Westministenders: Happy Birthday Chris Grayling!

[RedToothBrush]

Yep he's an April Fool. No really he is!

Today (1st April - I'm starting the thread slightly early) is the return of Indicative Votes.

This follows the defeat of May's Deal by 286 to 344 on Friday.

The Sunday Press has been full of talk of a Cabinet Collapse with 10 Cabinet Brexiteers threatening to walk, with the support of 170 Tory MPs, if May goes for a softer Brexit or fails to leave the EU by 22nd May regardless of whether this is with a Deal or with No Deal and Remain Cabinet Members threatening to walk if May goes for No Deal.

This is in addition to May's apparent threat that the House was at its limits for the process which has been taken as meaning she is considering a GE. Which both Tory Brexiteers and Tory Remainers say they will block. The threat of a GE has largely been seen as a threat to force MPs to back her deal.

May now faces the choice she has always resisted, which on the face of it, looks like it could cause a split in the Tory Party. She will obviously do everything she can to avoid making that choice. Her solution seems to be MV4 with the Snell / Nandy Amendment, which gives parliament a say in the next phase of Brexit. This theorectically is about the Political Declaration (PD) which the Indicative Votes essentially is about.

However it needs to be stressed repeatedly that the EU have said, that they do not care about the PD and all soft Brexits (variations on May's current PD) also require the WA to pass, such is the EU's distrust in the UK. This would include the Common Market 2.0 suggestion (Boles Amendment 189-283), despite what various MPs have suggested simply because it could be used as a temporary transition by the backdoor and CM2.0 doesn't cover certain aspects of withdrawal such as the divorce settlement, long term citizens rights and fishing rights amongst others. And this is going to be a big issue when it comes to the DUP who are now leaning to a soft Brexit or even revocation.

In light of this apparent Government Nervous Breakdown John Major has raised the prospect of a temporary government of National Unity, which is difficult to envisage how that would work given the current parliamentary polarisation. Indeed Labour have ruled this possibility out.

There has also been comments made that any policy passed by Parliament stemming from Indicative Votes could be ignored by May by her using her status of PM to ask the Queen to refuse to give it Royal Ascent. Which surely would go down a storm with her Majesty to be asked to be embroiled into this political pantomine.

Voting on the Indicative Votes is due to start at 8pm - 8.30pm tomorrow with a debate before it.

The Options on the table (but yet to be selected by the Speaker) are:
A) Baron, unilateral backstop exit.

B) Baron, if no WA by then, no-deal Brexit on 12/4. 160-400

C) Clarke, permanent UK-wide customs union. 265-271

D) Boles, Common Market 2.0 (EEA+CU).
Broadly similar to motion from last week, with some changes. 189-283

^E) Kyle / Beckett, WA + PD approval subject to confirmatory PV. 268-295

F) Jones/Grieve, PV if necessary to prevent no deal. Not previously tabled.

G) Cherry, A50 revocation as default if necessary to prevent no deal.
More detailed version of last weeks motion. 184-293

H) Eustice, EFTA+EEA.
Slightly modified version from last week. 64-377

Clark and Boles amendments are the ones to watch. They have apparently gathered more support since last week. Boles CM2.0 appears to have Labour swinging support behind it, unofficially atm.

May is also under pressure to allow the Cabinet Free Votes this time on the CU vote (they abstained last week). Whether this will happen is still anyone's guess.

There is also talk of an alternative 'Custom's Partnership' idea - a fudge that would see the UK stay in parts of a customs union. This idea has been previously rejected by the EU and the Cabinet. But we know how much May loves her fudges.

Robert Peston is saying tonight that whether May and the Government fall may rest on how much support the Customs Union and her allies are desparate for it to get a parliamentary majority - particularly with support from more Conservatives (it only got 35 Tory Votes last time). This would mark a breakthrough and the first positive majority for Brexit.

If it passes, the suggestion is that MV4 will be Tuesday. Of course it remains to be seen if ERG hardliners who switched last week would continue to support her deal if she goes for a CU option and whether getting a parliamentary majority for a CU plus the Snell Amendment would be sufficient to persuade enough Labour MPs, the DUP and perhaps Tory Remainers to push it over the line.

However May going for the CU could provoke a Cabinet resignations or even splits in the party meaning that MV4 on Tuesday is somehow impossible or at least delayed.

Expect May to keep her cards to her chest about whether she will go for a CU as long as possible as a result. (Possibly NOT before a MV4).

