These are good points, but the government is in an overall stronger position than this implies.
- If govt has votes on 2nd Reading of WAB, opposition can disrupt only in common cause with 1/3 legs of pro-deal coalition (ERG or Hammond/Letwin or Lab Deal)
- If govt has votes on 2nd Reading of WAB, opposition can disrupt only in common cause with 1/3 legs of pro-deal coalition (ERG or Hammond/Letwin or Lab Deal)
DUP does *not* have the hinge votes on the WAB (though it would on VONC) unless/until it can detach part of the pro-deal majority (Hammond/Letwin or Flint/Snell or ERG) *and* attach it to Labour + opposition parties.
Eg: this probably doesn't work for a referendum amendment.
Eg: this probably doesn't work for a referendum amendment.
6 groups interested in using WAB process
Opponents
- Labour: defeat govt
- Remain alliance: prevent Brexit ratification
- DUP: change NI arrangements.
Supporters
Ex-Cons Independents: support, ensure scrutiny
Labour Dealers: support, protect standards
ERG: avoid concessions
Opponents
- Labour: defeat govt
- Remain alliance: prevent Brexit ratification
- DUP: change NI arrangements.
Supporters
Ex-Cons Independents: support, ensure scrutiny
Labour Dealers: support, protect standards
ERG: avoid concessions
The "Opponents" groups need to engage at least one "Supporter" group to be able to defeat the govt.
- Supporter groups may team up on substance, but don't want wrecking amendments.
The "Supporter" groups can get what they want from each other (& gvt), or with the opposition.
- Supporter groups may team up on substance, but don't want wrecking amendments.
The "Supporter" groups can get what they want from each other (& gvt), or with the opposition.
ERG playing defence: weakest alliance options here.
Opposition may support any wrecking amendment ERG want (& may tactically come up with ERG-tempting wrecking proposals) but few obvious alliances on content/substance.
So ERG pledging good behaviour, if others don't wreck WAB
Opposition may support any wrecking amendment ERG want (& may tactically come up with ERG-tempting wrecking proposals) but few obvious alliances on content/substance.
So ERG pledging good behaviour, if others don't wreck WAB
Ind ex-Cons have strong options on scrutiny & process (eg Letwin amendment and Benn coalitions cross Deal & Opponent)
- Role of Parliament in future relationship
- Process for Parliamentary decisions on Extension
Govt may have to concede non-wrecking process content
- Role of Parliament in future relationship
- Process for Parliamentary decisions on Extension
Govt may have to concede non-wrecking process content
Labour pro-dealers will be under pressure from Labour amendments.
Govt may want to make concessions, esp somewhat symbolic ones about future standards, without raising ire of ERG or Tory backbenchers. Ind ex-Conservatives may prove to be key allies/hinge voters on such issues.
Govt may want to make concessions, esp somewhat symbolic ones about future standards, without raising ire of ERG or Tory backbenchers. Ind ex-Conservatives may prove to be key allies/hinge voters on such issues.
Will be much focus on DUP, but don't yet have winning coalition if allied to "Opponents" without getting one pro-deal segment too.
eg referendum doesn't work with no pro-deal votes
DUP = awesome power (hinge votes on VONC) if want to bring the govt down, but less on Brexit Bill
eg referendum doesn't work with no pro-deal votes
DUP = awesome power (hinge votes on VONC) if want to bring the govt down, but less on Brexit Bill
Put all of that together and the 2nd reading coalition may well stick together on
- 2nd reading
- 'wrecking' amendments
- referendum
? Programme Motion (? Watch ex-Cons independents), which is the crucial issue on speed
- 2nd reading
- 'wrecking' amendments
- referendum
? Programme Motion (? Watch ex-Cons independents), which is the crucial issue on speed
A successful 'wrecking' amendment splits Govt frontbench/Govt backbench/esp ERG from necessary support (Labour, ex-Cons).
Political dynamics suggest the govt may need to disappoint ERG if necessary/unavoidable (trying to minimise the pain on their own side re how often they do)
Political dynamics suggest the govt may need to disappoint ERG if necessary/unavoidable (trying to minimise the pain on their own side re how often they do)
Constructive amendments should proceed - if govt accepts ex-Cons & Lab dealers are trying to pass Brexit.
Important opportunities
* No EU national with legal status pre-Brexit should lose eligibility/legal status in Dec 2020.
