Timeline for What does it mean to support the brexit deal but need more time to scrutinise it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 24, 2019 at 10:19 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | @SteveMelnikoff Yes. I've upvoted the answer on the linked question, and deleted my untrue comment. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 9:30 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @MartinBonner: maybe you can answer politics.stackexchange.com/questions/47031/… | |
| S Oct 24, 2019 at 0:35 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Oct 24, 2019 at 0:35 | comment | added | yannis | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | "Since Hammond had a specific objection already in mind, he could have simply proposed an amendment. Him voting down the schedule is tactical in this context. Hammond's amendment might not have passed." I think that's overlooking the point of a programme motion, which is to limit time. With something like a dozen hours for the committee phase, only a handful of amendments could have been debated and voted on. Voting down such a tight schedule is the only rational tactic for anyone who has an amendment to propose. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 10:25 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 286 characters in body
|
| Oct 23, 2019 at 10:05 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @Will: if I don't back my amendment, you can't have your accelerated schedule. I guess vote trading is a better description for the overall situation, but in this case it was an example of failed trading. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 9:49 | comment | added | Will | @Fizz can you clarify what you think is tactical here, besides the extra time giving him more opportunity to get support for the amendment? | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 9:43 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @Will: since Hammond had a specific objection already in mind, he could have simply proposed an amendment. Him voting down the schedule is tactical in this context. Hammond's amendment might not have passed. The ERG was said to oppose his amendment/idea. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 9:41 | comment | added | Will | @Fizz that's the whole point of a second reading - it's a chance to raise objections that can be solved by an amendment. It's not at all uncommon to vote for a second reading while already being unwilling to approve the Bill in its unamended form. Having sufficient time for scrutiny is partly to have time to work out what amendments can be agreed, whether or not they were devised in that time for "digestion". | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 9:31 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @Will: I mean to say that it wasn't simply a matter of not being enough time to digest it. Some who oppose the schedule did so because they had specific objections to the law itself, even though they voted for its second reading. (Hammond did.) | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 9:29 | comment | added | Will | The term "scrutiny" is always used to refer to the proposal of amendments so it's a bit misleading to say that it isn't the whole story. Of course MPs begin scrutinising and formulating their amendments as soon as the Bill is published, but the second reading programme is the formal opportunity they have to do this. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 21:29 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1223 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 20:33 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @DenisdeBernardy: yeah, and Johnson's own phrasing that he is "pausing" the bill was used against him by Tusk who tweeted: "Following PM @BorisJohnson’s decision to pause the process of ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in order to avoid a no-deal #Brexit, I will recommend the EU27 accept the UK request for an extension. For this I will propose a written procedure." | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | +1 but that's not the whole story. The frustration from rebel Labour MPs who voted for the WAB was palpable during the subsequent points of order and questions. Their message basically was: Why on earth are you not simply revisiting the time table to extend more time? (Rees-Mogg submitted that MPs would debate Queen's Speech until the end of the week.) | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 19:56 | history | answered | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |