Westministenders: Plan B on the back of a Contempt Envelope

[RedToothBrush]

You could say its been an eventful day in BrexitWorld!

1. The Advocate General's opinion (non-binding) is that a50 CAN be revocated unilaterally provided its in good faith (not done merely to extend the a50 period and is a settled commitment to stay in the EU. This is NOT the ECJ verdict. This is still due. The ECJ does occasionally disagree with the Advocate General, but this is rare. This is important and will affect how MPs view how they will vote next week in the Withdrawal Agreement vote.

2. IF the ECJ rule in this way it does not rule out the EU appealing the decision.

The logic of the AG argument largely centres on the point that if the UK is sovereign then it can unilaterally withdraw from international treaties so it must also be allowed to revoke that decision otherwise it's not sovereign. Its hard to see how the ECJ will be able to go against that opinion.

Politically that could make an appeal difficult for the EU. However there is also much to say the EU WILL appeal though, if only because of concerns about how the a50 process could be abused by other countries such as Poland or Hungary to effectively renegotiate their status in the block. This possibility should not be forgotten. The 'good faith' argument is a legal minefield given the UK's behaviour in the last two years, if someone did want to challenge an ECJ unilateral ruling.

3. The government lost two votes regarding contempt of parliament and not releasing the full legal advice on Brexit.

The first vote was for a government amendment which they lost by 4 votes - which has been claimed is down to the DUP voting with Labour instead of the government. The result was 311 to 307 votes.

The second vote was for the actual contempt motion itself. Again the government lost. The result was 311 to 293 - or 18 votes. So some Tory MPs abstained on this vote.

This marks the point where the government is officially a minority government and May no longer has a majority.

4. Dominic Grieve tabled a motion (hereby named Grieve III), which was essentially a re issuing of Grieve II - the motion that he had proposed previously, but had been talked out of my May, only for her to burn him shortly afterwards.

This motion was supported by the regular Remain Rebels as well a bunch of known (and not insignificant) May Loyalists.

The effect of the amendment is thought to create a situation where 'Accidental' No Deal is no longer a default position. Instead if no deal is reached, it throws power back to the HoC to advice the government what steps they should now take.

It does not rule out the possibility of No Deal. It is still possible. Its just a lot less likely to. Brexiteers are arguing that the vote is not legally binding (Technically its not and they are correct). This seems highly unlikely in practice (politically not an option - the vote is politically binding, if not legally) even if that is the case. See the referendum for legally v politicially binding and how that has worked out. But there is room for a mess here too.

There is certainly no majority for No Deal in the HoC.

Grieve III was won by 22 votes (321 to 299). Thus making this a SIGNIFICANT vote in more than one respect.

5. Prior to the Grieve III vote, there were rumours that May was set to lose Tuesday's WA vote by up to as much as 400 votes.

There was a lot of talk that the government were prepared to lose the vote, with a view to representing the deal at a later stage. The vote next week was about minimising the size of the defeat.

However this relied on May being in full control of the options for Plan B. Grieve III limits this somewhat and puts power in the hands of parliament. (Parliament has taken back control you see).

It does not direct the government as such but it makes it much more likely that Plan B will have to be Nick Boles suggestion for Norway, rather than May's version of Plan B and a simple re-presentation of her deal.

Of course, this is over simplified as the EU and the EEA ALSO would have to go for the Nick Boles plan. The suggestion is that Norway WOULD agree to it, PROVIDED we were fully committed to it for the long term. But its not just down to Norway.

6. All this might well focus minds ahead of next week's vote. There are now three forces at work a) Brexiteers fearing that the likelihood of remain or a soft brexit have gone up, thus potentially being more inclined to support May. (This doesn't appear to be happening) b) The overall chances of No Deal decreasing, thus soft leavers being happier to pursue the opportunity for a soft Brexit (Norway deal) rather than supporting May's deal - at least at this stage. c) The hope of remaining due to the AG verdict combined with Grieve III encouraging remainers to not back May's Deal as they no longer fear the possibility of Accidental No Deal.

It has been suggested that its possible that the government allowed themselves to be defeated on the contempt motion in order to woo the ERG. This seems a bit of a stretch, as May has repeatedly proved that she isn't this kind of genius and Cox would have to have agreed to be the sacrifical lamb for that.

7. The contempt of parliament motion now passes to the Parliamentary Privilege Committee to decide what punishment will be levelled on the government and Cox in particular. It is worth noting that at present, there are 7 on the committee; 3 Cons, 3 Lab and 1 SNP. Which you would suspect does not bode well for government.

8. There is STILL some arguement over which version of the legal advice the government will publish as a result of the contempt vote, and when it will publish it. In theory there could be another contempt vote if it fails to act in a way that the house is satisfied with.

9. The government are pretty pissed off at the Humble Address motions, and are now seeking to find ways to limit them.

10. There is some suggestion that something has happened that opens the door for the US to leave NATO. This would be hugely significant to Brexit. Keep your eyes on this.

11. When Cox spoke in the commons earlier this week, he made the point that Brexit means we are bound by the GFA to remain in the ECHR. And the ECHR also binds us to the GFA. Again significant, when talking about wanting to force a situation where we have Accidental No Deal, given the strength of feeling about wanting to leave the ECHR. If the Accidental No Deal door is closed, then this might also change ERG opinions as their motivition to have a hard Brexit is also reduced.

And of course the backstop is, to all intents and purposes, the GFA. It will be interesting to see how the backstop is framed in the full legal advice.

12. Going back to point 1, there are still obstacles to remaining. May and the Conservatives are HIGHLY unlikely to want to revoke because of the damage to the party.

There is some talk about who has the power to revoke; parliament or the PM. The overall problem is that the PM does not have the power to overturn Acts relating to Brexit which have been passed by the HoC, although the original a50 vote passed the power to enact a50 to the PM from the house - and presumably the reverse would also be true if the PM has the power of a50.

Thus to revoke - IF the ECJ say we can - it has to be passed by parliament. At this stage there is no parliamentary majority to remain. This, of course, could change. It depends on what the alternatives are - arguably the likilhood of remaining is perhaps higher if accidental brexit is possible and the only alternative. Otherwise a soft exit would seem more logical.

13. Corbyn's speech in the commons in response to May's presenting the Withdrawal Agreement sounds remarkably like continuity remain, to an extent that he has not previously gone.

Conclusion:
Overall, Grieve III is massively positive, purely from the point of view of avoiding No Deal.

Next week STILL gives the opportunity for MORE amendments which could create enormous problems though. The potential to end up in a situation with amendments which are positions which are diametrically opposed to each other or to the EU or the legal situation are huge. This would mark something of a crisis in its own right.

Its difficult to see where May goes from here. Her ability to force her deal though, rested on the leverage of the fear of No Deal / being in complete control of what Plan B was. Grieve III kills a lot of that, and combined with the preliminary opinion on revocation. Her only alternative is to go for Norway - like a lot of her Cabinet have already pushed for, but this would be a massive u-turn for her. The Times were speculating this morning that she will walk next week. But we've been here so many times before.

I suspect other posters and commentators will read all this differently to me (will be interesting to see how others view it) but this is my best shot at trying to make some sense of it all. I think the biggest bone of contention will be the balance of probability of the options out there.

PS: DO NOT forget the EU's own self interest which is consistently forgotten in the UK coverage and debate of the subject.The EU have no obligation to do a Norway deal. Nor to extend a50 if they do not see it being in their own interests to do so.

I wouldn't get hopes up too much just yet, but today does feel like a potential turning point. We have to get through next week though. I don't rule out anything at this point. All options are still possible and I wouldn't like to put money on anything. But a soft brexit or remaining are more tangible than they were at 7am this morning imho.

Feel free to take this all apart with your own analysis!

Coup attempt !
Or a return to 1968 Paris ?

Very very different context: 1968 was set in a context of prosperity in France, and virtually zero unemployment. There was growth. People were earning more. It was a rebellion of the young against a stuffy post war establishment. Here the demographic is very different (mostly middle aged men) and French people have seen their wages sink in real terms for at least a decade. The backdrop is one of anxiety. Easy for extremes to take over or at least massively shit stir (notice how quiet Le Pen and Mélenchon have been? The GJ are laying the ground nicely for them). This isn't yet another French riot. It's the most dangerous situation since the war.

So Norway says non to Norway+.

I salute you Norway.

Norwegian politicians reject Norway plus plan

Sorry for the derail about France but I think it's the same dark forces agitating behind the scenes that are also at work in Britain. It might come across a bit 'conspiracy theory' like but I don't think it's a coincidence that it's happening right now.

I was wondering that Quiet not because of the movements happening now in France but because it ‘spread’ very easily to other countries.

How can something that is, allegedely an French issue over taxes spread to another country???

I do think there is a massive discontent atm, regardless of the country. People, like myself, who have grown in an environment where you were told that if you were worked hard, you would rip the benefits, only to see a world where the rich are getting richer and richer and the rest of us is left struggling.
I believe that the fact the more people now own more than they were before is at the root of the general discontent.

From then, it’s not hard to just push a little bit for everything to explode.

Corbyn sketches his Brexit vision: CU, alignment with the SM but not a rule taker, EU rights. Sounds very like Remain, Jeremy.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/jeremy-corbyn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may

A new, comprehensive customs union withthe EU, with a British say in future trade deals, would strengthen our manufacturing sector and give us a solid base for industrial renewal under the next Labour government, especially for our held-back communities. It would remove the threat of different parts of the UK being subject to separate regulations. And it would deal with the large majority of problems the backstop is designed to solve.

Second, a new and strong relationship with the single market that gives us frictionless trade, and the freedom to rebuild our economy and expand our public services – while setting migration policies to meet the needs of the economy, not fuelling xenophobia with phoney immigration targets or thresholds – makes far more sense than the prime minister’s dismal deal.

Lastly, we want to see guarantees that existing EU rights at work, environmental standards and consumer protections will become a benchmark to build on – not fall behind and undercut other countries at our people’s expense. These rights and protections, whether on chlorinated chicken or paid holidays, are what people actually want. But the government is determined to trade them away in a race to the bottom.

Labour has very different priorities. Our alternative plan would ensure an open border in Ireland, provide security for investment, give our manufacturing sector a springboard for renewal, ensure we have the powers to rebuild our economy and public services and guarantee world-beating support for workers, consumers and our environment. We are absolutely committed to internationalist cooperation and anti-racist solidarity across Europe, in or out of the EU, and determined to ensure opportunities for students to study in other countries are protected.

Unlike the Norway-plus option now being canvassed among MPs, our plan would not leave Britain as an across-the-board rule-taker of EU regulations without a say. It’s a plan that can be negotiated with the EU, even at this late stage, with most of the building blocks already in place. The EU has shown it is prepared to renegotiate even more complex agreements than this, such as the Lisbon treaty. And ours is a plan I believe could command a majority in parliament and bring the country together.

I agree Quietrebel.
And this too!
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/spice-girls-headlining-glastonbury-will-end-world-20181207180305

An HoC amendment for e.g. Revoke, or a PV with Revoke as an option would have only political, not legal, importance.

Like the referendum, then!

NI wasn't discussed in the media. Politicians could just brush it away with a ' Oh, everything will be fine there. Nothing to discuss'. The fine body that is now the BBC and Radio/Channel 4, let them get away with that. AN and JH were a brexiteer propagandist/spin team.

Well, Maggie T wouldn't make the cut of Englishness then. Her father could have had an Irish passport and played for the Irish soccer team. Queenie out as well.

I have a glass flying pink pig and a glass flying unicorn bauble for my Christmas tree. I add an animal bauble each year. It just seemed a fitting for the time we are in.

French people have seen their wages sink in real terms for at least a decade

This isn't true. Actually much of that post isn't true.

I think it's too complicated to reduce to a short post, but it seems to me that it's above all an uprising of the entitled (predominantly male, white, middle-income, less-educated, older, racist). In other words, it's our version of brexit, with the very French addition of a bunch of people who just want a scrap, and students who will protest at the drop of a hat.

Side note: my daughter's extremely elitist Parisien lycée - one of the two most selective public educational establishments in the country, where Macron got part of his education - was partially blocked by protesting students yesterday. Who do these kids think the "elite" are?! Lol

Another side note: in my view, the anti-Macron sentiment is starting to look a lot like anti-Soros sentiment - of course he's not Jewish, but he worked for a Jewish bank (the left's big gripe about Macron at the time of the election, with the emphasis on the adjective). On my FB timeline the gilet jaune supporters are the same people who post anti-Soros memes and objected to Macron because he once worked for wealthy Jews.

Why do the left object to Jewish? Do they object more to a Jewish bank that another bank?

Ironic when many of the left thinkers/philosophers/beacons have been Jewish.

In our nearest town Mistigri the blockage is accompanied by the sounds of hunting horns. Supports what you say above. DH has just been to fill up the car; the petrol station was full of gilets jaunes topping up canisters.
The other thing that never seems to get mentioned in all this is the ending of the taxe d'habitation for middle and lower income groups.

Sorry mistigri I didn't want to post falsehoods. I also didn't want to justify the GJ in any way, but I thought the dominating rhetoric in France was one of anxiety (about people's disposable income) and that some are genuinely struggling. I completely agree with what you say about the main demographic!

Exactly the same thing has occurred to me too. And I am no tin foil hat wearer either.

Corbyn’s an ignoramous. It’s the single market we need, not a bloody customs union. The EFTA countries have customs arrangements. He probably favours it because it contains the word union.

Because some on the Left see finance as a Jewish conspiracy.

It’s the single market we need, not a bloody customs union

We need both for frictionless trade.

The problem also is Quietrebel that it is adversely affecting some of the poorest. Quite a few of my elderly neighbours depend on the few euros they make selling produce at the weekly market; the gilets jaunes have stopped them getting there. The small shopkeepers are already struggling and their takings are hugely down.

Thank you Mistigri and Quietrebel
As I don't speak much French I struggle to know what is going on but my feeling is that the GJ 'protest' which started about 2 months ago was a relatively simple show of unhappiness and the act of putting your Hi Vis jacket on the dashboard when driving was a symbol of support. Around 2/3 of cars seem to do this (by my observation). There was 'blockading' of some petrol stations. Only in the last 3 weeks, possibly 4, has a much nastier element taken over and I don't suspect that the little ladies I see driving to the supermarket will be joining the violent rioting seen in Paris. The original stated premise of the GJ has been achieved I feel. Reading the article from Le Figaro linked by RTB, the 'comments' sounded very sensible in most cases, unlike the weird ranting seen in some British press.

Sorry mistigri I didn't want to post falsehoods. I also didn't want to justify the GJ in any way, but I thought the dominating rhetoric in France was one of anxiety (about people's disposable income) and that some are genuinely struggling. I completely agree with what you say about the main demographic!

For sure that's the narrative, and there's some truth to it but it's more complicated than that. Just like many pro-brexit voters were people who've actually done OK out of Tory government since 2010 - car workers, farmers, pensioners and ... ummm... actual Tory party members - so the gilet jaunes are not really as far as I can see the people who have done worst since the financial crisis (ie, young people and immigrants/children of immigrants). Of course the GJs are largely supported by these two groups but they are not the core of the "movement".

This is a "white van man" political movement, which is kind bizarre because so far the things that Macron has done are broadly quite favourable for this group.

Within the U.K. there’s a collision of pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism - a tendency to see Zionism as a sort of imperialist force imposing apartheid on indigenous population.

I absolutely agree that it is a French version of the Brexit "things can't get any worse" notion. Let's just trash the economy and see how much worse it can get shall we?

The other thing that never seems to get mentioned in all this is the ending of the taxe d'habitation for middle and lower income groups.

And some really good stuff for the self-employed, like doubling the revenue cap for auto-entrepreneurs, sorting out their medical insurance, and eventually entitling them to unemployment benefit.

Excuse me the NI border and GFA was key reason I voted remain

Mine too, and the Irish genes in me are mid 19th century (i.e. family came over to escape the famine.)

Oh yes and @missclimpson totally agree about the impact on genuinely poor people. Plus they are intimidating, especially if like me you are a woman and refuse to put a yellow jacket on your dashboard.