No More Foreplay From the Remoaners.

Yes, Brexit. Always Brexit.

On March 25th (25/3/19) the lower house of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, passed what's known as the; "Letwin Amendment." Named after its sponsor Oliver Letwin.

The Letwin Amendment simply made a request of the government. That the business put forward by MP's be given priority over the business put forward by the government on one particular day. Wednesday, March (27/3/19).

The specific business MP's wanted to bring forward on March 27th (27/3/19) was a series of Indicative Votes. The specific business the government wanted to bring forward on March 27th (27/3/19) was a series of Indicative Votes.

So the government had absolutely no problem granting the request expressed in the Letwin Amendment.

Indicative Votes were held on March 27th (27/3/19). The session ended with another request of the government. To hold a second round of Indicative Votes on Monday, April 1st (1/4/19). Again that is what the government was going to do anyway. So the request was granted.

Indicative Votes were held on April 1st (1/4/19). The session ended with another request of the government. To hold a third round of Indicative Votes on Wednesday, April 3rd (3/4/19). Again that is what the government was going to do anyway. So the request was granted.

Although it would only be formally made at the time the expectation was that the April 3rd (3/4/19) session would end with another request of the government. To hold a fourth round of Indicative Votes on Monday, April 8th (8/4/19).

Indicative Votes are essentially a conversation starter. The type of thing you would use at a social gathering, such as a dinner party. Where everybody knows the host but nobody really knows each other. It allows people to introduce themselves and find out what they've got in common.

Indicative Votes are the Parliamentary equivalent of something like the Eurovision Song Contest or an Olympic Opening Ceremony. A much more tedious and far less sparkly equivalent.

The first, March 27th (27/3/19) round of Indicative Votes was similar to the first, knock-out round of a football tournament. Eight propositions were put forward. None of which received a majority. However in the process opinions were expressed and commonalities found.

The second, April 1st (1/4/19) round of Indicative Votes was similar to the Quarter-Final round of a football tournament. Four of the eight propositions had been knocked out in the previous round. Leaving just four propositions in this round.

Of those four propositions put forward none received a majority. However that was never the point. The point is the opinions expressed and commonalities found as part of the process.

Logically it followed that the third, April 3rd (3/4/19) round of Indicative Votes would be similar to the Semi-Final stage of a football tournament. Two of the four propositions would have been knocked out in the previous round leaving just two in the competition.

Which two propositions advanced to the Semi-Final depends on how you are determining success.

If you are looking simply at which received the most support the two would be a Customs Union and a Second Referendum.

However you could also look at which two would be the most likely to reach an agreement. In which case you would look at the two with the narrowest margins of defeat. The Customs Union and the Single Market 2.0.

Logically is follows that the proposition which won the Semi-Final would advance to the Grand -Final on April 8th (8/4/19). Where it would face off against the Withdrawal Agreement itself.

If the Withdrawal Agreement won the Grand-Final there would then be a binding vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on Tuesday. April 9th (9/4/19).

Meaning the Brexit problem would finally be solved.

Unfortunately amongst British MP's there remains that roughly 300 strong faction. The Remoaners.

The Remoaners do not want to see the Brexit problem solved. Instead they want to make it seems as complicated and unsolvable as possible. In order to use the self-created chaos as excuse to block Brexit entirely.

At no stage have the Remoaners engaged in the Brexit process in good faith. So it should come as no surprise that they have also not engaged in the Indicative Votes process in good faith.

Instead the Remoaners have been trying to make sure no proposition receives a majority and no commonalities are found. The hope being that they can point to the failure to reach an agreement and trick people into thinking agreement is impossible.

Allowing the Remoaners to block Brexit entirely.

These Remoaners now find themselves under immense pressure as Brexit draws closer. And with it a day of reckoning for all the lies they've told over all these years.

That day of reckoning will inevitably lead to the whole crooked squad being fired. So Remoaners themselves have started referring this as; "A Blindfold and Last Cigarette Brexit."

Or; "Blindfold Brexit" for short.

So on Tuesday (2/4/19) rage and panic took over. All of the Remoaner toys came flying out of all the Remoaner prams.

The Remoaners declared that they would no longer be participating in the Indicative Votes process. They Indicative Votes process they themselves had demanded.

Instead the Remoaners decided they would use Wednesday's (3/4/19) Indicative Votes session to table an entirely new proposition. Known as the; "Cooper Proposition" after its lead sponsor Yvette Cooper.

