The most critical amendment in the Commons today is one that has got comparatively little attention: Dominic Grieve’s killer “take back control” amendment. All MPs who wish to stop “no deal” should rally behind it.
Labour must whip its MPs to support this amendment. Jeremy Corbyn must also whip for other key amendments in particular Yvette Cooper’s which asks for extra time. If he doesn’t and we end up crashing out of the EU, he will share the blame. The party hasn’t yet decided what to do, according to the Guardian.
Grieve’s amendment takes control of the parliamentary timetable from the government for six days between now and the end of March and gives it to MPs. It doesn’t spell out what MPs should use those days for. But it gives them a powerful tool to resolve the crisis.
If the amendment passes, MPs could explore thoroughly alternative forms of Brexit. They could examine “no deal” and rule it out; they could look into Labour’s Brexit plans and various compromise solutions being bandied around. Most likely they will discover that the only good forms of Brexit are fantasies; and the only viable ones are bad.
Demand a vote on the Brexit deal
Click here to find out moreIf and when all forms of Brexit have been tried and found wanting, the case for a People’s Vote will be compelling. There should then be a Parliamentary majority in favour of one, as there will be no alternative left under Labour’s Brexit policy – and Corbyn should be prepared to back it.
At that point, of course, Brexit will have to be delayed. And that’s where Cooper’s amendment, clearing time for emergency legislation to force the government to ask the EU for an extension to the Article 50 deadline, will have its most powerful impact. The EU will happily give us extra time for a new referendum but will be reluctant to do so if we don’t have a clue what to do.
Brexiter sideshow
Although the “take back control” amendments are the critical ones today, there are a series of important sideshows in the Brexiter camp.
The government has decided to whip in favour of Graham Brady’s amendment requiring it to seek “alternative arrangements” to the notorious “backstop” which would keep the UK in a bare bones customs union without any say over EU trade policy. The move has backfired because Jacob Rees-Mogg’s ERG group of hard Brexiters has rejected it as too vague – and it looks like Brady’s amendment won’t get a majority.
A manoeuvre that was designed to give Theresa May a strong hand when she tries to reopen negotiations with the EU will achieve the opposite. The other countries have already made clear they won’t reopen the Withdrawal Agreement which contains the backstop. Why would they even bother to make cosmetic changes if they know Parliament still won’t agree?
Meanwhile, Rees-Mogg has teamed up with soft Brexiter Nicky Morgan to devise another “cake-and-eat-it” version of Brexit. The duo want the EU to dilute the backstop. Fat chance of that. If the EU doesn’t agree, their fallback plan is to abandon the backstop completely and ask for a three-year “transition” after Brexit to cushion the blow. This is another fantasy proposal.
Finally, the prime minister has caved into pressure from ministers, including Amber Rudd, who want to stop “no deal”. In order to prevent them rebelling, she has promised to bring back to the Commons an “amendable” motion in two weeks. That will give MPs another opportunity to take back control on February 13 if the Grieve and Cooper amendments don’t pass.
This means the ministers are unlikely to resign today – and can fight their corner within government. But other MPs, including Labour’s leadership, have no excuse. They must take a stand today and vote for the key amendments.
“The other countries have already made clear they won’t reopen the Withdrawal Agreement which contains the backstop.”
As a general point it is worth noting that MPs and others have a tendency to say
“Don’t worry, negotiations in the EU always go to the wire. At the last minute, you’ll see, they will make compromises to to modify the agreement to one that our parliament can accept. That is the way things are in Brussels.”
I fear this is a rash and reckless frame of mind. Is it not the case that the negotiations they are thinking of, that did indeed ‘go to the wire’, were within the EU between member states and the Commission? There is no precedent for negotiations with a member state which has given notice to leave.
The working assumption has to be that the negotiations have finished and the Withdrawal Agreement is the Withdrawal Agreement.
Cooper’s amendment is to delay departure by nine months. Forget it. EU27 have already said “No postponement unless there is a major political development”. If and when Parliament agrees a second referendum, EU27 will extend departure. But before then, that seems very unlikely.
Brady’s amendment is to replace the backstop with something else (unspecified). Like what? Unicorns?
As ever the debate in Parliament is about “what we want” without any thought to “what will they agree to”.
Yes the Grieve amendment is important. Will Bercow let it through?