Wow. I thought for sure that the ERG would cave and we'd get may's deal the third time around (maybe the 4th). Now who the hell knows.

We live in extraordinary times. A battle between the government and the speaker could be epic.

Imagine May turns the dup and most of the brexiters and looks like she may well have the numbers. The clock is ticking and the speaker wont let them vote.

There's not enough popcorn

And Bercow better watch his back

Looks like it's being forced to be no deal or no brexit to me.

Me too

Don't write off a meaningful Vote 3 too easily.

Big gap between Bercow's ruligng today and that.

From the BBC

Mr Bercow made his ruling in response to what he said were concerns from MPs across Parliament that the government intended to "bring the same deal back to the House ad infinitum"

That's a profoundly stupid way to put it, given it is a time frame of 11 days


Can they just end a 'session' and start a new one maybe?

Possibly. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...s/prorogation/

There's also the possibility of parliament changing the rules under which bercow made his ruling

Or the simplest solution which is to change the motion sufficiently.

From Times New Roman to Comic Sans?

The government would have to introduce a business motion accordingly and gain a majority on it. I don't think I (or the government) would bet on that.

The Speaker has allowed the suggestion that, if the Withdrawal Agreement were made subject to a referendum, that would be a sufficient difference. And it's believed that the EU would allow an extension for that, though the requirement for unanimity among the 27 is fairly intimidating.

But May's bludgeoning tactic is unconstitutional. It's not, as the BBC are claiming, some obscure 17th-century statute, it's Erskine May, p.397. You can't keep re-presenting something the House has already voted on. Recall if you will that the first defeat for the Withdrawal Agreement was the largest in Parliamentary history. The Speaker has been generous in allowing the Prime Minister to have two goes, because of a supposed EU squiggle on the backstop the second time. But more than two goes would be taking the constitutional piss. (This is why you shouldn't hold unconstitutional referendums and pretend we're a direct democracy like Switzerland -- and practically nowhere else -- when in fact we're the original and genuine representative democracy.)

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...c-brexitinterv

And there really is not the time to prorogue and recall Parliament with a fresh State Opening and a fresh Queen's Speech (which would have to pass by a majority in the House) to establish a fresh Parliamentary session before Friday week, so you can forget that.

Hard to argue with this:

Is it likely that May asked/hoped/urged Bercow to rule out MV3 vote because she knows it will fail? I find it a bit suspicious that 1) Leaks there will be no deal with the DUP, 2) 23 ERGs publish a declaration they will never vote for her deal, 3) Bercow rules out MV3, all happened in the span of like 1 hour. It seems like May is trying to save some face.

just lol at all the brexiteers complaining that they're not allowed to lose a vote and keep bringing it back for another vote until they get the desired result. IRONY IS DEAD

They were also ha-ha-ing at the thought that the Speaker has snookered himself and amendments can't be put either. But he suggests that Standing Order 24 would allow neutral but amendable motions to do whatever the House wants. They appear to have stopped ha-ha-ing as this sinks in.

ORDAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

So May brings a bill (maybe a neutral one) and someone brings a withdrawal bill amendment. Then Bercow has to refuse that amendment? What if a majority have signed it?

Bizarre stuff. I still have no idea at all whether Bercow decisions is better for remainers or leavers.

Yeah, does this mean cos there's already been a amendment about a second referendum that got slapped down, there can't be another amendment about a second referendum?

That would seem correct, if this is about following protocol rather than being a remainer subverting things to try and achieve a result he wants?

The paranoia is strong in this one

Lol to anyone suggesting his stance is neutral.

This block seems to help hard core brexitards as it makes no deal more possible.

There is still the fundamental tension of

May: Can we have an extension please.
EU: Why?
May: To renegotiate the deal.
EU: LOOOOOL.
May: Ok, so I can pass the deal
EU: LOOOOOOOOOOOL,
May: Um, so I can have GE and have a Parliament that will pass the deal.
EU: hmmm interested,

GE dominated by Brexit returns a Parliament even more fragmented and divided.
EU: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL BYE.

I don't think that's obviously correct (although this is all very arcane and who the **** knows) Bringing the withdrawal bill as an amendment to a neutral bill would be an amendment identical to a bill.

That's not the same as amendments to different bills which appear to be the same. Then it would be bizarre to rule them out as genuine amendment are considered in the house in the light of the bill being amended and hence if the bill is different than the amendment is different. Unless perhaps it's amendments to a neutral bill.

Yes that's sorta possible but it plays out several other ways.

The EU desperately doesn't want to say 'looool goodbye'. So the long extension (and ultimately remain perhaps) becomes a lot more likely if May's bill is frustrated.

The chances of a GE have probably gone up but there's no guarantee at all that the house will be so divided.

Really tough to say but I think the Kyle amendment is harder as it required May to get close enough without Labour's support to become a credible referendum option.

That's even ignoring that it's still quite likely Mays deal comes back in some form and who knows what Bercow's ruling has doen to teh chances of it getting through if it does come back.

Pus all the other possibilities including wtf? Maybe even revoke will start to gain ground.

Brexiters have successfully played this out to guarantee a second referendum and a subsequent remain outcome. Hilarious.

Six months from now there will be dozens of articles about how they wish they had accepted Mays deal and that if it had the original EU backstop (Irish Sea regulatory border) it was the exact brexit they wanted all along.

I saw the idea that Bercow may block continual "meaningful" votes on the same thing posted in the brexit thread on another forum I read a few days ago, didn't think it'd actually happen. Amazing!

If this were a TV drama and we'd been watching the shenanigans each week, the speaker pulling this one would be at the end of the penultimate episode and cut to both the main arch-remainer and arch-hard brexiter characters suddenly getting a wry smile, all the moderates look mortified, and the show either goes to awesome, or jumps the shark. I'm not sure which.