,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A few quick reflections on today's indicative vote debate (ahead of the votes themselves; so almost certainly only of very ephemeral interest). 1/
First, a lot of the speeches were really very good. Many MPs were, at last, facing up to some realities and seeking to make common cause. That was great. But... there are quite a lot of buts (and not only in the public gallery). 2/
Let's assume that there is majority either for the Clarke or the Boles motion. Each is poorly understood. Claims that either can realistically be agreed in the UK and with the EU to enable exit in May seem far fetched. 3/
So, they involve a long extension (and EP election participation). They also involve acceptance of the WA, and finding ways of seeking to commit future Govts in the future relationship negotiations. The route is a precarious one. 4/
Both are a distance from what the Govt has been telling people that Brexit means. It is difficult to believe that those baying for MPs to 'get on with it' and 'deliver Brexit' will be satisfied with either. 5/
Neither has government support. In a lot of ways, more hinges on tomorrow's marathon cabinet meeting than on the outcome of today's votes. It is not at all clear how the government will choose to react. 6/
As I've explained elsewhere, the people's vote and the 'revoke' motions were not rival substantive motions, but instead motions about process and about the default. 7/
This was, belatedly, recognised in the debate. Labour's decision not to support the Joanna Cherry motion is baffling - we may be faced with the need for a default as early as tomorrow. 8/
So... despite a lot of encouragement, there is still a lot to do. It is at least possible that the Govt will seek to block a CU or a Common Market 2.0, even if it has Commons support. Which will make tomorrow very interesting indeed. 9/9
