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!

The vast majority of the retired pay very little tax (and no NI) as tax thresholds increase year on year, so of course don't mind other people paying more to fund their old age care.

I am not sure about this - I would like to see some up to date stats. Women pensioners, if they are wholly dependent on their own income tend to be much less well off, having had gaps in their employment, not necessarily paying full NI contributions, but the
"married woman's stamp" instead, which didn't give any pension rights worth having. They were often shut out of company pension schemes, sometimes through policy and sometimes through them not being open to part timers which women tended to be.

Men with 40 years work behind them and a final salary pension can be very comfortably off. A widow might well be able to inherit half his pension, so would be not too badly off.

The "married woman's stamp" was closed to new entrants in May 1977, so I for one, getting married in the September had to pay the full NIC, for which I am thankful. If you drew child benefit you were credited with NIC contributions, which would help make up your state pension.

I recall that Oxfordshire County Council only opened up its pension scheme to part timers in about 1992 or so. I don't know whether this was all Local Govt schemes, I suspect it was, and Local Govt has traditionally been a big employer of women. I also worked for a firm in the mid seventies which didn't 'invite' women into the pension scheme, and reserved it for higher paid workers, who were invariably men. I may be wrong, but I think that it was EEC legislation that killed this particular piece of discrimination off. I think it also killed of differential wage rates for men and women doing the same job.

So.... it's complicated.

As for growing up in the 50s my parents went on and on and on about the War. Once I got to 17 there was the constant, 'when I was your age there was a war on'. When I was 23, we were shopping, and my mother started up with 'When I was your age....' stopped herself, and said in some amazement 'the war had finished', and finally laid it to rest.

Thinking back to the summer and the wheeler dealing over that amendment drafted by Dominic Grieve about a meaningful vote and last-minute concession...

Of course the govt will try and do the same. Last week they tried that backbench fudge amendment which doesn't look like it will work. If not I reckon they'll delay the vote but their has to be a crunch time doesn't there. It's such a mess.

It's the same dynamic as in June- only magnified. It's as if effectively the concession in June kicked the defeat to now, albeit with more info about the WA n between.

It . should. not. be. like. this. A change as huge as fleeing a lucrative trading bloc and all the international cooperation that accompanied it should be supported by a huge majority both in Westminster and the country.

Regardless of how one voted in 2016 surely it's logical to see we have to stick with the status quo until there is more unanimity or consensus over a clear vision.

Continued membership of the EC was approved by 67.2% of voters.Ireland voted in, with 83% of voters. Those are more the sorts of consensus we should have seen.

For the good of Europe the UK just needs to leave now and close the door quietly behind itself

Fortunately for the 16 million plus remainers, the EU doesn't feel the same and would very much like to see their rich (for now!) British cousins stay in the family and exercise their spending power. Am I right in thinking you, 1TisILeClerc, live in France? It feels like expats are the absolute worst for shitting all over their own country.

Also bellini I like many others grew up with the effects of PTSD from WW2 on my parents (particularly my father). I don't think any of us felt tempted to glorify it. This idea that it was all a wonderful time in the nation's history is a view based on ignorance. The epic World at War series of the 1970s was watched by huge numbers and had a profound effect on many. I don't think anyone would want to recreate the times if they had seen that.
I am currently reading the Ian Kershaw book To Hell and Back. The parallels with the 1920s and 30s and what is happening now are terrifying.

The U.K. could have made a unilateral peace agreement with Nazi Germany but it didn't.

I believe that the Nazi Government expected us to do that, particularly after the appeasement over Czechoslovakia. I think the UK declaring war on them when they invaded Poland took them by surprise. (But I have been reading AJP Taylor, so he might have his own slant on it.)

Rudd surely is far too risky given her tiny majority?
If she became PM a nice safe seat would be found - there are bound to be some current MPs stepping down.

I’ve never known such a self serving, poorly educated and utterly useless government as that we have right now.

It says a lot at what a shit leader Corbyn is that they are still able to use the threat of him as a reason to cling to power. Labour need to overthrow him, and quickly.

We also need to get rid of FPTP. It’s abhorrent that corrupt, discredited such as Priti Patel and Liam Fox are able to stay in safe seats and rise to positions of influence.

