MPs seek to block no-deal Brexit by stopping government funds

[Jonathan Fairfield]

MPs seek to block no-deal Brexit by stopping government funds

 

FILE PHOTO: Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve speaks at a rally to discuss how to conduct a potential second referendum, in London, Britain, January 11, 2019. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Pro-European Union lawmakers will seek next week to block a new prime minister from taking Britain out of the European Union without a deal and against the will of parliament by trying to cut off some of the government’s funding.

 

Former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve and former Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett have tabled an amendment to routine finance legislation – dubbed estimates - that was set to be nodded through early next week.

 

Senior veteran Conservative lawmaker Ken Clarke added his influential weight to their bid, saying he would vote for the amendment.

The change aims at denying funds to certain government departments unless parliament has ratified a deal, or Withdrawal Agreement, with the EU, or lawmakers have agreed to Britain leaving without a deal.

 

“The suggestion that we could or should be taken out of the EU without the consent of the House of Commons is fundamentally wrong, and frankly unconstitutional,” Grieve told The Sun.

 

Clarke, 78, asked by reporters if he would vote with Grieve, said: “Yes, I have always voted with all those votes ... and I hope they eventually find some procedural device (to stop no deal).”

 

He added: “It is just unthinkable that the government could take us out with no deal, without a majority and we’ve slowly got more people to pluck up courage on no-deal. We have a majority of about 100 in the (650-seat) House of Commons against leaving with no deal.”

 

A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Theresa May said such a funding block would be “grossly irresponsible”.

 

“This is government spending for this financial year and funds crucial areas like schools, housing and welfare,” the spokeswoman said, adding that it was not yet clear whether the amendment would be selected for debate.

 

The move comes after both candidates to replace May as prime minister have said they would oversee a no-deal Brexit if forced to.

 

Boris Johnson has pledged to leave the EU with or without a deal on Oct. 31 if he wins. His rival Jeremy Hunt has said he would, if

absolutely necessary, go for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Reporting by Elizabeth Piper and Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Stephen Addison

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-28

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[JonnyF]

A new low, even for Grieve. Withhold tax payers money for spending on things like education and benefits in order to subvert the democratic will of the people. Disgraceful.

[darksidedog]

People in the future looking back at history, regardless of the final outcome, are going to consider this the period when a bunch of incompetent imbeciles on all sides dragged down a once great nation.

[Loiner]

The fanaticism of these Remainers knows no bounds. For the past forty years or so they have infiltrated every aspect of public life, event to the highest levels. Will no one rid us of these meddlesome europhiles? 

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

A new low, even for Grieve. Withhold tax payers money for spending on things like education and benefits in order to subvert the democratic will of the people. Disgraceful.

He's not. He's tabling a conditional amendment. This is the text: 

 

The change aims at denying funds to certain government departments unless parliament has ratified a deal, or Withdrawal Agreement, with the EU, or lawmakers have agreed to Britain leaving without a deal.

 

We'll see what happens next week.

 

[stephenterry]

18 minutes ago, Loiner said:

The fanaticism of these Remainers knows no bounds. For the past forty years or so they have infiltrated every aspect of public life, event to the highest levels. Will no one rid us of these meddlesome europhiles? 

????????????

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

A new low, even for Grieve. Withhold tax payers money for spending on things like education and benefits in order to subvert the democratic will of the people. Disgraceful.

 

It's not democratic for any UK government to try and subvert the will of parliament. Parliament is the sovereign body.

[wombat]

leave first deal later, there is a whole world out there waiting to deal.

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

It's not democratic for any UK government to try and subvert the will of parliament. Parliament is the sovereign body.

Parliament is sovereign. Parliament also voted for article 50 which stipulated that we leave, Deal or No Deal.

 

2 years later Grieve decides he doesn't like the No Deal part so he wants to withhold tax payers money for the likes of education and housing to try and get his own way. He's trying to deny tax payers access to the services that they have paid for and need as a political tool to delay, soften, or (his ideal scenario) reverse Brexit altogether. 

 

He's a disgrace. 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, wombat said:

leave first deal later, there is a whole world out there waiting to deal.

 

There is a whole world out there and being a member of the EU has never prevented the UK from doing business in that world out there. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Parliament is sovereign. Parliament also voted for article 50 which stipulated that we leave, Deal or No Deal.

