Quite a day in parliament yesterday, even perhaps a turning point in the long Brexit saga. The government lost three votes and for the first time in history, was deemed to be in contempt of parliament by refusing to publish the attorney general's legal advice. They are now expected to publish it today at 11:30. Parliament is starting to flex it's muscles. However, perhaps the more significant problem for Mrs May is that Dominic Grieve's amendment was accepted by 321 - 299 votes.
This allows MPs to amend the motion which the government must by law bring before the House within 21 days of the Withdrawal Agreement being voted down. Some people think this gives parliament control of Plan B but I note the Brexiteer and former DEXEU minister, Steve Baker, doesn't quite think so. He tweeted:
Grieve's Amendment D if passed allows for an amendable motion 21 days after a Government defeat of their dreadful deal— Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) December 4, 2018
Whatever the outcome of the amendment, it is not legally binding on the PM.
Acts are law, motions are motions. The executive still decides how to proceed. pic.twitter.com/OfnnRjz7Id
I assume Baker is right procedurally, amendments are not legally binding, but I think it shows that opposition to the government is getting organised and it's significant that the supporters of Grieve's amendment are the soft leavers and remainers, indicating they have a sizeable majority. Also, the government still has to get a lot of other Brexit legislation through the House before March 29th and MPs still hold some trump cards.
At the very least, it will allow amendments to be made to the government motion - and voted on - which will enable both the government and the people to see what other options might command a majority in parliament. The EEA option may gain support as the least damaging way to exit the EU and one which a majority of MPs could tolerate. It may need another referendum, althought even that is not certain, but coupled with the ECJ ruling yesterday (HERE) it brings the prospect of a second vote a bit closer I think.
And in another problem for May, Welsh assembly members voted last night 34-16 to reject her deal (HERE). We know the Scottish assembly is against it since the SNP have a big majority anyway so two of the three devolved legislatures oppose her deal. Stormont hasn't sat for years so we don't know how they would vote.
If you're interested, you can see the 25 Tory MPs who voted against the government on Grieve's amendment HERE. Four Labour MPs supported the government. You can see in these numbers the government can muster an absolute maximum of about 320 votes in total if all their MPs vote for the deal. At the moment 101 MPs of her own party are pledged to vote against it.
Even a miracle isn't going to help. The deal will not be accepted next week.
Incidentally, Dr North over at the EU Referendum blog, appeared a smaller and more chastened figure the other morning (HERE). He complains he had to block a lot of abusive tweets which were in response to his own 'civil war' tweet (HERE). This is a bit rich from someone who regularly blocks simple off-topic comments, anyone with contrary views or mild criticism or even those who provide links to websites that he doesn't agree with.
I note also he now keeps referring to his tweet about civil war as civil 'disturbance'. He seems to think by changing the word 'war' for a slightly more emollient one he is rewriting history to paint himself as perfectly reasonable but I'm not sure it's going to wash.
However, what I think was more remarkable from his post was this rather frank, not to say totally gob smacking admission from him:
"In the UK, those who think Brexit is going to solve anything are going to be disappointed. But then, the purpose of Brexit is to get us out of the EU – not to resolve the entire range of society's problems".
So, there in a nutshell we have the insanity of Brexit. It won't 'solve anything' and will cost a fortune but there will be civil war if anybody tries to stop it.
How have we reached such a pitch? It is completely insane isn't it?
Incidentally, Dr North over at the EU Referendum blog, appeared a smaller and more chastened figure the other morning (HERE). He complains he had to block a lot of abusive tweets which were in response to his own 'civil war' tweet (HERE). This is a bit rich from someone who regularly blocks simple off-topic comments, anyone with contrary views or mild criticism or even those who provide links to websites that he doesn't agree with.
I note also he now keeps referring to his tweet about civil war as civil 'disturbance'. He seems to think by changing the word 'war' for a slightly more emollient one he is rewriting history to paint himself as perfectly reasonable but I'm not sure it's going to wash.
However, what I think was more remarkable from his post was this rather frank, not to say totally gob smacking admission from him:
"In the UK, those who think Brexit is going to solve anything are going to be disappointed. But then, the purpose of Brexit is to get us out of the EU – not to resolve the entire range of society's problems".
So, there in a nutshell we have the insanity of Brexit. It won't 'solve anything' and will cost a fortune but there will be civil war if anybody tries to stop it.
