Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

They weren't sued for legal fees. They lost a court case and everyone who loses a court case has to pay the other side's costs.

That's a really terrible article.

[Gups]

They weren't sued for legal fees. They lost a court case and everyone who loses a court case has to pay the other side's costs.

That's a really terrible article.

It really is. Did their lawyer not tell them that if you go to court and lose you will be liable for the otehr side's costs (or at least a portion of them)?

In the UK< opponents to schemes are not liable for costs of opposing the planning for a scheme even at inquiry but will be liable if they seek to judicially review a decision.

[crazy canuck]

Same here

[Sheilbh]

Well the House of Commons has been an absolute disgrace today

Basically there's an opposition day debate on Gaza I think on the SNP's motion, the Speaker chose to pick Labour's amendment for debate, as well as the government's. This was not what he should have done according to the rules (basically it's the SNP's opposition day - so they're allowed to put forward a motion and it's not for another opposition party, in this case Labour, to hijack with their own motion).

As has been Hoyle's approach when breaking the rules/setting new precedent he allowed the Clerk to note his disagreement formally. Depending on who you believe this is because Hoyle (following Bercow) is broadly not inclined to follow rules that would, in effect, limit the ability of the House to debate; alternately he apparently received requests from individual Labour MPs about the threats they've been receiving and the risk they feel if they were forced to vote on the SNP motion or government amendment (more on this later); or the Labour leadership threatened him and told him that if he didn't pick their amendment, they'd remove him after the election (allegedly Sue Gray - and I think Starmer should think about getting rid given how much she's been the story which will be a problem in government).

The consequence was that it had the effect of neutering the risk of Labour MPs rebelling against the whip to vote for the SNP motion. This follows talks breaking down over basically very minor points between the SNP and Labour - ultimately because the SNP want to make Labour vote against motions calling for a "ceasefire" as often as they can. I've no doubt some of it is sincere but I think it's also to phrase their motions in just a way that Starmer and the Labour leadership feel they can't vote for it. The Tories are, of course, perfectly happy with this and offer their own amendment which is basically impossible for Labour to vote for (they don't want to vote with the government and there is a bit of a difference - but see above).

In response to this there's been calls from Tories for the Speaker to go and they are apparently in talks with the SNP about removing him. There was a motion from one Tory MP for the Commons to sit in private for the rest of the day (kick out the public and press - which has only been done twice since the war), presumably to vote out the Speaker. That was rejected but the Speaker has now had to return - and is describing it as his concern around the safety of MPs.

Meanwhile in Gaza aid deliveries have been paused which is concerning from a humanitarian perspective. And in the UK a Labour MSP's constituency office in Glasgow was attacked by pro-Palestine protesters, with members of staff (the MSP was in the Scottish Parliament) apparently hiding in a corner while they waited for the police. On top of that, allegedly (but from Nicholas Watt of BBC Newsnight), someone senior in the Labour party thought it would be a good idea to (1) threaten the Speaker and (2) let it brief to the press. It's all a disgrace - and obviously so to anyone outside of Westminster looking at this.

After all that Labour's amendment was approved as was the SNP's motion (as amended by Labour).

Edit: And Hoyle has apologised and will be meeting with party leaders and chief whips on how to go forward - SNP leader (in Westminster) has said he will take some convincing that Hoyle's position is not "now intolerable".

Edit: Oh and for a while - not sure when the Tory and SNP frontbenches said they'd withdraw and both walked out of the Commons (I think this blocked a vote on the Labour amendment for a while).

Edit: Also in Hoyle's statement at the end of all this he was very clear that his reason was because of the threats and risks to MPs. Not great on literally any front.

[Tamas]

It's insane that pan-Muslim threats of violence create this chaos in Parliament. It would be so even if the Commons had the slightest of influence on what goes down in Gaza.

[Josquius]

Not an area where the failings of the British system are usually highlighted but they are really being underlined here.
Precedent is for there to be just a government and an opposition.
The system just isn't designed for there to be more than one opposition.
It does make sense to allow the introduction of third options. Hopefully someday we see a shift towards this alongside overall democratic reform.
The specifics of a optimum solution would be hard to work out - do you prioritise the official opposition always getting a say? Seems sort of unfair on the others. But then letting just any party add a view at any time also seems a recipe for them (purposefully?) derailing things at will.

[The Brain]

alternately he apparently received requests from individual Labour MPs about the threats they've been receiving and the risk they feel if they were forced to vote on the SNP motion or government amendment (more on this later)

What kind of threats and risk are we talking about?

[Sheilbh]

I think this from Marie Le Conte is true:

Marie Le Conte
@youngvulgarian
(not the main takeaway from today but my side take is that the threat of violence against MPs is increasingly informing the way they're doing their jobs, both in obvious ways and less obvious ones, and it's probably something we ought to be talking about quite seriously)
right there you go, Hoyle making it clear here, it is a massive issue and I don't think anyone has any idea how to solve it tbh

I think Parliament has more influence in dealing with that issue - and it is a serious problem that is impacting our democracy - than an opposition motion on Israel and Gaza. And even now you have Owen Jones, the Novara lot, SNP and Green politicians coming out basically accusing Labour MPs of lying about this or "crybullying". Or as Jones put it conflating security with scrutiny and being protected from public pressure.

Again - an MP of the most Jewish seat in the country is standing down because of threats to him and his family, his office was destroyed in an arson attack (overnight so no inuries); today the constituency staff of a Labour MSP had to hide because a group of protesters were trying to break into their office.

It's far from just Muslims (at least from what I see and who I follow) who are saying Labour is "literally" endorsing genocide by not immediately adopting their position - and I'm reminded of rows I had that Tory MPs are not "literally" murderers for voting for austerity budgets. Not least because what are you justifying or would you be justified in doing to stop a politician who was literally a murderer or backing genocide?