Meanwhile it looks like there might be a storm brewing about the stripping of NI born Irish citizens of their EU citizenship, which seems to be in breech of the GFA.

And the Tory Leadership contest is in full swing. Hunt and Javid have been labelled as The TiTs (Theresa in Trousers), Johnson is styling himself as a One Nation Tory (although he is not a member of the One Nation Group within the party) who will bring sweeping tax cuts, and Grayling is saying the next leader must be a Cabinet Minister with experience and has always been a Brexiteer.

And Finally, David Allen Green raises a concern about a potential new exit day, if it changes from 12 April.

David Allen Green @ Davidallengreen
If a new exit day is not agreed until 10/11 April (ie European Council), there will be not enough time for exit day in domestic legislation to be amended in time before 12 April. It was close this time, with the shift from 29 March.

My Irish mum (now deceased: Remain was her last vote) had a UK passport but as a British subject with "Right of Abode" in the UK. A kind of second class UK passport. My FiL has the same in his passport.

@coffeerunner

Sorry to be a bit thick here - you all seem so much more knowledgeable than me - but, if one of these amendments does get through today (common market for example), is it automatic that the EU will accept/allow it as part of the WA?

Or could they still just say “no, the WA as it stands or no deal”?

No you are not thick. Political journalists seem to be struggling with this.

In reality 'May's Deal' is two parts. The WA and the PD.

So far I'm yet to see a journalist recognise that the indicative votes refer to the political declaration part of our future relationship.

They do not change the need for the WA nor the EU's insistence on it as part of ANY Brexit deal. Its not negotiable. This is due to trust issues and the WA containing some things outside the scope of a future trading relationship which is all the indicative votes focus on. For example the divorce payment, long term citizens rights and an undertaking to remain in the ECHR as a prerequisite for any trading arrangement. The WA is legally binding on these and so far we've only had loose statements of intent in these areas which could be reneged on.

As far as it stands we need the WA to pass regardless.

In terms of the PD part of it is concerned, the EU have said they ARE open to changes and an alternative approach. Mainly because the PD is a purely British led expression of what we would like our trading relationship to be going forward. The EU have only said that PD needs to understand what is possible under EU rules and what is not. For example understanding that full single market membership requires free movement of people as a basic principle.

We could choose to freely align with the single market for goods in terms of regulatory standards but this isn't full market access and there would be some limitations particularly on services.

The problem with the Common Market 2.0 idea is that it is not in keeping with what the EU have outlined as possible.

Therefore it might well be rejected by the EU because we have not been listening to what they have explicitly said repeatedly.

And there is a misconception contained within the CM2.0 plan that it could be instead of the WA (it can't) and that it would be a viable alternative without another extension. Because it would need refinement and negotiating its only possible as a plan if the government is ALSO prepared to legislate and take part in European elections as this can not be achieved by the 12th April.

All the indicative proposals are silent on things like fishing rights too. Which are a political rather than purely trade issue.

The problem with the indicative votes is that they are very simplistic and narrow in focus and the WA is a detailed and complex document which covers far more areas.

The fact that politicians don't seem to have grasped this is concerning as it shows they are already making a hash of this and possibly wasting precious time as they simply do not understand what the heck they are doing.

And Journalists not pointing this out and scrutinising what they are doing makes it even worse.

It's a double failure which let's the whole country down.

What tends to happen to countries that unilaterally abandon treaties ? Sanctions ? Diplomatic measures ? Re-evaluation of other bilateral treaties ?

It depends either on how big they are, or their armed forces are, or how many friends they have around the world.

I suppose it also depends on how 'alive' the treaty is - there could be old international treaties knocking about that everyone has forgotten about, so quietly scrapping one of these wouldn't matter. This is not the case with the GFA, or the bit of the Treaty of Utrecht which underpins the UK possession of Gibraltar.

Please tell me if I've got this all wrong by the way

@powerbadgersunite you haven't.

havingto he was flying between Luton and Aberdeen. DH got pulled out of the queue after security at Luton and given a right grilling.

The DUP have confirmed (state broadcaster street interview) that they aren't supporting CM2.0 and still won't support the WA (no shit) if it's put to the HoC again this week.

having my English DH was checking into a central London hotel last week and when he answered the question where he had traveled from, the US, the person on the desk asked for his passport. They got very upset when he said he didn't have it with him, which he didn't as he had left a good deal of luggage with a family member he was also spending time with. He pointed out that as a Brit in his home country he didn't need a passport to check into a hotel but they really weren't happy. The general climate is changing.

