View Single Post
Old 18th Mar 2019, 17:37
  #6383 (permalink)  
Parapunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
I meant modified on the floor of the HoC to add the above amendments.

Parliament is no, effectively, stymied, unless or until TM comes back to them next week.

With no agreement on the deal, the EU will not offer a short extension.

They have reportedly said that a long extension is only available if a sound reason can be presented - i.e. to hold either another referendum or an election, neither of which have been voted for by the HoC or are likely to be offered by TM.

Polling of MPs also shows no majority support for a long extension, let alone the conditions which the EU are rumoured to be insisting upon.

If TM returns to the HoC next week, after the Council meeting, with no extension agreed, then parliament will be left to find a way to find a majority for whatever terms she brings back and then hope the EU is willing to get all 27 heads of state to agree to it; or find a majority for revocation (unlikely); and then find a means of changing the existing Withdrawal Act within 2-3 days.

The risks of a cliff-edge Brexit just multiplied considerably.

The Speaker is is practicing an incredibly dangerous piece of brinksmanship, and the risks of miscalculation are far higher than he probably thinks.
I know what you meant & it doesn't work. You cannot make a unilateral alteration to a bilateral text, or rather you can but it's meaningless. The EU won't agree it, the speaker will see through it & you're right back where you started. You have in effect described the Malthouse amendment on a procedural level & that was yet another example of leave delusions I mentioned earlier.. On your second point, you don't know that and she will ask the council. We go from there.
Parapunter is offline