,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A quick thread on one aspect of "Labour's latest attempt to stop a 'no deal' Brexit". In sum - we don't yet know what the plan is, and we probably won't know for a while. There is too much excitement right now, and we need to see what emerges. 1/
If the vote passes today, MPs will take control of Parliamentary business on June 25. And they will be able to adopt legislation relating to the UK's withdrawal from the EU. 2/
As far as I know, there is nothing yet available on what the motion or motions on June 25 might say; still less any sign that those MPs who oppose no deal will be able to coalesce around a single plan which might then command majority support. 3/
As is well known, there have been similar moves earlier in the year. In brief, the Cooper amendment was designed to oblige the PM to seek an extension ahead of the then 'no deal' date. The Cherry amendment was designed to ensure a Parliamentary vote before 'no deal'. 4/
Neither aimed, nor would have been able, to 'take no deal off the table'. For that to happen (as TM has said...), Parliament has to agree to leave with a deal, or to agree to revoke the Article 50 notification. 5/
It would be possible - and in my view desirable - to take no deal off the table, by agreeing to change the default to revoke. So, if there is no agreed deal (or agreed extension) by X date in October, Parliament instructs the PM to revoke the notification. 6/
That would enable a deal to be reached (or an extension to be agreed) before October 31. But, in the event of a failure to agree a deal (or get an extension), the UK would revoke. 7/
No doubt, such a position has support among some/many MPs. But the political question is whether it is something behind which all those who want to stop 'no deal' can indeed coalesce around. 8/
There is an obvious tension between a 'strong' motion, which does take 'no deal off the table', and would (eg) allow no deal planning to come to an end; and a 'weaker' motion, eg to ensure future Parliamentary involvement, which would be more likely to command support. 9/
It is important that people are honest about what the various possible motions are able to achieve. To reiterate, if the motion won't take no deal off the table, people should not be pretending that it does. 10/
And, more than that, it is important that the big majority MPs who want to stop 'no deal' find a way to agree on the steps ahead. There's talk of conversations between the parties; I'm very concerned that they don't seem to be at an advanced stage. 11/11
PS There's nothing here on another key question - whether any legislation passed via this route would be able to block a PM determined to pursue a 'no deal'. It does seem that today's opportunity is one not to be missed.
