Thread by @Usherwood

Let's see if we can make sense of last night's vote on the Customs Bill:

1/

So as we know, No.10 decided yesterday to back 4 amendments to the Bill proposed by hard Brexiters, which the latter had expressly designed to make the Chequers model unviable

2/

Those amendments include new provisions that the UK cannot collect duties for the EU, which goes against most commentators' understanding of the White Paper

3/

Certainly, soft Brexiters and Remainers were concerned enough to rebel against this move, bringing majority down to 3 on the critical amendment

4/

Big Q is: why did No.10 give way on this?

Some options

5/

(And before we list them, I'm not putting stupidity on the list, because that's never a good explanation, certainly in these situations)

6/

First option is that party management takes precedence over policy

Wouldn't be first time this has happened, avoiding conflict now by fudging decisions.

7/

Given Bill.10 needs to keep backbench onside for later votes (inc today's), maybe it made sense to give way, rather than expose size of hard Brexit faction

8/

That might also provide some balm after weeks of softening policy.

9/

Second explanation is that No.10 thinks amendments don't matter.

Per @SamuelMarcLowe, White Paper doesn't need full reciprocity of duty collect to function, so amendment doesn't attack basic mechanism

10/

Like Sam, I'm a bit dubious about this, but not inconceivable that one side has better legal advice than the other side.

So here, accepting amendments is again about party mgt, but w/o same policy impact (not immediately, at least)

11/

Third option is that amendments don't matter because No.20 has no great confidence that EU would accept model anyway.

BRX already discretely grumbling about White Paper, so why not sell hard Brexiters a dummy and then press to new approach?

12/

This is v.high risk, because can't be sure what EU alternative might be, but again if this keeps show on the road then might be part of it

13/

Finally, No.10 view might be that amended Bill isn't final word, as can always amend it via later legislation, because Parliamentary Sovereignty

14/

That means working up a deal, and then if it does conflict with provisions, change the provisions. Presumably in a more pliable House

15/

And that's about as much as I've got right now.

None of these look both likely and unproblematic, which points to hurried and chaotic decisions having been made.

Maybe it'll become clearer today and tomorrow

16/

Tl;dr No.10's behaviour on this is either very clever or very likely to cause more problems

/end