 

2 years later Grieve decides he doesn't like the No Deal part so he wants to withhold tax payers money for the likes of education and housing to try and get his own way. He's trying to deny tax payers access to the services that they have paid for and need as a political tool to delay, soften, or (his ideal scenario) reverse Brexit altogether. 

 

He's a disgrace. 

 

 

 

No Deal, the threat to get a deal turns into the 'deal' Brexit zealots want. 

 

Brexit at any price, so long as others pay that price. 

 

 

[Emdog]

No honey, no money. I think we can relate to that....

[natway09]

If the "chicken farm" (House of Commons) does not get its act together the UK will be a 3rd world country in  5 years. They are like a bunch of squabbling children.

Maybe a Royal Command is in order & do not laugh. The Queen dissolved the Australian Parliament

[JonnyF]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No Deal, the threat to get a deal turns into the 'deal' Brexit zealots want. 

 

Brexit at any price, so long as others pay that price. 

 

 

If the EU offers a sensible deal then Brexiteers would be more than happy to take it.

 

Remember that it was this mostly "Remain" Parliament that voted May's deal down, not Brexit zealots. So a Remain parliament rejects May's deal and you think that means other Remainers can withhold tax payers money from the very same tax payers that voted to leave to try to get what they want (Brexit delayed or reversed) after voting through article 50? Bizarre logic. Why not just admit you couldn't give a toss about Democratic process as long as you, the minority, get what you want.

 

 

[stevenl]

39 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If the EU offers a sensible deal then Brexiteers would be more than happy to take it.

 

Remember that it was this mostly "Remain" Parliament that voted May's deal down, not Brexit zealots. So a Remain parliament rejects May's deal and you think that means other Remainers can withhold tax payers money from the very same tax payers that voted to leave to try to get what they want (Brexit delayed or reversed) after voting through article 50? Bizarre logic. Why not just admit you couldn't give a toss about Democratic process as long as you, the minority, get what you want.

 

 

Wait, wait, wasn't it 'out means out, no deal'?

[tebee]

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If the EU offers a sensible deal then Brexiteers would be more than happy to take it.

 

Remember that it was this mostly "Remain" Parliament that voted May's deal down, not Brexit zealots. So a Remain parliament rejects May's deal and you think that means other Remainers can withhold tax payers money from the very same tax payers that voted to leave to try to get what they want (Brexit delayed or reversed) after voting through article 50? Bizarre logic. Why not just admit you couldn't give a toss about Democratic process as long as you, the minority, get what you want.

 

 

Both Remainers and  Brexit zealots voted May's deal down.

 

Unloved by both sides for opposite reasons 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

If the EU offers a sensible deal then Brexiteers would be more than happy to take it.

 

Remember that it was this mostly "Remain" Parliament that voted May's deal down, not Brexit zealots. So a Remain parliament rejects May's deal and you think that means other Remainers can withhold tax payers money from the very same tax payers that voted to leave to try to get what they want (Brexit delayed or reversed) after voting through article 50? Bizarre logic. Why not just admit you couldn't give a toss about Democratic process as long as you, the minority, get what you want.

 

 

May I remind you of a Brexit Trope.

 

"We want our Parliamentary sovereignty back'.

 

Putting aside Parliament never lost sovereignty, this here is an example of Parliamentary sovereignty in action. 

[JonnyF]

42 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Wait, wait, wasn't it 'out means out, no deal'?

You are correct that there was no mention of a deal on the ballot paper. That doesn't mean we couldn't do a deal if the EU negotiated in good faith.

 

There was also no mention of a second referendum. There was also no mention of revoking.

 

Parliament is a currently a disgrace, not fit for purpose. Fortunately a lot of them will pay with their seats/careers at the next GE.

[welovesundaysatspace]

I don’t quite understand what Brexiteers are whining about again. It seems tabling such amendment is perfectly in line with the constitution, and so is parliament deciding about it. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You are correct that there was no mention of a deal on the ballot paper. That doesn't mean we couldn't do a deal if the EU negotiated in good faith.

 

There was also no mention of a second referendum. There was also no mention of revoking.

 

Parliament is a currently a disgrace, not fit for purpose. Fortunately a lot of them will pay with their seats/careers at the next GE.

Who told you the EU did not negotiate in good faith?
 