This does away with any attempt to show the public that an agreement cannot be reached to solve the Brexit problem. Instead it just demands that Brexit is cancelled outright or subject to years of delays which are equivalent to Brexit being cancelled outright.

Cooper and its other sponsors would like this proposition to be known as; "EU Withdrawal Bill Number 5."

Frankly though they could insist it be called; "Cooper's Amazing Rocket Ship." I still wouldn't try and ride it to the stars.

At around 11:10 on 4/4/19 (UK date) I will return to detail all the elements of the rule of law Cooper and her Remoaners have disregarded in an effort to trick people into thinking her proposition is something other than just another Indicative Vote.

Edited at around 15:50 on 4/4/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

There are only three ways a bill can be introduced into the British Parliament.

A Government Bill. This is a bill introduced by the leadership of the governing party. Commonly referred to as; "The Government." The government controls the Parliamentary schedule so a government bill can be introduced really at any time.

A government bill is the most commonly used form of bills entering Parliament. It is so common it is rarely even commented on and considered the normal business of Parliament.

None of the sponsors of the Cooper Proposition are members of the government. Therefore it cannot have the status of a government bill.

An Opposition Bill. This is a bill introduced by the leadership of one of the recognised opposition parties. Opposition bills can only be introduced on certain days set aside for such a purpose.

None of the sponsors of the Cooper Proposition are leaders of a recognised opposition party. Therefore it cannot have the status of an opposition bill. Also Wednesday (3/4/19) was not one of the days set aside for opposition bills.

A Private Members Bill. These are one of the strange kinks of the British Parliamentary system. They can be brought by any MP. But only at a specific time set aside for that purpose. A Friday morning.

The Cooper Proposition could have the status of a private members bill. However Wednesday (3/4/19) was not one of the specific times set aside for private members bills.

I think one of the most famous recent private members bills was the; "Voyeurism Offences Number 2 Bill" commonly known as; "The Upskirting Bill." That hit the headlines in June 2018 when it was blocked by a single MP.

That is the thing with private members bills. If one MP merely expresses an objection, let alone casts a vote against, the bill is dead and its passage is blocked.

If a bill is introduced it then goes through five distinct stages;

First Reading. The bill is read and debated by MP's. Amendments can be added and MP's vote on whether to send the bill to the next stage.

Second Reading. Again the bill is read and debated by MP's. Amendments can be added and MP's vote on whether to send the bill on to the next stage.

Committee. A Parliamentary committee is assembled to consider the bill and its potential impacts.

Once assembled the committee gathers evidence and holds hearings. Although not compulsory it is typical for the committee to put the bill out for public consultation.

During the committee stage amendments cans be added and members of the committee vote on whether to send it to its next stage.

Reporting. The committee reports back to MP's on the bill and its potential impacts. MP's then vote on whether to send the bill on to the next stage.

Third Reading. The bill is read for a third time, including any amendments, and debated by MP's. Amendments can be added and MP's vote on whether to send the bill to its next stage.

The only exemption is a private members bill. These can pass a house of Parliament instantly. However, as I said it only takes one MP to voice an objection and a private members bill is blocked.

Each five of those stages are distinct and independent from each other. They simply cannot be held on the same day.

Therefore the minimum time in which a bill can advance through a house of Parliament is five days.

The Cooper Proposition was rushed through the Commons, not just in one day, but in less then 10 hours.

The Cooper Proposition also completely did away with both the committee stage and the reporting stage.

The proposition's sponsors did try and claim that it went through the committee stage. That though is an entirely false claim.

The relevant committee is the European Scrutiny Committee. This is made up of 16 members. In the supposed committee stage of the Cooper Proposition 620 votes were cast.

If an election was held reporting a voter turnout of 3,875% no-one would consider the election process credible.

That's the point with the Cooper Proposition. It's not a bill. It's Indicative Vote.

The purpose of Indicative Votes is to give an indication of a person's position and trigger debate. Therefore there are really no rules in how they are structured.

With it having gone through the lower house of Parliament, the Commons its sponsors are proposing the Cooper Proposition be presented to the upper house of Parliament, the Lords.

The first task for the Lords will be deciding whether the Cooper Proposition is to be treated as a bill.

If they decide it is to be treated as a bill they have no option other than to send it back to the Commons. After all it has failed to pass the tests it needs to pass before it can be presented to the Lords.

However the Lords can decide to treat it as an Indicative Vote. That would allow them to express their positions as part of the Indicative Vote process.

As I've said the Lords can't accept the Cooper Proposition as a bill. It has failed to pass the required tests in the Commons so has to be sent back.

