Thread by @ProfMarkElliott

A short thread on today's indicative votes, and what they tell us about the Brexit process so far. /1

MPs will be voting on an extraordinary range of options, including the revocation of Article 50, a second referendum, Labour's so-called softer Brexit and 'Common Market 2.0'.

This suggests three things. /2

First, that the range of views in Parliament remains so diverse that a consensus that a clear majority of MPs can gather around is very unlikely to emerge (at least any time soon - and, in this context of course, every day counts). /3

Second, the sheer range of views in Parliament explodes the myth that the PM's deal (or indeed any particular version of Brexit) is what was endorsed in the referendum. If the will of the people was both paramount & *discernible*, today's indicative votes would be unnecessary. /4

That, in turn, demonstrates the intellectual indefensibility of any suggestion that *any particular version* of Brexit, as opposed to an abstract commitment to Brexit, represents the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. /5

Third, any MPs who are indulging in self-congratulation today by dint of having 'taken control' of the Brexit process should reflect carefully before feeling too pleased with themselves. /6

The very fact that today's indicative votes are occurring - and on the basis of such a wide range of options - raises a fundamental question about whether MPs acted properly when they voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 two years ago. /7

When Parliament allowed Article 50 be triggered, MPs had no idea what they were authorising in terms of what Brexit would look like. We were still in 'Brexit means Brexit' territory. By writing the Government a blank cheque, MPs were guilty (at best) of astonishing naiveté. /8

Any suggestion that what is happening today amounts to some sort of 'victory' for Parliament must therefore be viewed in the broader context of a fundamental institutional failure that has made today's indicative votes necessary. /ends

A footnote to this thread - I make this argument in a bit more detail here: publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/01/16/why…