 

[alant]

I am at a loss to understand some of these arguments.

Just what is the Parliament trying to achieve?

Let us take it that as stated, the UK will not allow leaving without a deal.

Let us also believe the EU stick to its statement that it will not budge from the deal agreed with Mrs May.

Is the only option to accept the May answer and if so why on earth did we not leave at the end of March and why are we looking for a new PM?

Note, both candidates say leave we must.

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If the EU offers a sensible deal then Brexiteers would be more than happy to take it.

 

Remember that it was this mostly "Remain" Parliament that voted May's deal down, not Brexit zealots. So a Remain parliament rejects May's deal and you think that means other Remainers can withhold tax payers money from the very same tax payers that voted to leave to try to get what they want (Brexit delayed or reversed) after voting through article 50? Bizarre logic. Why not just admit you couldn't give a toss about Democratic process as long as you, the minority, get what you want.

 

 

Correction. Fact. It was the hard-line Tory Brexiteers of the ERG who voted against the 3rd reading of the WAG and that was enough for it not to pass parliament. While both Johnson and Hunt voted for it. 

 

Presumably that's their democratic right, also not to give a toss about respecting the referendum vote as long as their ideology interests are maintained?

 

 

[stephenterry]

20 minutes ago, alant said:

I am at a loss to understand some of these arguments.

Just what is the Parliament trying to achieve?

Let us take it that as stated, the UK will not allow leaving without a deal.

Let us also believe the EU stick to its statement that it will not budge from the deal agreed with Mrs May.

Is the only option to accept the May answer and if so why on earth did we not leave at the end of March and why are we looking for a new PM?

Note, both candidates say leave we must.

If the hard-line Brexiteers of the ERG had voted with Johnson and Hunt to pass the WAG, the UK would have left in March. This deal, although far from perfect, according to some, is far better than a no-deal scenario -and quite rightly parliament would aim to prevent a no-deal, as it woud ruin the UK economy, devalue sterling, etc etc.

[Thingamabob]

Grieve is a traitor. An utter disgrace. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, Thingamabob said:

Grieve is a traitor. An utter disgrace. 

Not true. 

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

Grieve is a traitor. An utter disgrace. 

see my post 23 above.

[billd766]

quote "The suggestion that we could or should be taken out of the EU without the consent of the House of Commons is fundamentally wrong, and frankly unconstitutional,” Grieve told The Sun.

Clarke, 78, asked by reporters if he would vote with Grieve, said: “Yes, I have always voted with all those votes ... and I hope they eventually find some procedural device (to stop no deal).”

He added: “It is just unthinkable that the government could take us out with no deal, without a majority and we’ve slowly got more people to pluck up courage on no-deal. We have a majority of about 100 in the (650-seat) House of Commons against leaving with no deal.”

 

What these arrogant dunderheads seem to forget that they were elected parliament by the votes of the common people and to represent the common people. They are there in an extremely well paid job with great perks and pensions the the taxpayers pay for. They are NOT there to impose the will of some 600 or people over the will of millions more. They already voted to leave and now they want to change their minds and back track.

 

IF, and it is a big IF, they succeed then they have signed the death warrant of the Tory party and themselves. If that happens then the new leader can simply call a general election and they will all be fired and a very few may be reselected but the party as a party will never get into power again for many years.

 

IMHO it will not happen.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t quite understand what Brexiteers are whining about again. It seems tabling such amendment is perfectly in line with the constitution, and so is parliament deciding about it. 

Clearly, it's an attempt to prevent a no-deal scenario. I think to use this channel is as bad as Johnson declaring a no-deal. I consider other solutions to be more appropriate and morally, more acceptable.

 

While I'm sure Grieve puts country above politics, he demeans his stature, IMO, by utilising this tactic.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Grieve is a traitor. An utter disgrace. 

Calling people you don’t agree with ‘traitors’ is an utter disgrace.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

What these arrogant dunderheads seem to forget that they were elected parliament by the votes of the common people and to represent the common people.

That’s what they’re doing. The only “arrogant dunderhead” seems to be you for ignoring or not knowing what parliamentary representative democracy means and that elected MPs are bound by nothing more than what they deem to be the best for the country. 

 

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

They already voted to leave and now they want to change their minds and back track.

That’s simply not true.