* Parl decision/process on extensions/vs No Deal 2020
Important opportunities
* No EU national with legal status pre-Brexit should lose eligibility/legal status in Dec 2020.
* Parl decision/process on extensions/vs No Deal 2020
Govt, ERG and Labour Dealers may want to move at maximum speed, to not prolong their uncomfortable alliances, so may protect the WAB from amendments (except cross-referendum and cross-party ones).
The ex-Cons have the hinge votes on scrutiny/process
The ex-Cons have the hinge votes on scrutiny/process
Lords trickier. Primarily process/ timetable challenge.
Nothing Lords does will stick if, back in Commons, only appeals to "Opponents".
Where Lords pursue things that a Support segment wants (eg Lab dealers, ex-Cons), it can stick.
Eg Transition, EU nationals rights, scrutiny
Nothing Lords does will stick if, back in Commons, only appeals to "Opponents".
Where Lords pursue things that a Support segment wants (eg Lab dealers, ex-Cons), it can stick.
Eg Transition, EU nationals rights, scrutiny
Those seem to me the broad brush-strokes of the parliamentary politics/alliances of a Withdrawal Bill, but welcome thoughts on both the overall contours, and the specific flashpoints around which those alliances coalesce.
The Programme Motion may be a key indicator.
The Programme Motion may be a key indicator.
The most obvious area of trouble for the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is Speed versus Scrutiny
where the independent ex-Conservatives are most likely to make common cause with the opposition (on Scrutiny, process), while sincerely pursuing ratification of the deal, with Scrutiny.
where the independent ex-Conservatives are most likely to make common cause with the opposition (on Scrutiny, process), while sincerely pursuing ratification of the deal, with Scrutiny.
Biggest risk to govt's ability to pass Withdrawal legislation is not its majority during ratification of a withdrawal bill, but ability to survive if the DUP go nuclear on a confidence motion. Hard for Lab pro-dealers to protect gvt on Conf. Numbers
These kind of takes (that Withdrawal Bill bound to be impossible quagmire) seem overstated. Could be salami-sliced *if* supporters of a Deal want to do that. But can't be salami-sliced by Remain Alliance + DUP without pro-deal allies. So a couple of surgical strikes more likely 
One obvious move to help ratification is to offer whip back to about 16+ of ex-Cons (if want it) who are pro-deal. (3 are anti-deal). Alternative is to negotiate an amendment to amendment coalition with them. This gvt needs their votes to win any votes - inc Deal & Confidence
"Wrecking amendment"
= An amendment whose purpose is to make the bill unviable, such as by introducing content that is incompatible with the negotiated EU-UK deal.
= An amendment whose purpose is to make the bill unviable, such as by introducing content that is incompatible with the negotiated EU-UK deal.
NB: if there is pro-deal majority on MV4, no "wrecking amendment" can carry unless it has some support from pro-deal MPs.
The opposition + DUP can not pass any wrecking amendments, without splitting up a pro-deal majority (eg pro-deal Labour or ex-Cons independents break ranks)
The opposition + DUP can not pass any wrecking amendments, without splitting up a pro-deal majority (eg pro-deal Labour or ex-Cons independents break ranks)
I think pro-deal Labour MPs will want this done asap, to escape uncomfortable alliance with PM.
The trouble will arise when something that Rudd, Hammond & Letwin see as a *constructive amendment* (compatible with deal) looks like a *wrecking amendment* to Mr Baker & ERG.
The trouble will arise when something that Rudd, Hammond & Letwin see as a *constructive amendment* (compatible with deal) looks like a *wrecking amendment* to Mr Baker & ERG.
Labour saying: you might have a majority for the deal, but can you really get it through?
* Shows majority for a deal is now Westminster orthodoxy, big shift in 48 hours
* Amendments much harder than this implies - but one big amendment might derail it.
* Shows majority for a deal is now Westminster orthodoxy, big shift in 48 hours
* Amendments much harder than this implies - but one big amendment might derail it.
- Ind & Labour MPs who vote for the Bill on second reading mostly likely to vote for it on third reading if unamended, with a couple of exceptions. (If not, 3rd reading majority decides)
-Countervailing Q: which amendments lose ERG support on 3rd reading?
-Countervailing Q: which amendments lose ERG support on 3rd reading?
