Thread by @Joe_Marshall0

1 ’What Brexit drama do we have to look forward to this week?’ Lots, it seems.

Over the weekend, many others have considered the latest developments in detail. This thread tries to summarise things a little.

2 There are 3 things in play:
- Gov attempts to win MPs round to a version of the PM’s deal
- Attempts by MPs to take no deal off the table, or at least delay it
- Attempts by MPs (and maybe the Gov) to find out what kind of Brexit MPs want

3 Things kick off today at around 15:30, when the PM is due to make a statement outlining the Gov's next steps. A motion in neutral terms will also be tabled (probably just asking MPs to take note of the PM's statement).

4 Neutral motions are usually unamendable. But MPs insisted this 'next steps' motion should be, and the Gov conceded. So MPs will be able to table amendments once its laid. @jasimsoncaird has more on the statement/motions, and suggests what the PM could say to break the deadlock

5 The motion and amendments will be debated (and voted on) on 29 Jan. Leaving just over a week for parliamentary turbulence as MPs decide what to make of the PM's plan...

6 What PM’s statement says, and MPs’ reactions are key. 2 things to look for:
A) Any sign the Gov will seek to change the substance of the deal- either the backstop in the WA, or any pivot towards a permanent CU in the PD.
B) Any indication of trying to rule out no deal.

7 On the substance of the deal, the Gov has 2 options:

8 A) Go after the ERG and DUP by trying to change the backstop. A time limit, unilateral exit and separate UK-RoI treaty all floated as options. Liam Fox has spoken of a 'dif mechanism to prevent a hard border'. Said to be PM's preferred option. Issue is negotiability (🦄)

9 B) Pursue backbench Labour MPs by keeping backstop and trying to amend PD so it points to a permanent CU and says more on workers rights etc. Issue is that in pivoting to a softer Brexit the Gov loses MPs who supported the deal 1st time. PM and many Tory MPs said to oppose.

10 (And there are limits to what the Gov can genuinely promise in the PD, after all, the bulk of the Brexit negotiations are yet to come- despite claims that there will be certainty once the UK leaves on 29 March)

11 At a @UKandEU event, JRM said only ERG/DUP could deliver the parli numbers needed to get a deal through. But @instituteforgov event, Stephen Crabb said Gov's defeat on the deal showed hopes of getting it through on Tory/DUP coalition had failed.

12 MPs may change their minds on the PM's deal if a less favourable option becomes likely. JRM has said PM's deal is better than no Brexit (2nd ref) or a Corbyn gov (Election). If either emerges, the ERG may yet support the deal, maybe with a few Lab MPs. @JohnRentoul has more.

13 PM’s statement unlikely to say Gov will try to rule out no deal. However, many MPs are fundamentally opposed, especially as it is becoming more apparent that the UK will not be ready for no deal by 29 March, as @timd_IFG argued pre-Christmas.

14 If the PM's statement doesn't satisfy opponents, expect some MPs to table amendments to the next steps motion to try and force the Gov's hand. At least two plans are already in the works:

15 A) Boles and co: propose temporarily changing the rules on parli time to give non-Gov business priority on 1 day- to allow backbench legislation to make progress. MPs would use this day to pass a bill requiring the Gov to extend A50 if a deal is not approved

16 B) Grieve and co: propose changing the parli rules so any motion or bill with at least 300 signatories from 5 parties (inc at least 10 Tory MPs) would be first up for debate the next day. @nmdacosta has more, and several criticisms, in the @spectator

17 Both plans are attempts to give non-Gov MPs greater control over parliamentary time - allowing them more opportunities to direct the Government, and increase the likelihood of backbenchers successfully initiating legislation.They may also help MPs organise indicative votes

19 Indicative votes may be
- Formal - with a list of options formally drawn up and put to MPs in a structured way (maybe via Boles/Grieve)
- Informal- relying on MPs tabling amds to the next steps motion covering all options and the Speaker selecting them
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ind…

20 Both versions have problems. MPs may disagree about how formal indicative votes should work (such as the options to include), risking more debate and delay over procedure, not substance. And there is not necessarily a guarantee a maj will be found for anything.

21 Where does this leave us?
-No deal remains the default
-We still don't know what MPs want
-PM's deal is not dead yet
-Expect more debate about procedure, over substance
-Domestic infighting is still stifling honesty about what the EU will accept
More at @instituteforgov