,
25 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Right I've got to run in a bit so can't do a full piece but quick low-down on the options being put forward today.
Bill Cash motion. Fuck all to do with anything. Tries to create a new standing order basically giving the government control of the timetable forever. Shows no understanding of the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. 
John Baron. No-deal motion. Enforces no-deal on April 12.
Baron again. Demands unilateral exit from backstop. Unable to specify how that would still be a backstop or how it would work.
Boles Common Market 2.0. Stay in single market through Efta but secure exemption to stay in customs union (difficult, to put it mildly). Domestic rules to enforce EU restrictions on free movement (ie 3-month job requirement) and prevent future govt from overturning the plan.
Will Quince. Meaningless gibberish on respecting the referendum result. No positive contribution whatsoever.
Gareth Snell. Demands 'participation' in customs union.
Angus Brendan MacNeil. Orders got to revoke Article 50 if we get within four days of no-deal Brexit.
George Eustice. Common Market 1.0 (?). Basically also wants to stay in single market via Efta, but without negotiating customs union membership. Much simpler and more deliverable, but would be more painful, esp in Ireland.
Ian Blackford. Devolved parliaments must consent to Brexit. Bit of a waste of time.
Ken Clarke. Join the customs union. Pass domestic legislation to that effect.
Jeremy Corbyn. Labour plan. Something to do with single market, won't say exactly what. As clear as a pub toilet.
Joanna Cherry. Very good on no-deal. If we get to just before exit day, the House gets a vote on whether it ants no no-deal. if it does not, we revoke.
Margaret Beckett. The Kyle amendment. Whatever the deal, there must be a public vote to give consent to it. This is the key People's Vote amendment.
Nicky Morgan. Malthouse Compromise. Blah blah, unicorns. Can't we all just get along in a brotherhood of fairy stories.
Marcus Fysh. Article 24-flavoured unicorns.
Fysh again. More of the same really, but with a welcome addition of carving out protections for citizens' rights.
That's the lot. Some decent stuff in there. Some childish nonsense too. Imagine Speaker will do a pretty good job of weeding one from the other.
Quick take on the Labour 'alternate plan'.
Pessimistic assessment: it is vague because they a) don't know what the fuck they're doing or b) won't accept state aid/free movement and don't want to say so. In either case, they won't be able to deliver.
Optimistic assessment. Both the other soft Brexit options entail staying in the EEA via Efta, one with custom union bolt-on and one just as it currently stands. Maybe Labour plan distinguished by proposing an EEA-style arrangement, but not membership of the existing structures.
That would actually be quite a good idea. Gets you over customs union bolt-on problem. Allows you to have bespoke opt-outs instead of agriculture and fisheries.
And potentially, at the further reaches of possibility, might allow a decent negotiating team to secure some kind of beefed-up British involvement in rule-making. Less than an EU member. More than Norway.
I know that sounds like unicorns, but this was original Delores vision for EEA. Europe accepts need for concentric circles system. If you proposed as European solution, rather than British damage limitation, with realistic timetable and decent negotiator, it's not impossible.
Anyway I know this is danger of Labour vaguery: you can read into it what you like. That's the function. But fwiw, if there is a charitable interpretation, I think it looks like that.
