Thread by @Usherwood

Let's see if we can make sense of yesterday's events:

1/

Lots to consider, but maybe less of lasting consequence than we might imagine

2/

First up we have the AG's opinion in Wightman, recommending unilateral revocation of Art.50 is appropriate.

It's at the top end of campaigners' expectations, but it's only an opinion, so until the ECJ actually rules, this doesn't change anything clearly

3/

Really importantly, even if ECJ does go with AG, the main barrier to revocation remains in place: how and why is the UK going to revoke?

Which brings us to the other stuff

4/

The contempt motion is bad for the gvt, not so much for the advice (which'll likely say nothing that isn't already known) as for the image of weakness: to lose 3 votes in a day is not a good look, esp when you have a vital vote just round the corner

5/

So Wightman and contempt matter more for framing MPs' mind than for any facts on the ground right now.

The Grieve amendment is potentially more important

6/

By allowing amendments on the neutral motion, it opens a political (certainly) and legal (probably) door to Parliament pushing through big changes in direction around the MV

7/

What's unclear is whether that's just about making no-deal less likely (the gvt supporters' line) or making #EUref2/#GE18 more likely (the opposition line)

8/

Remember that none of this changes the unwillingness of the EU to renegotiate, the lack of HoC majority for anything other than avoiding no-deal or the desire of CON to avoid early elections

9/

Overall, yesterday matters in a narrative sense, but less clearly in a hard political one: having more options doesn't automatically mean they get used

/end