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!

I'm seeing lots of speculating that may will try to go for a 2nd ref without remain on the ballot and that the EU would be unwilling to grant an extension in that circumstance.

I can buy into this.

It kills off the idea of a second ref too.

Don't forget 8am UK time ECJ ruling.

My experience says that the grandparents I know (I am nearly 70) would do everything they can for their grandchildren, but of course there must be others who wouldn't.

I suspect you have got it partly right, MissClimpson. They might happily help their own grandchildren. But they would not pay for other people's grandchildren, especially other people's grandchildren who have pierced noses or green hair or black lipstick, or who have the wrong accent.

There are millions of older people who do not appreciate the value of education, who feel that schools are full of fancy, expensive, useless stuff like computers, that 'they' should bring back 'the basics' plus liberal doses of caning, short back and sides haircuts for all, and who feel that third level education is a waste of everyone's time and money and can't understand how an educated workforce means a healthier economy.

Wrt taxes, whether 11% of income taxes paid is a lot or a little, proportionally speaking, depends on the percentage of the population over 65 (I suspect about 20%).

MousseMoose
Britain turned to the US in 1939, not to Europe.

This was the lesson learned from WW1.

Britain had no choice but to pay close attention to events in Europe, and unfortunately the lesson learned from WW2 was that Europe was a place of danger that threatened Britain with loss of power while the US was an agent of deliverance on whose coattails the UK could sail into the future.

The resurgent post war Europe was ignored by Britain, which wasted its time trying desperately to hold onto its empire and toadying up to the US in hopes of becoming the indispensable wise old whisperer in the ear of the brash young superpower, sharing the glory as the American Age enveloped the planet.

IHeartNiles
Unfortunately the EU has contributed to the model of importing cheap nurses and other staff prepared to work for low wages.

But if the model didn't exist, then the EU couldn't contribute to it.

What I am suggesting is that the problem is that UK employers including the NHS are allowed to do this. It could be remedied, and then the fact that people come from elsewhere to work wouldn't be a factor.

Even when Ireland and Britain were a single political entity ('The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland') Irish workers crossing to 'the mainland' were paid buttons despite being subjects of HM Queen Victoria.

Likewise, the histories of the mining industry and the textile industry feature low wages for the workers and large profits for the captains of industry. The workers in those industries included children, who could be paid less than adults, and in the mills, women who could be paid less than men.

The tradition of legal exploitation of workers by the British owner class has a long history.

The EU has contributed to the model of importing cheap nurses

I work and breathe in the industry. The NHS has been importing foreign labour since 1950s. Irish, Carribbean, African, Indian and Filipino nurses.

Why? Because the NHS needs to control its budget. A nurse in Australia and USA earn significantly more than a nurse in the UK. A Nurse Practitioner in the US can earn up to $200,000 per annum. Compared this to a Band 7 nurse ( earns around £42,000 ish Max). Most Band 7s are white and British because BME nurses tend no not able to break the glass ceiling. Hence most BME and foreign nurses stay within Band 5 roles.

As a nation, are we prepared to put more money to increase the wages of nurses? The boomers are starting to enter their 70s now and what comes with this is a population with co-morbidities. This is a disaster waiting to happen as we don't have enough nurses (NHS and private setting).

There is a severe shortage of nurses happening right now. The Conservatives have abolished the bursary and this is contributing to the nursing shortage as more and more students are put off studying nursing. The pay and conditions are gruelling (shift work, being assaulted, verbally and physically abused are part and parcel of the job).

The Nursing and Midwifery Council recently lowered one part of the English test from 7 to 6.5 score. This is aimed at getting more overseas nurses to be on the register. This won't solve the problem. We are already sleepwalking to a disaster.

Interesting view of grandparents mathanxiety. Of course I did say "there would be others who wouldn't" in my original post (which seems to have been largely ignored by those quoting it), but I rather doubt the "millions" of today's grandparents with those extreme and outdated views of education. I sometimes think people have a perception of "grandparents" as consisting of doddery old folk with right-wing views. Many grandparents are still part of the working population and many of us with grandchildren in the later stages of education are not that old. Some of us even worked on the introduction of computers into schools!
As for tax-payers, the figures I found suggested about 60+ % of over 65s. I don't know how that compares with other age groups, but it certainly isn't the "very few" quoted up thread.

1tisILeClerc
Charles de Gaulle was opposed to the UK joining, I can't remember his train of thought as to why, but it is possibly because the UK as an 'isolates' island nation has a different inbred mentality to countries with land borders, and the fact that as a massive seafaring nation 'conquering' the world it got used to getting it's own way when exploiting other countries.

He was opposed to UK membership because he considered the UK the errand boy of the US, who would always advocate for the aims of the US in the emerging western European free trade zone where France hoped to share influence with West Germany.

In the postwar world France and the US had a very uneasy relationship, with the US prepared to invade and occupy France at the smallest whiff of French commies coming to power, and the French establishment naturally bristling at the idea that the US could just march in and subvert French democracy.

IheartNiles
Yes but why do they want to come here? To do the jobs UK workers won’t / don’t want / can’t do. And they come only when UK wages are better than their own countries wages.

You realise that it works both ways, right?

English, Welsh and Scottish people can move to Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Latvia, etc.

And in fact, they do. 1.3 million British nationals live in other EU countries. Not all of them are retired/pensioners living in sunny climes.

There are countries where people are used to emigrating either for good or temporarily (Poland, Ireland, Greece). They don't only go to the UK. The biggest Polish community outside of Warsaw is in the US. Likewise there are huge centres of Irish population in the US and obv a lot of political influence.
The UK is not being singled out here.

