Thread by @jrmaidment

🚨Short thread on the Grieve amendment and what could happen next in the Brexit process🚨

Under the terms of the Grieve amendment the Govt will have to table a motion setting out its Brexit plan B within 3 days.

There is some suggestion the Govt could table something non-committal/wishy-washy. But that would be at odds with the intention of the amendment.

There is also some suggestion the Govt could table a rubbish motion and then not do anything with it - i.e. leave it on the shelf and not move it for debate. But that would arguably be at odds with the spirit of the amendment.

It is important to remember that what is in the motion and when it is debated are both in control of the Govt - but you disregard the wishes/intentions of a majority of MPs at your peril.

Which I think means it is likely that we do have a debate on the motion not long after it is tabled - maybe a few days.
Unless the Govt wants to realllllly annoy MPs.

Next question is what format the debate will take. Rules suggest default option is a 90 min debate and one amendment would be possible.

This could be varied by the Govt to provide flexibility or the Speaker could help to facilitate a more extensive debate. Both are possible.

So it is not impossible to end up (as a result of the latest Grieve amendment) with the indicative votes debate on different Brexit options that many MPs want.

It is at this point it is worth reminding ourselves of something which is increasingly the elephant in the room: To leave the EU with a deal on March 29 Parliament must ratify it through an Act of Parliament.

If an Act has not been passed by that point to ratify the deal, the UK will leave the EU with no deal. Read that again.

Why this matters: Getting an Act, particularly a controversial one, through the Commons and Lords will require a significant and sustainable majority of support.

In plainer English: The Brexit deal (whatever it is) must have the backing of a majority of MPs (and a large enough majority to survive a few people abandoning ship during the passage of the Act) to get over the line.

Let’s say the PM wins the meaningful vote by a whisker, say 3. How confident would she be of then getting the following Act through? Not very.

So while the meaningful vote is important, it is the Act to ratify the deal that really matters. No Act agreed by March 29, no deal.

The combination of time (lack thereof) and unchanged parliamentary arithmetic (no majority for anything) will lead many to two logical conclusions: An extension of Article 50 and a snap general election both look increasingly likely.