The Daily Mail, on the other hand, continues its attacks on the judiciary for daring to suggest that Parliament needed to vote on this. Because we can’t let democracy get in the way of democracy, or something like that.
I suspect the challenge here will not be the House of Commons but rather the House of Lords, who do seem to take particular enjoyment in stymieing many of the Commons’ more ambitious endeavours. Sometimes I think they just do it for the jollies. Still, better to force the Commons to justify the move than to just wave it through.
Both Houses’ committee systems are in overdrive, pumping out reports about the impacts of Brexit. The Lords EU Committee did a batch before Christmas, and they’re not stopping. I think these reports will feed into the debates on Article 50, so when the vote comes, any objections won’t be on the principle of triggering, but through identifying a complete blank page in the Government’s plans.
I agree that it looks like it’s inevitable, now, but I’m at least partly reassured that Parliament will be overseeing and getting some evidence and facts in there. Perhaps we can avoid disaster.
An important point to note is that Parliament has already implicitly voted to endorse Brexit, on Dec 7 last year.
*"The Commons passed Labour’s motion calling for “the prime minister to commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked” by 448 to 75 votes – a majority of 373 – after it was amended by Downing Street to “call on the government to invoke article 50 by 31 March 2017”.
The vote is non-binding but was a highly symbolic moment as it marked the first time MPs had endorsed the government’s Brexit timetable "*
It seems like the opposition and the potential rebels think that they’re more likely to get an acceptable outcome by attempting to force a soft brexit rather than potentially losing a vote which would give the Government free reign. Not sure I agree with that approach, I’d much prefer us to remain in the EU, but I can at least understand it.
I’ve been thinking about this having said much the same last night and I’m now wondering if the dilemma is as clear cut. Labour may hold a lot of constituencies with a majority Leave vote, but that doesn’t mean that the voters who elected the Labour MP voted Leave. IIRC about 75% of Labour voters are reporting that they voted Remain in polls; also there was a large first-time or rare voter turnout in the referendum. Add that to the fact that Referendum votes weren’t counted by constituency and so we can’t be precisely sure which constituencies are Leave and which aren’t, and it’s a lot less clear how big Labour’s Leave problem is. Yes, a Remain MP in a Leave constituency will face opposition, but much of that opposition will come from Tory, UKIP and non- voters who wouldn’t have voted for them anyhow. The question is how many of their 2015 voters will change their vote because their MP voted against/abstained from/spoke out against Article 50. *Versus *how many pro-Remain Tories/tactically voting Lib Dems they might pick up from such a stance.
On balance this calculus is probably marginally against them but I suspect there are a lot of Labour MPs who might think they have a shot at defending their position and seat.
(None of which takes into account that in 2020, with a concrete deal in place, people’s opinions may be more in flux).
The problem with negotiating a soft Brexit approach is that if you won’t at least threaten to vote down A50 then you have limited leverage. There is scope to delay and use amendments but these are stronger when backed up by a genuine threat.
In other news, May has now said that her government **will **publish a white paper, which seems like a bit of a U-turn from yesterday when David Davis was given several opportunities to say so and ducked all of them. Whether it’s published before the Bill is laid before the House is another question.
I agree with that. I suspect there’s a long of debate behind closed doors about the best way to approach this, but it’s not going to be helped by a fractured opposition. If Labour had a competent leader and the SNP considered the interests of the UK things might be different, but then if Labour had properly campaigned for Remain things would be very different now.
I think it will be a huge risk for Labour MP’s to vote against Brexit. Most London based Labour MP’s will be fine, but in the Midlands and North I expect a huge backlash if it is perceived that their MP’s are not following the will of the people. I realise the word perception is all important and the phrase will of the people can be subjective. Assuming Labour Mp’s en masse vote against/abstain on Brexit, and the Bill dies or falters. I think we can expect to see pitchforks at the next GE, and UKIP as a cigarette paper from being Her Majesties official opposition. I can’t say how many seats Labour would lose, but am confident that at a rough guesstimate up to a third(of an already bare bones number) would be under serious threat of losing their seats.
Except several MPs represent constituencies that voted heavily to remain. For example, Catherine West, the shadow foreign minister, represents a constituency that voted 81% to remain. Should she ignore her constituents’ opinion?
There’s an interestinganalysis here (from 4 days ago) on Labour MPs who have stated a view on maintaining freedom of movement - a topic roughly analogous to views on voting Article 50, presumably - and how they are distributed among Leave and Remain constituencies.
By and large, those in Remain constituencies have come out in favour of FoM, and those in Leave against. But there are those swimming against the tide, as the graphic in that article shows:
Events have somewhat overtaken this analysis but it’s interesting that leadership contenders seem to see pro-Brexit stances as being the long-term bet.
Is there any reliable, current data on what the sentiment is in the various districts? Is it not possible that, having voted to leave, enough are now regretting that vote so that many PMs could safely vote against EXIT?