In considering a bill which has passed the Commons though the Lords must subject it to the same five distinct stages; First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Reporting and Third Reading.

As with in the Commons these five stages are distinct and independent from each other. Therefore can only be held on separate days.

Meaning the absolute quickest a bill can pass through the Lords is five days.

It's worth pointing out though that the last time the British Parliament held Indicative Votes was in 1998. This was to address how to reform the House of Lords.

The result of this is that Hereditary Peers (Lords/Ladies) were abolished. They were replaced by a large majority of Life Peers. People chosen by the then Labour government including a one Yvette Cooper.

So in what most people would consider a corruption scandal the people Yvette Cooper gave jobs to are likely to break all the rules to indulge the fantasy that the Cooper Proposition is a bill.

Cooper's cronies have pledged to stay all night to pass the Cooper Proposition. Despite the fact that if it were a bill they could only pass one stage each day.

If a bill passes both houses of Parliament it still has to go through two further stages before it becomes law.

Consideration. This is rather self-explanatory. The bill is sent back to both houses of Parliament for consideration. It's there so if one house has added an amendment the other house doesn't like the bill can be stopped.

Royal Assent: This is when the bill is signed into law by the Head of State. In Britain's case this is the Queen but in a republic like the US it's the equivalent of an act of Congress being signed into law by the President.

Royal Assent is most certainly neither a formality nor guaranteed. The Queen maintains the right to veto any law passed by Parliament. A vital safety valve for when Parliament pulls stunts such as this.

However Royal Assent is considered a delegated power rather like Royal Prerogative. Normally if Royal Assent is sought in the name of the Prime Minister then it is granted.

Even opposition bills and private members bills are considered to be sought in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has agreed to the rules by which those bills are introduced.

It is considered highly rude to drag the Queen into political matters. However this is one of those extreme and rare circumstances where it may be appropriate. After all; "Parliament Versus the People" is a question constitutional experts have never had to face before.

The Cooper Proposition has not been brought as a government bill, an opposition bill or a private members bill. Instead it was brought during time in which the government had granted a request for MP's to bring indicative votes. It has also disregarded all the rules required of a bill.

Therefore it can only be considered an indicative vote rather than a bill. As such lacking the status to seek Royal Assent.

At around 16:00 on 4/4/19 (UK date) I need to clear my head a bit before the next round of long & complicated.

Edited at around 16:55 on 4/4/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

Following last night's antics MP's in the Commons have officially been told to pack up and go home. As a torrent of toilet water, or sewage, continues to flow down from the press gallery into the chamber.

So I suspect that moving forward the Queen's approach may well depend on the Prime Minister's approach.

Even if it is granted Royal Assent the Cooper Proposition still could not be considered a law.

In order to influence the government's behaviour supporters of the Cooper Proposition would have to bring a case all the way to the Supreme Court to prove that it is a law. A case they would lose.

The Cooper Proposition was only ever intended as a psychological intimidation tactic. It was first announced on Tuesday (2/4/19) while the Prime Minister was engaged in a marathon, nearly day long Cabinet meeting.

The purpose of the Cooper Proposition was to intimidate the Prime Minister into announcing that she was going to seek to delay Brexit. In order to reduce support for the Cooper Proposition in the hope of it being rejected by Parliament.

That con trick duly worked. The Prime Minister panicked and announced she was going to seek a delay to Brexit.

So it has been rather amusing to watch MP's be forced to go through with the Cooper Proposal. The fact it passed the Commons by just one vote should be an early warning sign to the Prime Minister of the failure of her strategy.

The second part of the Prime Minister's strategy has been to invite the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn in for cross-party talks. Rather than being an attempt to solve the Brexit problem this is simply an attempt to share the blame for the failure to solve the Brexit problem with Corbyn.

The Prime Minister's strategy is rather like members of the Parachute Regiment using Corbyn's face for target practice. Something everyone was helpfully given the opportunity to condemn as unacceptable. Just as the cross-party talks began.

In trying to share the blame of Brexit with Corbyn the Prime Minister is actually totally focused on the upcoming EU Council summit. To be held on April 10th (10/4/19).

The Prime Minister is hoping that EU leaders will equally be intimidated by the prospect of  having to share the blame of Brexit. So much so they grant the UK a long extension simply on the promise of participating in the upcoming EU elections.

Beyond that there doesn't appear to be much of a strategy.

So might I suggest it may be prudent for the UK to actually use the remaining time to at least attempt to find a solution to the Brexit problem.

17:00 on 4/4/19 (UK date).