The Government is widely expected to lose today’s vote in the Commons on its Brexit deal—a vote that has been already delayed since before Christmas. If the Prime Minister’s plan is voted down, then the Government is obliged to set out its Plan B to Parliament before Monday.
What is less clear is what that plan will involve—or how MPs will react to it. It is likely that Parliament will continue to try and take control of the Brexit process using a range of different parliamentary procedures.
The first question is whether the Government even survives until Monday. Labour may table a motion of no confidence in the Government following a Meaningful Vote defeat. Unlike the motion of censure they tabled before Christmas, time would be found—and quickly—for the Commons to debate a no-confidence motion.
If the Government were to lose this vote, then a 14-day clock would start ticking. Within those 14 days, if neither the Government nor any alternative government could show it command the confidence of the House, by winning a vote, then an early election would be called. Quite what this could mean for the future course of Brexit is difficult to say—and it is likely that Article 50 would have to be extended.
If a no confidence vote doesn’t emerge, MPs might try and take control themselves. We have seen a lot of talk in recent days about ways MPs across the parties could take greater control of parliamentary time in order to push the Government into a different approach.
Usually, most time in the Commons—as well as the scheduling of business—is controlled by the government. This means that most legislation passed originates from the Government, not the backbenches. If MPs were to table an amendment to the Government’s Plan B motion temporarily changing Parliament’s rules—the Standing Orders—they might prevent government legislation having precedence, then could table their own bills knowing time would be available to debate them.
One of these plans, mooted by a cross-party group of MPs led by Nick Boles MP, is for backbenchers to then table a bill requiring the Government to come up with an alternative plan. And if that fails, it would have the Commons Liaison Committee come up with a plan (though this was apparently news to the Chair and members of the Liaison Committee). In the event that neither Parliament nor Government could find an alternative with the support of MPs, Boles’ plan would see the Government request an extension of Article 50.
While this plan has been criticised—these kinds of changes to Standing Orders, and for this purpose, would be unprecedented—it shows just how far Parliament has come in recent weeks. A week ago, it would have been immediately dismissed as unworkable—but after the Speaker’s unexpected decision to allow an amendment to a supposedly unamendable motion last week, Parliament’s usual procedures can’t be assumed to apply.
If Boles’ attempt to gain control of Parliamentary time comes to nothing, MPs may revert to the sorts of tactics that we just before and just after Christmas: amending other bills the Government has before Parliament to try and make leaving the EU without a deal more difficult for the Government.
The effect of Yvette Cooper’s amendment to the Finance Bill last week was relatively minor in practical terms, limiting some specific powers the Treasury would have over tax law in the event of no deal. But its political effect was greater: it showed that there is a majority in the House of Commons for no deal, and when the Government’s other legislation—for example, the Trade Bill—returns to Parliament in the coming weeks, those MPs who want to prevent no deal may feel emboldened to follow Cooper’s example.
What all of these options share is a desire to try and give Parliament a greater say in how, and in what way, the Brexit process unfolds. This represents a broader struggle for control between the executive and the legislature that has been unfolding over the past two years.
The question for Parliament, though, is what it does with more control. While the various procedural levers they have might give MPs a greater say in the Brexit process, it is not yet clear what Parliament wants.
They may not want to leave with no deal, and they may not want the Prime Minister’s deal—but what is their alternative? As things stand, there are fewer than 75 days remaining before Brexit, when Britain will leave the EU whether there is a deal or not. If Parliament wants to prevent no deal, it needs to come up with its own plan. The procedures they may use offer some potential routes for them to do this—but they will still ultimately have to find a majority for a different option.
Either way, parliamentary procedure will continue to play a big role in the coming days and weeks. While debates over the amendability of business motions, and the meaning of the word “forthwith,” may appear relatively trivial against the backdrop of a ticking clock and a parliamentary impasse, these procedural arguments will be vital in determining how Brexit unfolds.
