Peston explained this on the ITV news at ten a couple of hours ago. Basically he said it is almost certain they will be found in contempt (the DUP signed the letter to Bercow). After that the consequences will be swift but what they are is to be decided. Sounded like ministers could be removed with immediate effect. He did also say there is no real precedent for this.

Explanation starts about 6 mins in on this link

https://www.itv.com/hub/itv-news-at-ten/2a4409a0779

Does require an email address to be verified to view it.

watched newsnight as well. Going to be a big week, I expect May will come out swinging tomorrow and it's very hard to tell how this plays out. Plus we have the Article 50 advice tomorrow.

What a stunning mess.

From the legal advice debate yesterday.

Q: Under the withdrawal agreement the EU will set our customs taxes under the backstop. That is taxation without representation.

Barclay says he does not accept that reading of the agreement.

Rees-Mogg says it is in annex 2, article 3, sub-section 3.

He says taxation without representation like this is unacceptable.

Barclay says he does not accept that.

Rees-Mogg says Barclay does not seem to know about it, which is worrying

Source https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Parliament coming across as an ugly mob now. I wish they'd just get on with the debate rather than diverting energy into the silly point-scoring exercise this is. I reckon the public will be starting to get a little annoyed at these antics and we'll get even less respect for the mainstream body politic than we have now.

But it's May's fault. Boy, can that woman not read a room. The full legal should just have been given out (I don't think the content matters that much, given that what guy told parliament yesterday makes the deal sound terrible anyway, couldn't really reveal much worse), and the whole 'not in the national interest' is some proper BS worthy of Blair/Campbell

I don't get why she's totally obstinate with parliament, but demurred to Brussels over and over. She basically seems to be picking the wrong fight and then taking Brussels' side in it.

I gave it a miss last night cos the trail they had on the BBC news sounded like it was a few different sides whining about the full text rather than about the big issue. Is it worth iplayering it and catching up, do you think?

Everyone here who read up on the transition agreement as stated in the press know stuff like it could be indefinite etc, right? All this stuff is not new and unexpected, right?

All this showboating is for political point-scoring, it seems to me.

But it is May's fault for precipitating this particular bun-fight.

That's probably one thing most here can agree on, for a change.

The stupid backstop arrangement is a horrible fudge designed to obscure the fact that it's impossible to leave the customs union while still being in it, and it's only necessary because of May's famous red line attempt to appease the rabid loony Tory Brexiters and DUP.

Schrodinger's customs union.

There cold be other stuff in the legal advice but yes this is obviously a 'bogus' fight especially if they carry on after Cox was so candid about what we already knew about the backstop. Not so obviously May's 'fault' and there's big danger for both sides here.

It's far more than point scoring, this is a key part of the battle for parliament asserting itself going on in real time and who wins (both in parliament and in public opinion) is massive. I don't know how any political junkies can drag their eyes away as the huge lorries career towards the already massive pile up.

It's an extraordinary conundrum

Neither side wants the backstop to come into force, both sides will strive to prevent it happening and if does happen it wont last long. But for it to force the required negotiations, there has to be no unilateral way out for either side. It's a cracking example of a leap of faith being necessary.

I also wonder if the EU and UK are still trying to come up with some form of words to square this circle. They can't want the whole deal to fall on something that wont ever happen. Many of us, on the other hand, don't give a hoot about the backstop arrangement but are, with much trepidation, quite hoping the deal will fail. We can find ourselves cheering on the DUP to be as boneheaded as possible - go on vote for xmas you turkeys.

Go the ECJ

Recommendation on article 50 is ....'We can change our mind unilaterally'

What parliament should do now is cancel article 50 while we have a 2nd referendum and then have a GE. Obviously speak to the EU to get them on-side and there must be no possibility of unilaterally going back to the beginning of the 2 year process.

It is horribly fascinating.

It's gonna be a real let down if the deal gets passed

So cancel article 50 and don't invoke again unless EU say it is OK.

Remind me, are you a remainer or leaver?

? I'd like to cancel article 50 and forget it but I dont think that's politically possible in the UK without a referendum. So to remain we have to have that referendum (and win it) - happy to be wrong about that but I can't see it.

I don't know what you mean by the EU having to say it's ok. I want us to cancel article 50 while working with the EU. I'm sure if we do it reasonably (and with some due humility) they will be very happy - they have no wish to have to get full agreement from everybody either.


I still think something like this deal is the front runner but it's not odds on anymore.

Unless May pulls out something both wonderful and conciliatory (ie never), this deal has as much chance as a chocolate teapot in a sauna

You can also get 4/5 on no deal before end march https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...1st-april-2019

Some easy money to be for you. Unless you think there's a sizable chance that some radically new deal could be agreed that fast (I assume you don't)

The only requirement is that the revocation notice is constitutional, which in the UK simply requires a vote in Parliament, and that it is not an abuse of procedure (a negotiating tactic). The government's own legal advice, revealed in a filing during the case, is that Parliament can order the government to revoke.

The ECJ judges' ruling, due in a week or so, does not always agree with the Advocate General's opinion, but it usually does, and in a case as critical as this it is highly likely to.



(Jo Maugham is founder of the Good Law Project, which brought the case.)

Politics only requires another referendum if politicians think it does. It doesn't really, because Parliament is sovereign. If there is another one, the Remain campaign will have to get quite heavy. We now know, for instance, that No Deal would cut Calais-Dover imports by 87%, which would mean famine. And May's deal isn't a deal at all, it just nudges us blindfold to the cliff-edge.

We do not know that, and it would not.

Every apocalypse opinion and forecast that referred to the period between the vote and today has been either a massive exaggeration, or just plain wrong.

The smart money says they same about the guess that you are referring to.

Yes I think we all know by now that there's no legal requirement for a referendum. Politically though, I think it's quite impossible to remain without a 2nd ref (or possibly a general election win by a party running on a clear remain platform).

Totally disagree about running on such extreme project fear as 'famine'.

Yeah, needs Death, War and Pestilence to balance.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&so...44022207649769

LOL Mervyn King sez Mays Deal is akin to appeasing the nazis

Bitterballs crying about project fear is fantastic, especially considering almost everything he posts is his own version of project fear.

EU forcing us to do ****, just not sure what that is. Bastards!

--

Gov should just change their mind on Article 50 and forget all about the last 2 years.

Watching bbc parliment now and the house is full and expecting the result any minute now.

Read earlier that gov should be fine because mogg and his crew not voting against gov today, holding fire until next week. So what is real point of this today if there isn't the support for it?

I don't understand theses results ffs.

Someone tell me wtf is happening please.

Only voting on gov amendments to the contempt motion. Ok wtf does this mean?

Wow the government loses their own amendment (they tried to refer themselves to the standards committee, which would kick it into the long grass).

Now there is going to be a vote and if it is successful they will be found in contempt

It's a bit strange. The motion being debated brought by the 6 opposition parties actually bypasses the Standards Committee and immediately finds the Government in contempt.



However the government had tabled an amendment, in which it is trying to refer itself to the standards committee



The standards committee would kick the whole thing way down the line past the meaningful vote, whilst the first motion should bring swift punishment.

The amendment by the government just lost