,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Let me try to explain what just happened - MPs voted by 312 to 308 to amend the original motion excluding no-deal today to be a bit stronger. They apparently passed identical wording to this in January. So it seems... unproblematic?
Particularly as NONE of these votes actually exclude no-deal. No deal happens by automatic operation of the law. There are three ways to prevent no-deal on 29 March: 1) agree deal 2) revoke Art. 50 or 3) a UK EU27 agreement to extend Art. 50
The government, however, decides to now whip against the original motion as amended. Which seems a bit... weird? They want a deal, they moved this thing, now they are against the amended one because of the amendment making it... identical to one passed in January?
This is all quite confusing, but procedurally very interesting.
The government’s strategy - to show that they are the boss and can let the motion fail because of an amendment - failed. Rather spectacularly. 321 to 278. It’ll be interesting to see whether anyone has to resign over that.
What puzzles me: why would the government risk this move about a motion that a) as amended is apparently identical to one that passed in January and b) that has no real effect anyway as it cannot really exclude no-deal
