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!

From a Facebook comment on The Guardian

" Look, it’s pretty straightforward at this point:

1) The “deal” is dead
2) The EU is not going to move, so the backstop stays
3) No parliament- even as stultifyingly incompetent as this one is - will allow a No Deal situation

What’s left? Staying in. Whether by referendum, or by parliament just deciding to rescind A50 - the game’s over, boys.

There will be riots whatever happens. Personally I’d rather have some rioting UKIPers than riots over food and medicine shortages.

Bring it gammons. You were sold free unicorns, but UNICORNS AREN’T REAL

Please let him be right!

My worry is May will find a way to cheat her way through this with false promises and blatant lies even if she gets defeated on Tuesday and will survive again:

DG It was an amazing example of a Cabinet Secretary genuinely believing something was necesaary to save the country from disaster
and standing up to a very powerful & capable PM (in her prime then) to do what he knew was right

It was only possible because AIDS wasn't a party political issue, so he managed to obtain bipartisan support.
However, Armstrong drove this,
in a country that at the time was very prissy about sex and didn't mention it in polite company.

I remember taking the issue seriously, because someone so powerful was talking in public about it.

Hesletine on PM saying there are interesting developments in the centre ground.

I know the UK led the world (it also led the world in IT education until the mid 80s, but that's another matter) in AIDS policies. The proof of the pudding being they worked. Too well, probably, since you now get cretinous Brexiteers using if as their "proof" of how mind bogglingly thick they really are.

I would nominate it as the only evidence-based policy of the 20th century in the UK. Although I'd like to be wrong.

Loletta A majority of the Hoc still actually has to vote to revoke
We are far from having a (public) majority atm

(afaik) An HoC amendment for e.g. Revoke, or a PV with Revoke as an option would have only political, not legal, importance.
< @red - any other opinion ? >

If this didn't make the govt obey the wishes of the HoC,
then another stage / method would be needed to actually force them to do so

e.g. a Vote of Confidence
which would give 14 days for May / Corbyn / ANYONE to form a govt

• which might be possible on the understanding that the new PM would immediately revoke

If noone could get Confidence & Supply, then there would be a GE ....
and depending on timing, the caretaker PM (May) might need to request an A50 extension from the EU to hold a GE.

Peregrina Yet again you have a way of twisting words, I said that BSE at the time in the papers was going to be the biggest killer since the Spanish flu out break, it turned out to be rubbish, I was not under playing the deaths more the hysteria at that time which proved to be unfounded

AIDS was a rare exception when a responsible govt - to be exact, the then Cabinet Secretary, Armstrong iirc - took action early enough:

I can think of an older example - thalidomide. It was introduced in Germany and severe birth defects were noted in some babies whose mothers had taken it. It was then introduced into the UK, despite the German evidence, with the same effect, (and this was before we were in the EEC, so we can't EEC bash.) In the US however, one particular Doctor had taken note and stopped its use there. I forget her name now, she died relatively recently.

The Irish Border's comment^on Corbyn's claim he'd avoid a backstop:

The Irish Borderr@BorderIrish*

This should be in the @guardianfoodd^ section because IT’S A CAKE RECIPE

peregrina I was (parochially) thinking of the UK, where we don't usually do much advance planning to avoid disaster

BSE was stopped from becoming a much bigger disaster because every other country banned imports of British beef
and the entire beef herd - millions of animals - was killed & burned

The reputation of the British beef industry remains ruined in many countries.
BSE had a huge economic price, which still lingers

and Brits in many Western countries are still not accepted as blood donors

35 million around the world, dead from AIDS
another million still dying annually

That shows what happens to countries who ignore "health scares"
Some of them happen;
it takes time - and many deaths - to be sure which scare is just going to kill a hundred people and which will kill millions
So we have to treat them all seriously, because missing the massive disasters - like AIDS - has too horrendous consequences

I am certainly not twisting words as far as BSE is concerned, as others have pointed out, action in other countries stopped it being a world wide calamity. I am quite sure that it could have been stopped sooner though, and then we wouldn't have damaged our beef industry.

We wouldn't then know that having decent food standards helps to protect against serious disease. If Fox gets his way, we will find out the hard way.

The job of Carney and other pesky experts is to anticipate risks and to take action to avoid them

If they do their jobs well then the worst doesn't come to pass. That's not them "getting things wrong".

Ditto with the Millennium Bug. People worked very hard to make sure that very little happened. It wasn't wasted money. I worked in telecoms but I really can't be faffed repeating what I have said before to Y2K deniers who insist that there was unnecessary catastrophising. But in summary, not only would our landlines and mobile phones have stopped working, but so would TV, radio, all banking, internet, alarms They would have stopped working because they all rely on telecoms links.

Yesterday's problems with the O2 (and GiffGaff and Tesco Mobile) due to apparently one single expired security certificate would have paled into insignificance

My cousin works in SA for a large avocado company. His wide was also doing some work for the company. The live in the North of the country: they did some HIV testing for the workers on the large farms in the area and thought that there was a problem with the testing, as the results were that 90% were HIV +ve .

So they re-did the tests.

They were indeed wrong .

2nd time around 100% were HIV +ve

That's what happens when you have (had) a President who doesn't just stick his head in the sand about the HIV risk but who positively refused to admit that there was a problem at all and blocked efforts to educate and reduce the transmission rates

The reputation of the British beef industry remains ruined in many countries.

