One thing that raised a few eyebrows in surprise last night, was that the government allowed an amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill (No 6), to go through totally unopposed. PLEASE SUPPORT MY YOUTUBE WORK ON PATREON:
OR ON SUBSCRIBESTAR:
My Youtube Community Page:
FACEBOOK: @JeffTaylorBrexit
LIKE THIS? PLEASE SHARE IT using the url -
*SUBSCRIBE* to Jeff Taylor Here:
How to *SUPERCHARGE* your YouTube videos - start for FREE:
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING MAY NOT BE A FULL TRANSCRIPT!!
Last night, after going through a so called 'debate' on this EU Withdrawal surrender Bill, the House of Commons then went through the amendment procedures.
Now, out of all the many amendments to the bill, one was voted down, many were not selected by the Speaker for debate, many were in the end not moved by those that initiated them and one, the Kinnock amendment, was allowed to go through completely unopposed.
In fact the government failed to put tellers in the no lobby, even thought the lobby was full of those waiting to vote it down. So if went through automatically.
Now, this raised a few eyebrows and some looked on suspiciously and called foul on the government, thinking they must be up to no good.
For example, Labour MP Alex Sobel Tweeted:
"The amendment in the name of Stephen Kinnock didn't have a vote as the government didn't provide tellers to count.
"This meant the amendment went through although the No lobby was full. This wasn't an accident you can be assured there's some skulduggery going on."
Others are saying that it may have been a mistake and others that it was a government trying to stop it being obvious that there was a way with Brexit, other than their own.
And it seems that the legal bods say it doesn't matter anyway.
But having cast my untrained eye over it, I've go to say, I'm not so sure.
Now, the original bill as drafted tells the PM effectively that if there's no deal, he must seek an extension from the EU using the pre-canned text at the end of the bill.
But the amended version that's being debated at the gallop in the House of Lords right now, appears to put a completely different slant on it.
It says that the PM must seek an amendment from the EU using the pre-canned text at the end of the bill, but it is - and I quote -
"in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United
Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on
European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party
talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the
need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to
reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
Now, if that bill is enacted and becomes law, Boris Johnson can send the letter requesting the extension.
And then make it absolutely clear to the EU27 that the reason for it is, that parliament wants to spend the time continuing to argue amongst itself and then potentially end up wanting to talk with the EU about such things as a flexible customs union until the next UK General Election while the UK enjoys the ability to make its own trade deals, renegotiate the backstop, as near frictionless trade with the EU as possible while outside the single market and having no freedom of movement. And it also raises the possibility of a second referendum.
All as laid out in Theresa May's failed ten point plan.
And as Labourlist says on its website, that this is one of two amendments and "If their change to the legislation passed, which is deemed unlikely, it would require the Prime Minister to state that the reason for requesting an extension from the EU is to pass the Withdrawal Agreement Bill."
Now, this sounds all like a bit of a non-flyer to me.
You know, going over all that old hackneyed ground again!
The EU27 leaders are not going to be happy to sign up to that, are they?
#Brexit
#BorisJohnson
#KinnockAmendment
Sources:
0 Comments