The debate in the House yesterday was striking in exposing the chasm between the government and a small minority of lunatics on one side and the great majority of MPs on the other. You can read the whole debate HERE. Stephen Barclay, the totally useless Brexit Secretary opened the debate on the government motion, which was this:
"That this House welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement of 12 February 2019; reiterates its support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January 2019 and notes that discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing".
It was in essence a simple way for parliament to confirm the government's policy towards the Brexit negotiations and was effectively a second vote on her deal plus the Brady amendment asking for the backstop to be replaced by 'alternative arrangements'. The House rejected it by 303 to 258.
It was another humiliation for Mrs May who now seems beyond shame. It was described by The Huffington Post as the Valentine's day massacre (HERE).
The motion wasn't binding anyway and was lost mainly because the ERG abstained. They abstained, because the government motion referred to the 'approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January 2019', which also included the Caroline Spelman amendment ruling out a no deal Brexit. The ERG couldn't stomach that so they didn't vote. Get it?
The EU will continue to be bewildered by it all. They will see the PM cannot command a majority in parliament and will be reluctant to offer any concessions at all.
This morning Downing Street confirmed the PM was carrying on as if 'nothing has changed'.
Laura Kuenssberg tweeted:
May not there to hear the result - remember a few days ago she was telling the EU she'd be able to get a stable majority ....— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) 14 February 2019
A civil servant close to the negotiations says the defeat will destroy the UK's leverage in the talks with Brussels and make any possible changes to the backstop, which were virtually impossible before the vote, now even less likely. Nobody can figure out what the ERG were thinking about. The EU will probably refuse even to discuss the so-called Malthouse compromise simply because they don't know if anything will get through parliament.
Anna Soubry's amendment (e) was withdrawn. This demanded the government publish the no deal impact advice but presumably anticipating a defeat, David Liddington, the deputy PM, said the government would start talks to see what Soubry wanted and publish it voluntarily. We shall see what happens. The advice might prove explosive.
Robert Peston (HERE) more or less confirmed his earlier analysis and believes we will see a customs union and the Tory party splitting. Mind you he is on the left so there is probably a bit of wishful thinking in his column. Let's hope he's right though.
Looking back on the debate, there were many good sensible contributions by MPs on both sides of the House.
Barclay was unwisely tempted by David Davis to reaffirm that we will be leaving on 29th March whether there is a deal or not. He will have to eat his words at some point because there is no way this country will leave the EU on 29th March.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
"Given the debate and dispute about the meaning of the Government’s motion, will my right hon. Friend be clear with the House that if the European Union does not agree to a deal that is acceptable to this House and the Government, we will still be leaving on 29 March?"
"I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend and predecessor in this role that assurance. The Cabinet’s position on no deal has been agreed; it was agreed in response to the Cabinet paper that I presented on 18 December. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeated her commitment to the timescale on numerous occasions, including again in her statement this week".
What a twerp he is going to look in a couple of weeks.
The Father of The House, Ken Clarke was appalled:
"My right hon. Friend was just moving on to an alternative, but it seems to me that he has just given the starkest expression of policy that I have heard the Government give so far on what will happen if the present negotiations fail; these are alarming possibilities. He says that we are bound by the legislation relating to article 50, which indeed we are, but when the House agreed to use article 50, it was on the assumption that a negotiated deal would be arrived at. [Interruption.] Well, of course it was. Indeed, at one point the Prime Minister presented to this House what she said was the ideal deal with which to go on to the full negotiations towards meeting the Government’s declared aim of having a proper, permanent relationship with the EU in due course. The idea of going for the catastrophe of no deal on the arbitrary date of 29 March, simply because the Prime Minister will probably fail to persuade the other member states to put a time limit on a permanent open border in Europe, is ridiculous. The Government could have a policy of coming back here to defer or revoke article 50 to put the situation in some order".
Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General questioned if his own government was acting in the national interest - at all!
Dominic Grieve
"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talks about her sacred duty over Brexit. I do not think Brexit is a sacred duty at all; I think it is a pretty profane matter, and if it is going to plunge us into a national crisis, we have a sacred duty to prevent it. I am really alarmed that she does not appear to understand that. I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if that is the policy with which they will persist [leaving with no deal], we will obviously try to change it by implementing the necessary legislation, but that calls into question whether the Government—whom I do my best to support, despite the problems—are in fact acting in the national interest at all. I simply say to them that if they continue to behave in this absolutely crazy fashion, there will come a time when my ability to support this Government will run out completely. The national interest calls on us to face up to our responsibilities; that is what we have to do".
Sir Oliver Letwin, a Knight of the Realm seemed to advocate taking it over:
Oliver Letwin
"There was a fascinating, and rather horrifying, series of exchanges before this debate began and during its opening, and those exchanges have driven me, finally, to the conclusion that I admit I have gradually been forming over the last few weeks and months.
"First, when the chips are down, this Government—my Government—and this Prime Minister, for whom I, unlike many colleagues, voted when she came for re-election, would prefer to do what some of my esteemed colleagues would prefer to do: head for the exit door without a deal. The Secretary of State informed us that that is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government if the Prime Minister’s deal does not succeed. That is a terrifying fact.
"My right hon. Friend is of course right in substance: those papers [the no deal impact assessment] should be out, because when this House comes to legislate, as I hope it will and fear it must, it will be, so to speak, a Cabinet. We will be making real-life decisions about what happens to our fellow countrymen—not just legislating in the hope that many years later, subject to further jots and tittles, the law, as administered by the system of justice, will work better. We will be making a decision about the future of this country. How can we possibly make those decisions unless we are properly informed? The process of which we are now at the start will require the fundamental realignment of the relationship between the civil service, Government and Parliament. There is no way we can continue to act as though we were merely a body to which the Government were accountable; for a period, for this purpose, we will have to take on the government of our country".
It was all extraordinary.