On the issue I think it is interesting that the Labour motion won, including with government votes so actually MPs broadly are in favour of a ceasefire (in a more detailed and balanced way, which was the substance of Labour's amendment). But we do not matter a single bit on Israel and Gaza, as you say. I think it is something Parliament should debate and vote on even if we don't matter - but I think it's repulsive seeing the Tories and SNP basically just using it to put the squeeze on Labour; similarly repulsive if Labour figures threatened the Speaker to avoid a lot of rebels. And none of that even has anything to do with Gaza which is what makes it so gross - if it's true that Labour MPs were pleading with the Speaker because of fears for their safety then that's just alarming.

[Sheilbh]

Not an area where the failings of the British system are usually highlighted but they are really being underlined here.
Precedent is for there to be just a government and an opposition.
The system just isn't designed for there to be more than one opposition.
It does make sense to allow the introduction of third options. Hopefully someday we see a shift towards this alongside overall democratic reform.
The specifics of a optimum solution would be hard to work out - do you prioritise the official opposition always getting a say? Seems sort of unfair on the others. But then letting just any party add a view at any time also seems a recipe for them (purposefully?) derailing things at will.

My understanding of the precedent is that today was the SNP's opposition day. The precedent is the other opposition parties get a go after the first motion. So the SNP motion should - following precedent - have been voted on before there were any amendments. Hoyle let Labour amend it first.

Opposition day debates are as often used to create problems for other opposition parties (as the SNP were trying to do) as for the government. Indeed the government often voted for Corbyn's opposition day motions because they'd be something like a motion opposing "privatisation of the NHS" which the Tories were happy to vote for but I think Corbyn thought would create some sort of dilemma for them.

The issue is precisely that Hoyle allowed Labour to, in effect, re-write the SNP's motion on the SNP's debate - that's what went against precedent.

I'm also not sure the procedural issue is really the main point today.

What kind of threats and risk are we talking about?

As I say one (Tory) MP for a very Jewish area had an arson attack on their office, which has been linked to pro-Palestine/anti-Israel (and, sometimes as in that example, anti-semitic) sentiment. There was an attempt to break into a Labour MSP's office today during the debate by pro-Palestine protesters.

After the last SNP motion on Gaza (to amend the King's Speech) seeral Labour MPs had attacks on constituency offices that were vandalised, and other Muslim Labour MPs said they've received Islamophobic abuse and threats. There have been death threats to MPs including to Starmer and aimed at his family (one man was filmed noting "his wife's a Zionist" - his wife is British and Jewish and they occasionally attend a Liberal Jewish Synagogue) - it's been reported that Yvette Cooper, shadow Home Secretary, has had discussions with the police on the safety of Labour MPs, their staff and their families.

I don't know how serious those are - I can understand why MPs take them seriously. We've had at least a couple of convictions in recent years over threats to MPS and plots to attack them, as well as the murder of Jo Cox (far-right killer) and Sir David Amess (ISIS sympathiser). Obviously - and shamefully - Jewish community centres, synagogues, schools etc have required extra police protection for the last few months as they've also had threats.

[HVC]

They weren't sued for legal fees. They lost a court case and everyone who loses a court case has to pay the other side's costs.

That's a really terrible article.

It really is. Did their lawyer not tell them that if you go to court and lose you will be liable for the otehr side's costs (or at least a portion of them)?

In the UK< opponents to schemes are not liable for costs of opposing the planning for a scheme even at inquiry but will be liable if they seek to judicially review a decision.

Well whoops. Thanks for the clarification guys.

[The Brain]

A situation where you can use threats of violence to actually influence Parliament seems insane. What's the plan to get out of this situation?

[Gups]

A situation where you can use threats of violence to actually influence Parliament seems insane. What's the plan to get out of this situation?

There are clearly threats of violence against individual MPs. I haven't seen any evidence to support Tamas's claim that there has been any influence on Parliament though.

[garbon]

And even now you have Owen Jones, the Novara lot, SNP and Green politicians coming out basically accusing Labour MPs of lying about this or "crybullying". Or as Jones put it conflating security with scrutiny and being protected from public pressure.

Why were you reading Owen Jones?

[Josquius]

I totally believe some absolute wastes have been attacking Labour MPs over Gaza.
But it is really curious this is now considered a massive concern that is sending ripples all over, when the ongoing far right threat that has been in place for years and resulted in actual death, is largely just ignored and rarely spoken about.
I get how the anti-semites and fellow travellers are really getting inflamed. If you were inclined to look for "Jewish conspiracies" that'd be the obvious thing to blame for the double standards.

My understanding of the precedent is that today was the SNP's opposition day. The precedent is the other opposition parties get a go after the first motion. So the SNP motion should - following precedent - have been voted on before there were any amendments. Hoyle let Labour amend it first.

Opposition day debates are as often used to create problems for other opposition parties (as the SNP were trying to do) as for the government. Indeed the government often voted for Corbyn's opposition day motions because they'd be something like a motion opposing "privatisation of the NHS" which the Tories were happy to vote for but I think Corbyn thought would create some sort of dilemma for them.

The issue is precisely that Hoyle allowed Labour to, in effect, re-write the SNP's motion on the SNP's debate - that's what went against precedent.

I'm also not sure the procedural issue is really the main point today.

If the SNP vote had gone ahead however would it have been as simple as it then being Labour's turn to propose the cleaner worded version?
Or could things not have gone totally off elsewhere and left it standing that Labour opposed the ceasefire with no opportunity to vote on the amended version?

[Tamas]

I haven't seen any evidence to support Tamas's claim that there has been any influence on Parliament though.

You mean besides yesterday's, right?