How can those ministers who defied a three-line whip ever be trusted again?
If this Prime Minister won’t or can’t sack them, her successor should. That is the only way to preserve the basis on which government functions.
If this Prime Minister won’t or can’t sack them, her successor should. That is the only way to preserve the basis on which government functions.
The thinking of most of the 78 per cent will be that Britain should leave the EU on March 29 as expected.
A majority of our respondents still oppose it. But the trend is clear: fear of No Brexit is driving activists reluctantly to back the Withdrawal Agreement.
Though there may have been extenuating circumstances – namely, contradictory instructions from Number Ten and the Whips respectively.
The bulk of these responses came in before this evening’s shambles. But there is no means of challenging her in a confidence ballot until late next autumn.
The Prime Minister is also astute enough to get Gove to make the case for Meaningful Vote Three.
Only one of those selected this evening, that tabled in the name of Damian Green (“the Malthouse amendment”) does so.
Even if the headlines weren’t hogged by the ongoing Brexit votes, what could the Chancellor really announce?
A functioning Government would whip for Malthouse Two – the plan backed by Steve Baker, Nicky Morgan, Iain Duncan Smith, Damian Green, Simon Hart and others.
Last time round, the Government lost by 230. There will now a free vote tomorrow on No Deal. And if that falls, a Thursday vote on extension.
Nor could the Attorney General provide anything for his colleagues to cheer.
The Prime Minister finds herself threatened, like Lord North, with the role of scapegoat for a failed policy.
Which presumably means, since Dodds is one of the eight, that the DUP takes the same view.
“The United Kingdom would have…no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.”
There is more than one moving part in this complex day, and some could counteract one another.