On a point of order, Mr Speaker, how many votes are we having..?
Iknow the last few days of Brexit have been a little chaotic. But it’s really all very straightforward when you think about it. Let me put it like this. Last night in the Commons, supporters of a second vote lost a vote on a second vote. The reason they lost so badly was that many supporters of a second vote didn’t vote for a second vote because they’d rather vote on a second vote later. In fact, those who supported a second vote who didn’t vote for a second vote were even supported by the official campaign for a second vote, which urged supporters of a second vote not to vote on a second vote… just yet.
Having lost the vote on a second vote however, supporters of a second vote now want a second vote on a second vote. And next time, they intend to vote for it. Meanwhile, Theresa May – who on Tuesday lost a second vote, thus making a second vote more likely – is hoping to prevent a second vote by winning a third vote. You see. It all makes perfect sense. Originally, MPS were just meant to be debating whether to delay Brexit. The debate on a delay, however, was itself delayed, while Tory Brexiteers rounded on John Bercow, the Speaker.
One of the Speaker’s jobs is to decide which of the day’s amendments are to be voted on. On this occasion, controversially, he accepted an amendment that proposed a second referendum – but rejected an amendment that opposed a second referendum. Consternation reigned.
Mark Francois (Con, Rayleigh & Wickford) demanded an explanation. Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con, Harwich & North Essex) implied that the Speaker was biased. Jacob Rees-mogg (Con, NE Somerset) jabbed a stern finger at his copy of the Commons rule book.
Mr Bercow, however, didn’t give an inch. “Members must take the rough with the smooth,” he purred. “I have given a ruling on the matter which I believe to be entirely reasonable…”
As always when Tory backbenchers are raging at him, he seemed to be thoroughly enjoying himself: bobbing and beaming, bouncing and preening. The vain revel in compliments but the true egotist revels in criticism.
He didn’t actually explain why he rejected the Brexiteers’ amendment – although in his defence he did point out that if Brexiteers didn’t want a second referendum they didn’t strictly need to vote for an amendment opposing it, because they could vote against the amendment proposing it.
Brexiteers, however, still weren’t happy. They went on tabling points of order on the subject for 20 minutes. For a moment, it looked as though this might be a cunning new strategy to secure a no-deal Brexit: continuously table points of order all the way to 11pm on March 29 thus preventing anyone from voting for anything else.
Eventually, however, the Commons moved on to the debate proper. After two long, gruelling nights in a row arguing about Brexit, tempers were fraying. Ex-tory Anna Soubry, who wants a second referendum, attacked Labour’s Keir Starmer, who also wants a second referendum, but wasn’t willing to vote for it yet. “Shame on you!” she barked. “SHAME ON YOU!” (Around two and a half hours later she told Labour she was sorry “if I caused offence”. Sir Keir was no longer in the chamber.)
Tory Brexiteer Sir Christopher Chope, meanwhile, threatened to help bring down his own Government if Jeremy Corbyn tabled a vote of no confidence. (That’s the spirit, Sir Christopher. Put Corbyn in No 10. At last, a proper Brexiteer in charge.)
Shortly afterwards, an even more indignant outburst came from Sir John Hayes, a fellow Tory Brexiteer. “Glyndebourne, the Henley Regatta
Yes, that’s right: a Tory MP, attacking people who go to Glyndebourne and Henley
and the People’s Vote march,” he snorted. “It’s all part of ‘the season’ for a certain kind of people.”
Yes, that’s right: a Tory MP, attacking people who go to Glyndebourne and Henley. Tomorrow: Zac Goldsmith pledges to turn Eton into a comp, and Jacob Rees-mogg carpet bombs the Cotswolds.
The voting began at 5pm. First, defeat for the plan to hold a second referendum (85 votes in favour, 334 against). Second, and very narrowly, defeat for a plan to let MPS take charge of the Brexit process (312 in favour, 314 against). Third, defeat for a plan by Labour to “find a majority for a different approach” (302 in favour, 318 against).
In summary, then: this week MPS have voted against Theresa May’s Brexit, against a no-deal Brexit, against a second referendum, and against “finding a different approach”. Which means they’ve rejected every conceivable outcome so far. Frankly, it’s hard to see what MPS do want, other than the whole nightmare to magically go away. Right at the end, though, MPS did vote to request a delay to Brexit. If Mrs May’s deal passes at the third time of asking next week, she’ll request a short delay. And if her deal is rejected, she’ll request a long one.
Either way, then, Brexit is going to be put off. Or is it?
Throughout Westminster, there seems to be an assumption that the EU will automatically consent to a delay if MPS reject the deal.
Just imagine, though, that it doesn’t. Imagine that it says no. With mere days left until the March 29 deadline, MPS would face an abrupt choice: prepare for a no-deal Brexit; order Mrs May to cancel Brexit altogether; or hastily pass, at the fourth time of asking, the deal that Mrs May – and, of course, the EU itself – drew up.
Don’t rule out that last possibility. MPS may not like the deal. They may even hate it. It may make them weep, howl and tear at their hair.
But there’s still a chance that, if forced, enough of them will vote for it. To most of them, after all, a bad deal is better than no deal.