There are some pretty serious things happening around the meaningful vote provisions and s13 of the Withdrawal Act, which sets out the House of Commons' powers to intervene in the end stages of Brexit negotiations. For example...
1. The indefinite suspension of the s13(1)(b) meaningful vote
By law, the deadline is "before the European Parliament decides whether it consents", conceivably too late for the meaningful vote to be, well, meaningful.
Until it happens, no "plan B" vote under s13(6) is required
By law, the deadline is "before the European Parliament decides whether it consents", conceivably too late for the meaningful vote to be, well, meaningful.
Until it happens, no "plan B" vote under s13(6) is required
2. This series of (later apparently disowned) tweets by @HouseofCommons earlier today pushing the line that the "failure to agree" vote is no longer under s13(8) because "agreement in principle" has now been reached:
@HouseofCommons 3. @andrealeadsom asserting that if there are any future votes then the effects of the Grieve amendment can be avoided simply by organising them under a new business motion
@HouseofCommons @andrealeadsom Taken in isolation, it's easy enough to see each of these as a slip, or a political manoevre, or an error, or an exciting story, or over-enthuasiasm or whatever.
But their combined target is: no more votes; and too late and/or with no voice for the Commons if there are any.
But their combined target is: no more votes; and too late and/or with no voice for the Commons if there are any.
@HouseofCommons @andrealeadsom We might be at the stage where it's at least plausible to say that there's a concerted effort to subvert the intention behind s13 of the Withdrawal Act - a section whose text was already diluted in reliance on assurances given by the government as it passed through Parliament
@HouseofCommons @andrealeadsom Until now, I've been pretty firmly in the camp that says this is a political rather than a constitutional crisis. But...
@HouseofCommons @andrealeadsom ...unless it's one big coincidence, this is an attack on the rule of law, on democracy, and on the Commons' legitimacy as a forum for holding the government to account.
That WOULD qualify as a constitutional crisis, I think.
That WOULD qualify as a constitutional crisis, I think.
@HouseofCommons @andrealeadsom And what would the remedy be? How and by who can this be resisted or countered? That's a difficult question. Our constitution certainly presents no obvious answers right now. Hence the risk of (genuinely constitutional) constitutional crisis.
Anyway, Good night.
Anyway, Good night.
