Thread by @jonworth

OK. Deep breath. And a mea culpa.

My earlier post about Labour abstaining on a vote on a Brexit Deal was based on there not being a "Meaningful Vote" but just a motion - because MPs had voted in June to not give themselves a "Meaningful Vote".

But this being Brexit, and UK Parliamentary procedure being complicated and - to outsiders unclear - I was wrong to think it was so clear cut, and brilliant legal and Parliament nerds @GeorgePeretzQC @Brigid_Fowler & @nvonwestenholz helped get to the bottom of it.

If *no* primary legislation were needed in the UK, then the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act applies, giving the Commons a potential delaying power... which as time is so tight is significant.

But more important still: *if* primary legislation *is* required, the Commons and Lords have to approve that Bill - and that makes a vote on it de facto a "Meaningful Vote".

So I then checked the numbers...

If Labour were to vote AGAINST in the latter case, you would need only 40-ish Tory rebels to end up with No Deal. If Labour abstains, you need about 140 - or 38% of the parliamentary party (a rebellion of Theresa May era proportions).

And there are probably about 50 ERG rebels on the Tory benches...

So *even if* primary legislation is needed, Labour can abstain safely without there being danger of No Deal.

It is all explained in the revised version of my earlier blog post...

jonworth.eu/why-if-there-i…

/ends