Most people are as likely to emigrate overseas as go to the moon. This is what the people on these threads don’t understand. Most people are stuck or choose to remain in the U.K. for various reasons. And don’t like the way it’s headed. I’m a remainer by the way but I have empathy with some of the views, even if the causes are multifactorial and won’t be ‘solved’ by brexit.

IheartNiles
...and while they come employers can hold down wages.

I’m not saying it’s their fault FFS. But their presence enables this practice of low pay to continue.

No, it's the law and the longstanding tradition of exploiting workers in the UK, and the long tradition of treating workers as disposable - easy come, easy go - and lack of any sense of responsibility as part of a social contract that enables this. UK employers stick it to UK workers too, always have and always will.

The UK employer class as a whole could learn a lot from the German model but why would it when it can make the quick buck and then dispatch it to the Cayman Islands.

He was opposed to UK membership because he considered the UK the errand boy of the US

It struck me just now (catching up on reading threads after a busy weekend) that a frequent Leave argument is still 'we never voted to join the EU as it is now'.

This is so illogically inconsistent with the fact that most Leavers, certainly those I know, are completely happy ( in fact, eager for) any kind of deal Trump is prepared to throw our way. Why is it different; there will be no vote on a US deal?

Why do people moan about insufficient say on an EU deal then be perfectly happy to accept anything at all that the curiously low profile disgraced former defence minister Liam Fox throws our way from the US.
It's weird.

--

Good blow by blow critique of the arguments in favour of TMs plan here. But fibs and falsehoods are better than a no deal.

---

I bumped into a former colleague's wife over the weekend. I'd forgotten but she's a Romanian born NHS consultant. She talked about how understaffed they are at all levels, her colleagues going off sick with acute stress too - and just said " Why would a prosperous country do this to itself."

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/falsehoods-failures-fibs-fabrications/

On the effect of immigration on wages....its much more complex than most media and MP comments suggest :

1. Research also shows that if immigration links to a decline in wages ( which doesn't always happen) - this affects resident workers who are themselves migrants not native born workers. This is because the skills of new immigrants are likely to be more similar to the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers.

1. In some sectors immigration increases wages overall due to a boom where the immigrants are as they are spending money etc too. In some sectors there can be a decline in the wages of UK-born workers but this is only short term and can be offset by rising wages and employment in the long run.

Summary here but you need to read the material in the links too.

fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour-market-effects-immigration/

Whether there is a cultural aversion to trying your luck abroad or whether practical reasons hold the British back (lack of MFL skills, for instance) it still remains that the right to move where the money and the opportunity are exists in the EU.

It's a pity not to take advantage of something that is available for all. It is not something to take other countries to task for if their citizens seize the opportunity.

I think a referendum with mays deal vs no deal would be an absolute fecking nightmare tbh, and almost certainly result in no deal....

I agree. I think No Deal should not be an option in any new referendum because enough people are stupid enough to vote for it. Which is why I don't want a second referendum.

Don't know about anyone else but I am clock watching for the Article 50 judgement in 8 minutes!

Me too

The U.S. supported Vichy France and Petain.
The U.S. and the UK had planned to make France a U.S. colony/protectorate after WW2 . The US had printed and circulated French Dollars in Normandy. The U.S. and UK were very keen to get hold of the french colonies for raw materials. This is why De Gaulle never trusted the US and UK after this betrayal and opposed the UK from joining the Common Market.

Nikki da Costa @nmcosta
With a bit more detail via tweet...First thing to note is that No.10 and the PM have been quite firm that the vote is happening on Tuesday. I suspect some of the speculation iover the weekend was an attempt by those advocating delay to bounce the PM to there way of thinking..1/

Easiest way is after Questions and any statements, the Orders of the Day are read out by a Clerk. That’s basically what’s going to happen for the rest of the day. When that happens on either the Monday or the Tuesday, the Minister would appoint a future day, saying “tomorrow” 2/

If there are no statements that’s going to be at about 3.30pm, after Questions, on Monday or about 12.30 on Tuesday. You’d need to probably precede that with a Statement – probably from the PM – setting out why that decision has been taken and what action she is taking instead 3/

You’ll also need a business statement at some stage to say what Parliament will do instead with its time. 4/

My reading is that the Business Motion doesn't allow it to be talked out – it explicitly empowers Speaker to put questions on the amendments, despite the government control of the closure motion. Politically, imagine the uproar if this was the approach taken by the govt 5/

What to watch out for today.

Britain turned to the US in 1939, not to Europe

😂 LMAO

When I say turned I don't mean asked for help, I mean looked towards so we could help because attempting to isolate ourselves failed. We could have stayed isolated, we could have made a deal with Hitler. We declared war on Germany not visa versa.

The message from Brexit is ignore Europe - turn your back on it. That does not work and never has.

As to your comment about the USA - words fail me...

But here we go. The USA was isolationist, the majority of its people took a 'Brexit' stance they wanted Europe to manage on its own. The USA joined WW2 2 years after the start of the war because they were attacked.

Yes the USA gave us weapons but we paid for them, the war bankrupted the U.K. while the USA made a healthy profit.

Militarily it was the USSR who helped win the war and in 1945 most British people were more than aware of that.

Yes the UK can unilaterally revoke! (Get on with it then).

How slow is the BBC?

Was the EU not saying it would go to appeal if that was the decision?

There isn't an appeal court after the ECJ.