Thread by @Brigid_Fowler

Quick thread on what yesterday's Grieve am. to #meaningfulvote business motion could mean for immediate #Brexit steps, to inject note of caution re: some apparent assumptions. TLDR: spirit of the am. is clearly to move things along, but letter of it seems to leave loopholes. 1/

Might be handy to have text of section 13 of EU (Withdrawal) Act (but you're also carrying your copy around with you, right? 🙄) 2/
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/…

Key bits of yesterday's am.: assuming HoC does not approve Withdrawal Agreement+Pol Dec in #meaningfulvote Tues 15/1, gov must *table* a *motion* *under section 13* of EU(W)A. This must be within 3 sitting days. And motion must *consider* the A50 Brexit process. 3/

1st Q: what's '3 sitting days'? There are some bits of parly business where, if text not explicit, you count from initial day i.e. here, 15/1, making deadline 17/1. Otherwise, deadline would be 21/1. (Note: all deadlines in EU(W)A s13 are explicitly counted from initial day.) 4/

2nd Q: *which* motion under s13 must now be tabled within 3 days? This affects what it might say & when it might have to be debated. I think there *might* be room for >1 possibility here, but let's go with what seems to be the assumption that it would be the s13(6) motion. 5/

If this is right, motion must be in neutral terms i.e. it will just say 'This House has considered gov's plans for the A50 process' or similar. So, not a plan. In s13, where the gov has to set out its plans, this must be done in the form of *statements*, not motions. 6/

Key thing about all motions under s13 is that - thanks to Grieve's previous am. before Xmas - they are amendable. *But* you only get to ams if a motion is *debated*. Yesterday's am. just says that within 3 sitting days of 15/1 a motion must be *tabled* (i.e. published). 7/

Most of the deadlines in s13 about *when* motions must be debated are defined in terms of days *from the relevant statement*. But yesterday's am. doesn't say anything about statements & their dates. 8/

So (even after yesterday) on my reading, to engage most deadlines in s13 you’d still need a gov statement explicitly under one or other s13 provision. E.g. a s13(6) motion must be debated within 7 HoC sitting days of the statement which is required if #meaningfulvote is lost. 9/

The exception might be if motion which must now be tabled within 3 sitting days of 15/1 were a s13(11) motion. A s13(11) motion must be debated within 5 sitting days of end of 21/1. But a s13(11) motion is only required if there’s no “agreement in principle” with EU by 21/1. 10/

As things stand, we have formal gov statement to Parl that agreement with EU *has* been reached. 11/

So, *if* my reading is right (stressing the 'if'), as a result of yesterday's am. in theory we *could* end up just with a neutral motion tabled by 21/1 which isn't debated any more quickly than it would have been anyway. 12/

Obvs, this is all just potential process loopholes. Regardless of yesterday's am, it seems implausible that PM would lose #meaningfulvote & then say nothing for up to 21 days re: what next. As soon as she makes s'thing identified as a s13 statement, s13 deadlines kick in. 13/

And there's no wish to downplay the significance of the *politics* going on & on display yesterday. This is just to suggest that, on process Qs, after yesterday there's still scope for at least confusion & possibly another row... 😐 /ends