{divorce payment, long term citizens rights and an undertaking to remain in the ECHR}

It is the fact that the UK government/HoC are not prepared to sign up to this that is so totally disgusting. Why should anyone have respect for 'authority' that willfully disregards their own citizens?

Just watching sky news.
What’s the difference between a Customs Union and Common Matket 2.0? (Which is the relatively “softer”)

Then what’s the difference between a those and what we have now....?

What I don’t understand is why they are faffing about with indicative votes which aren’t legally binding.
These can be added to the PD if the eu agrees but there is very little time to put together an acceptable plan.
If May is planning to represent her WA tomorrow then that is just the WA not the PD. She can’t rewrite the PD; only the eu can.
The WA failed last time because if it passed and May resigned, a hard Brexit PM would have free rein to do what he liked. Surely that is the case if the original PD, or any other PD exists as it’s only the WA that is legally binding.
Or am I missing something here ?

Sorry if it's already been asked by why do the debates start so late in the day? Surely they could be more productive if things starting in the morning.

@NoWordForFluffy , just checking Who is the state broadcaster? Because we don't have one in the UK. If you are talking about RTÉ, I'm not sure they are a state broadcaster as such either.

Then what’s the difference between a those and what we have now....?

The European Parliament and the power to influence going forward.

It's giving up sovereignty.

Ironically.

The BBC. Renamed as state broadcaster on these threads due to their coverage.

Thanks red for the summary. I'm a bit clearer now.

It's not helping that there are mixed messages coming from all quarters about what the situation is. The fact is these indicative votes should have been done 2 years ago so we could decide a general direction and then have time to work it all out properly with the EU27.

I also notice that people treat the idea of a PV like an alternative to the WA whereas it's just a way of confirming, we still need something to actually vote on.

I'm currently leaning towards the idea we will end up with a long extension ending in some sort of CM2+WA maybe with a PV thrown in to confirm (which could then lead to a revoke depending on demographics by that point).

Or on the Brexit board at least...I've not dreamt that, have I?!

Or maybe I have as you don't appear to recall seeing it, @bellinisurge, and you're here a fair bit! 😂

Sorry if it's already been asked by why do the debates start so late in the day? Surely they could be more productive if things starting in the morning.

I'm assuming it's because they still have the general running of a country scheduled to do during the day. We were supposed to be all wrapped up and these debates are extra to the planned schedule.

Fair enough @NoWordForFluffy . Having actually lived in a country where there was a state broadcaster, I don't think the current limp thing we have now counts as one. But I defer to other people.

Or am I missing something here ?

Indicative votes leading to parliament approving a legal binding political declaration make it harder for a hard Brexiteer to rip up that plan for a trading arrangement.

It does not stop them - parliament can always vote to change its mind (what happens if there's a GE and there is a much larger Hardline Tory government elected).

The new PM couldn't just walk in and go to the EU and say 'nope im ignoring parliament on the single market' first though without being in contempt of Parliament and essentially breaking the law. However this might not be sufficient to stop them actually doing it.

So indicative votes are theoretically important but only limited in their power to limit the executive.

I've only adopted it due to others doing so on here really!

It's the bias in relation to pro-Brexit coverage, i.e. the deliberate under-reporting of the march numbers and consistently having pro-Brexit politicians and audience members on QT, to name a couple of examples.

Hi, I’m a lurker and avid reader. I see conservatives will not be whipped but once again cabinet told to abstain. Can anyone explain why the cabinet have to abstain from voting?
Thanks!

I'm assuming it's because they still have the general running of a country scheduled to do during the day.

Not really ... almost all workaday business of the HoC has been eclipsed by Brexit (I know, who'd have thought it ?). The recent inability to enact the Probate changes (thus costing HMRC a few million) being one.

Surely they could be more productive if things starting in the morning.

The house usually starts later on a Monday to accommodate MPs travelling back from their constituencies. Which is fair enough.

It's also why it doesn't tend to sit on Fridays (to give MPs a day in their constituencies) and finishes early on a Thursday.

They make up for it with long and late hours instead.

@Red, can you clarify, are we actually safer in relation to the PD changes if we actually decide something and only have a new Tory leader, as the Parliament session post-new leader is still the same session and therefore bound by what's decided? (As opposed to deciding something, TM going against it and a subsequent NC vote triggering a GE, meaning there's a new session which isn't bound by the decision of the previous session?)