Consensus?

Theresa May finally reached out to Corbyn to aks for his help in getting Brexit over the line. She wants to apply for another short extension, avoiding the Euro-elections. The good news is that having seen the weight of opinion in Parliament, she’s moving away from catastrophic towards pointless. Here’s what Corbyn said last time, in February about what he thought was acceptable, and I commented on the letter here … and then wrote a small piece about the requirement to be able to keep the European Arrest Warrant.

As I said, the latter is an important demand, since it invokes the justice pillar which brings the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Court into play. Another Tory red line bites the dust.

ooOOOoo

This also is still true, from, my “New Red Lines” article, which still holds true,

My one true fear is that it means Labour accepts the withdrawal agreement which will throws those Brit’s living in the EU under the bus, and the will permit the Tory government to implement another Windrush by placing EU citizens in the UK, having lived here for months or years under the same hostile environment applied to other alien immigrants and subject to uncertainty about their rights to remain. For me this might be a price too high!

 …

Back to the Commons for more on Brexit

Last night the House of Commons voted on four alternatives to No-Deal and May’s Deal Brexit, they were any deal to be confirmed by a confirmatory/final say referendum, aiming for Custom’s Union, aiming for a Customs Union and Single Market membership, and changing the default, currently to leave without a deal to Revoking of article 50. They all failed to win a majority, but the Customs Union only lost by three votes. Here is a graphic from the Institute of Governance showing the votes. I also present the majorities/minorities in bar chart form.

 

A number of MPs and commentators have argued, partly as a result of the ERG’s stupid game playing, that accepting May’s binding deal in exchange for a promise that the non-binding political declaration becomes better than May’s first draft is unacceptable; much of the problem in compromising in or with Parliament is that it can’t bind itself, so its promises are worthless. It’s one of the reasons I still support remain as Pariament can’t break the accession treaties. This means that “Customs Union” and “Common Market 2.0” have questionable value and the Withdrawal Agreement with it’s sub-standard citizenship guarantees and its failure to underwrite the Good Friday Agreement underwrite them. The vote however is meant to be indicative.

I have previously argued that Brexit is either catastrophic or pointless and I have learned that there are at least two forms of decision making, which either polarise or coalesce foci. Parliaments allow coalescence, compromise and the ability of popular second choices to become a reality. It seems that MPs are not yet ready to make these comprises, as shown by the high number of Labour votes against all these positions and Nick Boles decision to resign the Tory Whip. See below/overleaf for the bar charts, … …

Delete all … insert

I was asked where the “rule” that an amendment cannot be destructive came from. I have to say, that I don’t know but I haven’t read Citrine, so I googled it and came across, “The vest pocket Chairman” by Heathwood and Horseman hosted by libcom.org. They quote Citrine as saying,

Amendment. An amendment should be a proposal seeking to improve a motion—not merely to improve the wording but to propose a better course of action. Amendments should not be negative nor merely destructive.

Lord Citrine, in his A B C of Chairmanship,* divides amendments into five categories. These are :-

(a) Those adding words to the original motion.
(b) Those deleting words from the motion.
(c) Those deleting words and substituting others.
(d) Those deleting most of the motion and substituting a counter-proposal.
(e) Those which amend an earlier amendment.

The rules for moving and discussing an amendment are the same as those for moving and discussing a motion, except that, as a rule, the mover of an amendment has no right of reply to the discussion.

An amendment must be relevant to the terms of the original motion, and must not be frivolous. An amendment should offer a concrete alternative proposal to that contained in the motion.

An amendment should not negative the motion. Anyone wishing to do that can do so simply by voting against the motion.

I have also found the following words,

Direct Negative. An amendment which proposes the direct opposite of a motion is a “Direct Negative” and should not be accepted. The proper course for movers of a direct negative is to oppose the motion.

and

Negative Motion. A motion in the negative cannot be accepted. All motions must be positive.

This article permits omnibus motions.

ooOOOoo

I have uploaded the document here … as my blog seems more long lived that many other web resources. …

The Gemalderie

I went to the Gemalderie in Berlin’s Kultur Forum. The art was a bit too religious or bit too civic. It made me want to got back to the National Maritime Museum for some seascapes, or the the art gallery at Newmarket. I missed the classic, i.e. Botticelli pictures of Venus which it seems are there but found one by Titian, called Venus & the Organ Player, fortunately painted and titled 425 years or so before Peter Cook’s satirical speech on the Jeremy Thorpe trial summing up. It reminded me a bit of the Jo Brand & Helena Bonam Carter sketch on the objectification and changing fashions of female beauty.

The Gemalderie has a sign saying photography permitted, the staff were wonderfully polite, even when correcting me, and the Cafe had a fabulous salad, but I think I need to go to Musee Insel next time., now over to the Embassy to show solidarity with comrades on the “finalsay” demo. …

Revoke Article 50, a petition

Revoke Article 50, a petition

After May’s speech last night, someone started a petition on the Government’s e-petitions site calling on the Government to Revoke the Article 50 notice to quit the EU.

The growth in signatures has been explosive, hitting the 100,000 in hours, having a rate of 50 minute at 3:30 am and hitting 2,000 a minute in the early morning (100 TPS) and then it crashed. It was restarted early morning and went down again, but is now up and states over ¾m signatures. …  …

Nigel Farage, 4 more years?

And as the odds that the UK will participate in the European Parliament elections shorten, we come to understand why NIgel Farage has launched a Brexit Party. You can’t stand for the European Parliament as an independent and he’s left UKIP which has fallen into the abyss of xenophobic stupidity, although it wasn’t a long drop from Farage’s leadership position. Watch that space! …