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 DD was looking forward to minimum wage going up by the astounding amount of 40p an hour ( £16 a week) but then she realised her council tax went up by 8% and her gas and electric and TV licence went up and she's now £5 a week WORSE off!

Haven't read thread. Soz. Thank you red though. Will read now I've watched news.

I think May will bring back Mv4 + pv or cu
I hope for pv, but I think cu.
Xx

If I’ve understood correctly; common market 2.0, even if agreed, is not legally binding, as its part of thePD and could be changed by a future government.

It would however get us out of the impasse of crashing out with a No Deal, Keep the practicalities of the EU: free movement of goods and people. Downside; no access to the voting and decision making of the EU. Would also satisfy the Leavers of the populace that we have actually left. ( hopefully swerving civil unrest)
I’m a remainer an£ would ideally like Revoke. But as that won’t happen I think Common Market 2.0 was the best compromise.

I really feel for Nick Boles.

Btw I don't think it is a mess. I think it shows that our parliament, them int hoc, are very principalled individuals doing what they think is right to get voted in again by the constituents they represent. And what is wrong with that exactly?

It's a mess because they have said no to everything. may's deal, no deal, Cu, Common market, P.V and revoke. There are no other choices. They don't want any of these. But come the 12th we slide off the cliff if they don't make a choice. As long as they keep refusing to make a choice - no matter how 'principled' they're being - we will all be in the shit in less than two weeks. They have to find something that a majority of them can stand for because crash out is the default - and they don't want that either.

Principle versus pragmatism.

There's a time and place.

And we are going to completely run out of time soon.

Principles might leave you (and more to the point, the country) even more screwed and could leave your principles in complete tatters.

Who was it who said that the only people who get rich on principles are the lawyers? Sometimes you need to know when to cut your losses and back down.

See - I'm hardline enough that I wouldn't back down for May's deal - especially not if a brexiteer is going to take over the process anyway. And if we were given a referendum on no deal vs may's deal I would spoil my ballot paper. Absolutely not in my name. Never. Any form of hard brexit will hit me badly so - when it comes down to it - i'd rather face that knowing I stuck to my principles. Even if i can't eat them - I won't be eating in a hard brexit britain anyway. I might as well go hungry safe in the knowledge that I didn't cravenly capitulate to the people causing my hunger. JRM can fuck off with his half a loaf.

But when there is a better, softer way forward - which does not rule out a P.V - then compromise should be made. Hoping for better options on Weds may turn out to have been a gamble too far for the lib dems and the Tigs.

I'm cautious of doing a principled vs pragmatism thinking. Nothing is ever one or the other.

Nicely put pretzels

The Revoke Article 50 petition has been debated in West I steer Hall

The Tiggers were asking for it to b3 debated in the commons.
It’s is only a clip: the whole thing will be posted on Friday

Any PD could be swept away by a Brexiter PM, especially if they call a GE during transition

It doesn't matter if it's CM2.0 or May's PD

All this angst over the PD is pointless imo, just an expression of anger at May being so dictatorial

The WA say only the WA matters and they won't change it (except for minor text updates to match a new PD)

I don't know why people think the CM2.0 is so straightforward:

If it claims to replace the backstop and that the UK will decide new FTAs jointly with the EU, then it's just another bloody unicorn

At least, it'll need the WA and the EU will just ignore the unicrony bits during negotiations

No Deal would be much worse than the WA, both economically and for those depending on meds

It's fine to say you'd rather the country gets totally trashed rather than goes into a - .manageable - long decline
if you and your family don't need meds and can afford the higher food prices

If you aren't one of the 3 .5 million likely to be in the firing line for scapegoating when the country crashes over the cliff

It seems all fanatics look alike:
prepared to flounce off and sacrifice the most vulnerable, if they don't get the particular solution they want

If we No Deal, I'll blame everyone who wouldn't compromise, regardless of what side they're on

IMPORTANT

At the moment, the only thing anyone is interested in is sorting Brexit because there seems to be no cash available to spend on schools, the police or the NHS anyway, so promises on those are just ballocks.

I labelled this important as it seems to be something that most people miss unless you are self employed or run a business because of the way MSM report austerity cuts.

*At the same time the Government is slashing public sector spending they are reducing corporation tax from 20% of business turnover to 17% of business turnover.

There IS MONEY but the Tories are CHOOSING to give it back to business because THAT's WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.*

I've just looked up the figures and a 3% reduction in corporation tax = £6.9 billion per year being given back to business and taken away from public sector spending.

That isn't austerity, that isn't reducing our debt. It's a policy choice.

I feel like this message needs to be shouted from hilltops.

Times

BigChocFrenzy - agree that the PD is irrelevant and the WA is everything at this point. Also agree that WA represents a manageable way forward (particularly in comparison to no-deal). However, WA gives up UK's position in EU (inc. all opt-outs) committing UK to Brexit with no certainty of the new relationship with EU. Moreover, UK is in a very weak negotiating position where EU can dictate terms in the confidence that any concessions that improve on the backstop position can be easily resisted as UK has already agreed to this - EU just has to stall for time to force UK to this position.

So-called extreme leavers realise this ,so resist WA to go for a no-deal Brexit or Revoke (exemplified by Sunshine some time ago). So-called extreme remainers realise this, so resist WA to go for PV or Revoke (exemplified by Pretzels I think). Moreover both groups are right, WA is manifestly worse than current EU position and also fails to deliver the freedom from EU constraints that many Leavers feel is necessary to make a success of Brexit - worst of all worlds. Given this, surprised that WA gets as much support as it does in parliament. Only worth pursuing if no-deal is definitely unavoidable.

Worth noting, it seems A50 necessitates a "blind" Brexit like this as the WA has to be agreed before the new relationship - which is why it was such a big error of the UK to trigger it without having negotiated the end-state with the EU first. Sure this was pointed out be Ivan Rogers to an unlistening PM before he resigned.

Having looked at A50 text, it does appear to allow the leaving country to define it's future relationship as part of the leaving process (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Procedure), in particular it states: "... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" where that State is the leaving state (e.g. UK). Difficult to understand then why UK government accepted a WA without a definitive future state - perhaps EU pushed the PD as "taking account of framework for its future" and UK just accepted (unwisely).

indistinct Every Brexit is worse than Remain

However, every Brexit would require a WA with pretty much this content, because it handles past & present commitments, which don't change

A "framework" is all that A50 requires

It has been left deliberately vague, because no Parliament can require a future govt to negotiate in a particular way
and of course because the UK is split into several different factions wanting different future relationships.

Any new PM / govt that doesn't like a particular PD just has to negotiate like DD:
turn up every 6 months and keep reneging on everything - to run out the transition time.

If the UK had agreed a WA much earlier and if there were LARGE cross-party agreement on the future relationship, then the PD could have been fleshed out in a lot more detail.

However, it is impossible to make the future relationship legally binding,
because any trade deal with an economy as complex as the UK is going to require several years negotiation

"taking account of the future framework" is so vague and weak that anything legal & feasible for both sides would do.

Putting this into a PD was a concession to the UK, who wanted more than a few vague sentences in the WA

WIth the UK so divided, an PD now is meaningless though

The WA would be legally binding because it covers past & current matters that are known and can be made binding.

Certainly agree every real-world Brexit is worse than remain. I guess I was thinking that a “framework” for a future relationship was enough of a hook to get something legally binding about future in WA (after all EU got backstop in as a conditional future relationship). If the non-binding PD was all the EU would accept then further highlights negotiating weakness of UK having triggered A50. UK could have/could still go to court to test this (or has this already been explored and rejected)?

.