We need to put restrictions on who can become politicians and ensure people who come from ordinary jobs and backgrounds are represented in parliament and government as opposed to Landowners/Eton/Oxford PPE types. In fact it should be mandatory that you have 10 years minimum in a job not related to politics to stand for election.

I think that mass migration from Europe and outside of Europe has held down working class and public sector wages. I think the EU needs reforming to a double layer of membership. I think an EFTA agreement will be the least worst deal for us. I agree we should remain and reform from the inside but I can’t see that happening.

It definitely isn't true Peregrina. Pensioners paid 11% of all tax revenue in 2015 and were 18% of the population in 2017 (best stats I could find.).

I do actually think Priti would've lost the whip after her performance in Israel if the Tories had any kind of workable majority and a leader who commanded the slightest authority. I'm pro electoral reform, on balance, but wouldn't lay her continued presence at FPTPs door. She's there because May can't afford to get rid of her.

Also wouldn't be brilliantly keen on a provision that effectively prevented many twentysomethings from standing for office. That generation have been shafted hard enough already. Having a few of them in Westminster at least gives some means for their voices to be heard.

I don’t think you can be an effective MP in your early 20s. Not knowing arse from elbow comes to mind. You need life experience to help your constituents. By my mid 20s I had worked for 10 years counting part time jobs as a student. You want early twenty somethings with no work experience representing you??

I think that mass migration from Europe and outside of Europe has held down working class and public sector wages.

Nope, Public Sector wages have been held down deliberately by austerity and by privatising everthing in sight.

If Labour had a decent leader like Cooper this would be a no-brainer, relatively speaking. But they don't. So it isn't.

frumpety it's such a poorly drafted argument I'm not sure where to begin in pulling it apart. Like most arguments leavers put forward, if you start pulling at one of the many loose threads the whole thing untangles.

My favourite part is picturing him challenging Heidi Allen to place a bet, and her refusal to do so. I imagine she realised he's a fruitcake and sought a diplomatic end to the conversation, which he interpreted as cowardice.

What bothers me most is the lying. This government has been found in contempt once, but that could have been possible many times. Over the now-we-have-them-now-we-don't impact papers, windrush, deaths from austerity...the list goes on. That is real cowardice.

And yet he thinks he's Billy Big Bollocks because Heidi Allen wouldn't rise to his bonkers challenge.

Very angry today. The mash report is well worth watching this week, especially for Rachel Parris' piece.

Actually I can think of plenty of twentysomethings I'd prefer over certain MPs, yes. My current one is quite good, but a 21 year old who wasn't a complete arsewipe would've been preferable to my old one. And more to the point, they could represent their constituents who are younger than me.

I did wonder if you were going to include part time Saturday jobs, paper rounds etc. If you are then that's watering it down beyond the point it'll do what you want it to do, really. I had quite a few of those myself in teens and very early 20s whilst studying, and it wasn't particularly them that assisted in the arse and elbow process.

Whiffo
{Am I right in thinking you, 1TisILeClerc, live in France? It feels like expats are the absolute worst for shitting all over their own country.}

Yes. I voted to Remain and given the circumstances as they were in the few months after the 2016 Vote would do so again.
HOWEVER since then the UK government has done everything it can to make proper negotiations with the EU impossible. From having developed no plan, to deliberately ignoring planned deadlines for 'progress meetings' to insulting many members of the EU parliament and countries personally. The UK has deliberately caused the EU countries to invest huge amounts in infrastructure and personnel to cope with new customs regimes that will be necessary. By deliberately 'messing about' it has trashed the business plans of many EU and worldwide companies that have manufacturing facilities in the UK. The continual digging around for archaic 'laws' to disrupt parliament/cabinet to add more delays.
Most of my work is conducted in countries around Europe but my choice to move was inspired by the ridiculously expensive housing in the UK.
With Theresa May and Javids 'hostile environment' I stand to lose my pension and have restrictions on traveling, although I am hopeful that the EU will be more honourable.
So rather than your assertion about Expats, it is actually the other way around, May, Javid and 'Leavers' have deliberately created a very stressful environment for those million or so UK in EU and 3 million EU in the UK, to be used as pawns for negotiating and this is before you factor in the financial aspects.

