May's deal unless it changes significantly which will for sure not take place by 3/29.

Good, that puts a stop to the May's "let's put the same deal to a vote for about 30 times" nonsense, leaving only a Article 50 extension or a no-deal Brexit.

[Silent Hunter]

It's moments like this when you remember that a new Speaker is ceremonially "dragged" to the chair because some of the past ones lost their heads. Literally.

[parochial boy]

Notwithsatnding the inevitable controversy-  is it not actually pretty unambiguously The Law that you can't just bring back the same bill in the same sitting multiple times?

[Silent Hunter]

It's the convention in the de facto parliamentary rulebook called 'Erskine May'. It's not available online - although they are planning to put it on the Parliament website soon.

[jaichind]

The currency market seems to be discounting this.  After the news came out on Bercow's decision GBP fell 0.3% but came right back.  I suspect the currency markets was already pricing in May's deal not passing this week anyway so no vote does not make that much of a difference.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Here come dat general election.

[IceAgeComing]

Notwithsatnding the inevitable controversy-  is it not actually pretty unambiguously The Law that you can't just bring back the same bill in the same sitting multiple times?

Things like this aren't the subject of Law but instead a combination of Parliament's standing orders, past precedent and Erskine May (which is the handbook of parliamentary procedure in the British Parliament).  For this its a combination of all three - here is a tweet with the relevant page from Erskine May:

1105876037236412418

The Speaker hasn't denied parliamentary time for a motion on these grounds since 1943 but that doesn't seem to be because Bercow has changed procedure but instead because past governments have generally tolerated it whenever parliament has rejected legislation (plus also for most of that time you had much higher levels of party discipline and single party majority governments which made government defeats on the same measure not overly likely).

In terms of ways to get around it: the government could prorogue parliament - end the session early to start another - which has been done by governments in the past to get around rules limitations (last time in the UK I think was Attlee trying to pass the 1949 Parliament Act had to have a short session to meet the rules in order to pass it under the 1911 Parliament Act which was legally questionable and is still occasionally the subject of debate; the Canadian Parliament did it once very recently when the opposition threatened to vote in down in a Vote of Confidence which was not overly popular); I think that they could vote to suspend the Standing Orders to allow a debate on a third meaningful vote but I don't know that - it would only take a majority of MPs I'm sure so if they had a deal majority they could go down that route.  The other options of amending the standing orders would have to go through the procedure committee and generally a government forcing through amendments to the standing orders to limit the powers of the Speaker would not be seen as being overly positive by opposition and backbench government MPs.  I guess that if you're a parliamentary procedure fanatic then this is all really rather interesting!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

In terms of ways to get around it: the government could prorogue parliament - end the session early to start another - which has been done by governments in the past to get around rules limitations

Apparently that would require a state opening of Parliament and a Queen's Speech. Would be absolutely extraordinary for the govt to attempt.

[IceAgeComing]

There is precedent for it though - although its a massive expense just to override the ruling of the speaker just to lose by 70 votes this time

[Silent Hunter]

In terms of ways to get around it: the government could prorogue parliament - end the session early to start another - which has been done by governments in the past to get around rules limitations

Apparently that would require a state opening of Parliament and a Queen's Speech. Would be absolutely extraordinary for the govt to attempt.

Not to mention logistically non-feasible before the 29th.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

There is precedent for it though - although its a massive expense just to override the ruling of the speaker just to lose by 70 votes this time

Yeah, the hilarious thing about Bercow's decision is that the House can still override his standing order with a motion to allow MV3 to be held. All Bercow has done is highlight the fact that the govt has no majority to actually win the vote (which is why everyone has been talking about MV4 for the past week). Checkmate.

[Silent Hunter]

The House would need a majority for that of course.

[Middle-aged Europe]

May is going to write a letter to Donald Tusk, requesting an Article 50 extension. The UK government hasn't released yet how long of an extension she's planning to ask for.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/19/brexit-may-to-ask-eu-for-brexit-extension-as-uk-slides-into-political-crisis

[President Johnson]

I'm curious how this turns out, but I think the heads of state will ultimately grant the delay and this whole Brexit circus continues for months to come.

[Sestak]

They should demand either a general or second referendum.

[Silent Hunter]

They should demand either a general or second referendum.

They may well get that. Does the EU want to de facto kick the UK out of the EU at this point?

[AndyHogan14]

They should demand either a general or second referendum.

They may well get that. Does the EU want to de facto kick the UK out of the EU at this point?

I really think it depends on who you ask within the EU. I think the Irish definitely have a vested interest in seeing the UK stay in, the Germans would probably be willing to overlook the past few years to keep the common market intact, and while the French may talk tough, Dover-Calais will become a nightmare in pretty much any Brexit scenario. On the other hand, the Spanish may like that they now have the upper hand when it comes to Gibraltar and some seeking to further integrate Europe are looking forward to the UK not being in the bloc.

[Silent Hunter]

Latest bit of obscure procedure that we're learning: Standing Order 24. There's a motion for an emergency debate on Brexit this afternoon and Labour are backing it. Could lead to Commons taking control of the whole process.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

May supposedly is going to ask for a short delay to Article 50, but I can't see what she thinks to gain by it except backing into a hard Brexit by "accident". It's likely that she won't be able to get a short delay without a plan and it doesn't seem like she has a plan except leave Parliament with a stark choice between her deal or a hard Brexit. I'm doubtful that'll work as she hopes.

[Silent Hunter]

The EU might say "long delay or nothing". Problem May has always had that a majority of her party really don't want any delay past 29 March and the thought of a delay until 2020 or longer is anathema to them.

Labour are supporting a delay until 30 June as well.

In any event, whatever happens, there has to be a Commons debate and vote on the thing on Monday, with the possibility of amending the motion.