Its a word game where you have to delete some words but so the sentence still makes sense. How about:

The reputation of the British [beef industry ]remains ruined in many countries.

Or

The British, ruined.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Priti Patel's still a bawbag.

news.yahoo.com/britain-risk-food-shortages-ireland-114200417.html?guccounter=1

That cow should be deselected immediately. How fucking dare she say that?

Tough luck, Priti
Ireland published its own report back in about February and has made its plans - so have its chums.

Ireland has a comparatively small population, under 5 million, so would be much easier for its EU chums to top up supplies there,
than for the UK to find ways to feed its 65 million.

Ireland is a net food exporter, so mostly it would just divert produce to its own domestic market

The food items that it doesn't produce itself, e.g. flour, can be sourced from the European mainland by sea if need be.

The rest of the EU would certainly rally round in solidarity, especially if the UK was deliberately trying to apply pressure by closing the UK "land bridge" to Ireland.

It’s nice isn’t it? And then we wonder why no one wants to trust the UK anymore

Faisal Islam @faisalislam
Exclusive @SkyNews
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn reaches out to DUP saying they “dislike the backstop for very good and sensible reasons”, and that “absolutely” Labour’s Brexit negotiation can work for the party currently supporting the Government. 1/10

Asked by Sky News at summit of centre left EU political leaders and PMs in Lisbon, if he was making plans to form a minority government, without an election, Mr Corbyn said: “Listen we are ready to step in and negotiate seriously with the EU to put up a serious alternative” 2/10

Mr Corbyn suggested the Article 50 timetable could be extended to accommodate a negotiation: “We’d start negotiating straight away. If it meant holding things a bit longer to do it, of course,”

Mr Corbyn when asked if the people with “Love Corbyn Hate Brexit” bags at his conference who want a second referendum with Remain as an option - “are they wrong?” JC: - “No they’re not wrong..but option is there in our motion but we don’t get anywhere until we’ve defeated deal..”

“...we are nearly there we are a few days away from it but let’s let it happen first”... said Corbyn.. full interview...
twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1071102953271058437

Corbyn highly dismissive of the Norway option as “not acceptable” and “it comes around every six weeks and then it goes away”

Faisal seems to have got distracted at 2/10. There are no more numbered tweets

bell i normally agree with what you say but in this instance, deeply insulting a cow is way out of order.....

What a vile evil woman, thats out of an EDL booklet.

I’m trying to point out how we have a marvellous way of taking an issue and blowing it all out of proportion, the truth usually lies somewhere between

Give us an example? Because the truth is a messy complicated business that rarely sits in the middle even if reality was a one dimensional continuum which it isn't. Perhaps what you mean is that you only see things in one dimension?

What tends to get blown out of proportion is not the issue but the media's reporting of it, pandering to either the politics/whims of their owners or what will sell papers, in the case of AIDS by exploiting the fear of contagion and homophobia. As a sexually active 20 something in the 80s I at no point felt that AIDS was a threat nor did I think my gay friends were a source of contagion, even after they were diagnosed. I applied my critical thinking skills and could read the expert advice and see full well the media and other cultural forces were blowing the issue out of proportion. I also could see that people, some close to me, were dying and this was a very serious issue, especially when it started to spread to areas of the world economically, culturally and politically less well equipped to cope with it. The press were overblowing the issue in the wrong direction, and causing more harm than good not overblowing the seriousness of the situation

I don't pretend my opinions and critical thinking skills are capable of finding the truth in every issue which is why I am glad to live in a parliamentary democracy where I can send my (and I am lucky I know) very wise conscientious MP, who has a sense of duty to seek to implement policies that will be best for the country and the resources to research these issues thoroughly, off to debate them in parliament with what you would hope would be other wise brains and the benefit of advice from experts and reach a consensus on the best policy to follow for the good of the country which is thankfully what happened in the UK with respect to the AIDS crisis.

We have a lot of evidence about what will happen in the event of a no deal coming from business, hauliers, local councils, universities, the medical profession etc. etc. and thankfully some wise brains have listened and are trying to prevent it happening. From my own experience of trade and education I can see this is not doom mongering but I am listening to those who know a lot more than me . There are also some self interested brains who will benefit from a disaster in the British economy who are lying (and their lies and cheating and credibility have already been exposed) that all will be well and they have manipulated the process of democratic government, aided and abetted by a media whose owners / powerful editors and managers are also acting out of self interest. How can you possibly see reality as a continuum between the two with the truth in the middle? The whole point is that Brexit has always been a messy multi dimensional reality and too many people seem to need it to be simple and binary and so provide a willing audience for the simplistic crap being spouted by Davis, JRM et al.

uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/barnier-tells-mp-future-country-stake-brexit-deal-vote-112516103.html

In stark contrast to the UK parliament, almost all the European parliament’s political groups signalled their intention to vote in favour of the deal.
That includes the European allies of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens – parties opposed to the current deal.

Point taken @jasjas1973 . I didn't think I could get any angrier with these dickwipes until I read what she had to say.

Priti Patel!!! I thought she couldn't stoop any lower when she tried to divert international aid money to Mossad but now she wants to threaten the Irish with starvation!! WTF!! (...and condemn the poorer British to similar) to achieve her low tax, shit public services economy. She really is quite despicable

Bell she is hard right, in the wrong party and era, being a politician in Nazi Germany would have suited her perfectly.

i despair of our once Great country that people like this get voted in.