I heart
{I think that mass migration from Europe and outside of Europe has held down working class and public sector wages.}
I sort of agree BUT. It is a worldwide problem and it needs tackling at a global level. (yes very unicorny but true).
Unemployment and inequality of pay (too great a differential between 'poor' and 'rich') needs a resolution. The GJ protests in France are largely on the same subject, although a violent element has taken over the protest.
The UK leaving the EU doesn't actually solve the issue in the UK as none of the political parties has really taken the issue on in a meaningful way. The actions of the Tories to 'f%^& business is going to make a resolution to the real problem a lot harder as the increased costs to the country will simply put any development plans on the back burner.

That’s a naive view peregrina. Of course austerity, de unionising and privatisation have massively contributed to poor wages for most. You think importing cheap labour from overseas hasn’t enabled that to happen??? Ok, right. I’m a senior nurse and over the years I’ve witnessed immigrant nurses from India, Phillipines and most recently poorer European countries being actively sought out to fill the gaps and enable wages to be suppressed. Brexit happened (in part) because suddenly white van man’s wages (less oppressed than the poor female nurses) became affected by immigration. Of course austerity, lack of public services and people fighting over the scraps helped push it over the line. I’m not daft enough to think any one part of this isn’t to blame.

Good luck with your 20 year old MP then patriarchy. Most of those with high level education don’t start work nowadays until they’re 21 st the earliest and my own experience as an employer is they’re ill prepared to cope with conflict, deadlines and stress.

Globalisation is happening. Brexit won't stop it. We need to work out ways to mitigate the impact while helping other countries. It's a complex issue and people want easy answers that don't exist.

Brexit is just a massive distraction that will solve nothing.

Immigration is used to suppress wages but immigration will continue, as a pp says nurses come from Eastern Europe or India or the Philippines.

Brexit will not solve this issue.

If she became PM a nice safe seat would be found

Which rather gives a lie to the whole "local MP" line of bollocks about our electoral system.

The principal thing that has held down wages in the last 11-12 years was the financial crisis. Of which austerity forms a part.

People have mistaken that for the impact of EU workers.

Ok, right. I’m a senior nurse and over the years I’ve witnessed immigrant nurses from India, Phillipines and most recently poorer European countries being actively sought out to fill the gaps and enable wages to be suppressed.

All public sector pay was suppressed after the financial crisis.

Good luck with your 20 year old MP then patriarchy. Most of those with high level education don’t start work nowadays until they’re 21 st the earliest and my own experience as an employer is they’re ill prepared to cope with conflict, deadlines and stress.

Your experience does not match my own. Even restricting this discussion solely to those with higher education, which we most certainly should not, I've had various interns fresh out of uni (the whole intern thing being another bugbear of mine) and have found them all to be wonderful, but even more screwed than my cohort in our early 30s have been.

The sort of attitude that says none of them know anything much about the real world, as if their experience somehow isn't the real world, and they can't cope with work and deadlines, is a large part of the reason why they shouldn't be excluded from Parliament.

It’s ALWAYS been held down Tatiana, for many reasons but being able to readily import cheaper staff is a significant cause.

The problem with these threads (and I have stuck with them as a reluctant remainder who would be happy with an EFTA/EEA model, and who completely sees that governments have been able to control immigration from non EU countries, apply the emergency brake- and have chosen not to) is its an echo chamber where any expression of concern against free migration is met with hostile behaviour / shut down. So people who think even slightly differently don’t bother to post here.

The NHS started by importing nurses. My mum was one of them. She was literally starving and had to steal bread and butter off the wards. She compared the more recent version of nursing to highly paid luxury compared to what she experienced. And she became a highly qualified nurse. That's been the dirty secret of the NHS since its inception- cheap non-UK nurses. This isn't an EU thing.

Immigration is a factor. One factor of many in an immensely complex issue. Brexit is offered as a solution but it isn't.

I think politically many of us on these boards would disagree but we can all see that Brexit isn't a solution.

The immigration debate was stifled for years because of fears of what it would expose. NF said we could have a grown up debate in this country and founded a party to prove that. UKIP is now home to racists and NF has had to leave his own party because of the racism.

We are not capable of a grown up debate about immigration. Brexit has shown that clearly. As soon as immigration is debated it is used as an excuse for racism.