So, will Theresa May break the habit of a lifetime and do something bold today when she makes her latest Commons statement on Brexit? To avoid multiple Remainer minister resignations, will she for the first time admit she may allow Brexit to be delayed, even for just a short period? Of course on the rare occasions when she has done something bold (calling a snap election, proposing a radical ‘dementia tax’), things haven’t ended too well. That’s why several MPs fear she will once again indulge in May-style generalities about respecting the will of Parliament, rather than something more specific.
The big fear in No.10 is that up to 60 Tories, and maybe 15 ministers and aides, could vote for the Yvette Cooper-Oliver Letwin amendment tomorrow that would take the timing of Brexit out of May’s hands. The Standard was the first with the scoop yesterday that Downing Street had been “privately offering” to ministers to make time for a vote in a fortnight allowing for a two-month delay beyond March 29. This seemed to confirm what Tobias Ellwood appeared to let slip on Today yesterday: that the PM would have a form of words to prevent mass resignations from people like him. The Sun says May expects a ‘rocky’ meeting of the Cabinet as Brexiteers are told to swallow the prospect of a delay. The FT says on March 12, May will allow MPs a choice between no-deal on March 29 or a short extension to Article 50.
The Daily Mail has a defiant joint article from three ministers, Claire Perry, Richard Harrington, Margot James, warning they may have ‘no choice’ other than to join those opposing no-deal (imagine how more difficult life would be for May if Paul Dacre was still editor). On Today, James explicitly said she was ready to quit or be fired: “If it comes to that, yes.” David Lidington didn’t deny May was set to say something momentous about a possible delay. When asked if the aim was to avoid resignations of Remainers, he did say “my wish is the government remains as broadly based as possible” and he didn’t want to lose “good ministers”.
But even if Brexiteer Cabinet ministers roll over and accept this is a tactic to force colleagues into backing May’s deal, don’t forget the backbench European Research Group still has clout. In this morning’s Telegraph Iain Duncan Smith, Nicky Morgan and Owen Paterson warn the PM to stick to the Malthouse Compromise. Will the ERG be strung along by warm words from May, given everyone assumes Malthouse is dead thanks to Brussels opposition? Will Rees-Mogg and his allies really allow a delay, given no-deal is the legal default? Even ‘moderate’ Leavers like Julian Lewis (who has pointed out May has promised in Parliament more than 70 times that we will leaving on March 29) may explode if the PM abandons her pledge. I wonder if May’s way out is to adopt the Nikki da Costa solution of allowing a vote next month that states ‘This House instructs…the government’ [to delay or go for no-deal]’.
Some who know May think that the real reason for a short delay is a twin-track strategy - to buy extra time to both get her deal hammered out in Brussels and to prepare better for no-deal. And she could possibly keep the ERG onside if she makes clear that the delay can’t go beyond June, at which point she would back no-deal. That in itself would trigger fresh Remainer anger and resignations. But if her own deal fails, she has to pick a side. She’ll have to decide who she fears most: the Remainers or the Leavers in her party? And she can’t kick that can down the road any longer than June. Cabinet is meeting this morning and May’s statement is at 12.30pm.
Of course what may help May hugely in focusing the minds of her Brexiteers is the threat of no Brexit at all, and Jeremy Corbyn’s shift towards a second referendum was certainly a huge moment last night. The policy announcement was buried in the final sentence of a Labour press release put out just before the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting. The killer line from Corbyn was this: “we are committed to putting forward or supporting an amendment in favour of a public vote to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit being forced on the country”.
The shift was confirmed after a very long meeting of Corbyn’s shadow Brexit sub-committee yesterday afternoon. Both Keir Starmer and John McDonnell played key roles, though Corbyn was the one who led the process. So, was it the threat of fresh defections to The Independent Group that pushed Corbyn over the line? Well, not at all, I’m told. Starmer had long planned for this week to be the moment when the party would enunciate its next steps, and that those steps had to include backing a Commons vote for a referendum. He telegraphed the new direction in his Fabian speech, followed up by a Sunday Times piece, all before TIG burst into the open.
Senior party sources confirmed the ‘evolution’ of the policy was down to the logic of its conference composite last September, rather than a panic about defections. “We are in a stage in the crisis where logically speaking we are getting to a place where we have to look practically at all options to prevent a no-deal outcome and to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit,” the source said. Still, it looks like some Corbyn aides have indeed lost their battle to avoid whipping for a second referendum, and Starmer pointedly said on Today that ‘elected politicians’, not advisers, were in charge of the policy. The Shadow Brexit Secretary had a new defence of the 2017 manifesto, pointing out it opposed May’s red lines and a no-deal. What’s new is the leadership now believes opposing a ‘damaging Tory Brexit’ and no-deal are so important that a new referendum is the only way out. And it will take “all necessary steps” to avoid both.
So, just what will be on the ballot paper? Well, Remain is definitely on there. But so too will be ‘a credible leave deal’. Last night, Labour seemed to get into a muddle about whether the party would back May’s deal on the condition of it then being subjected to a referendum (as originally set out in the Peter Kyle-Phil Wilson amendment). Emily Thornberry told Channel 4: “We would have a referendum on whatever deal it is that may or may not pass through Parliament.” Yet a Labour source told us hacks around the same time: “We will not be voting for anything which supports May’s damaging Brexit deal…It [Kyle-Wilson] included support for the government’s deal and we wouldn’t countenance that. They are looking to amend it so we will see what they come up with.”
Starmer, ever one to try to square a circle, suggested today that Thornberry and Labour sources are both right. Labour won’t ever ‘back’ May’s deal in the Commons, but it will say that if Parliament somehow passes that deal, the public should be given a say on that deal. He called it an extra ‘lock’ for the public. It seems like a double lock to me: if May’s deal fails, Labour backs a referendum as a way out of the impasse; if her deal gets Commons backing, the public should still have a say.
Still, last night’s packed PLP was as charged as ever (one MP left early because he didn’t want to hear more of ‘that c*nt’ Chris Williamson) and there were several Labour Leave MPs who warned Corbyn he would regret any second referendum. One big question is whether they have the numbers to block a People’s Vote. Starmer pointed out the party whip was ‘pretty much solid’ when May was defeated by 230 votes in January. And it’s true that some MPs who are very uneasy about a referendum (like Lucy Powell and Yvette Cooper), could back one as a last resort. And that’s why the other big question matters: sequencing. A People’s Vote may only get the necessary ministerial and Labour backing if it is the last option voted on (after a Common Market 2.0, after May’s deal). A canny No.10 would insist on putting it to the vote first.
If May has shifted towards delaying Brexit, and Corbyn has shifted to backing a Commons vote on a second referendum, many will ask: what the hell is the point of The Independent Group (TIG) of MPs? Didn’t they jump too quickly? Are they now left as rebels without a cause? Well, Sarah Wollaston tweeted late last night that: “Good news that on both sides of the Commons, the setting up of #TIG has triggered a response as parties try to prevent more MPs joining us.” She added the key proviso that there were huge uncertainties in both Labour’s and May’s positions and that ‘nailing jelly to the wall would be easier’.
The TIGgers (as they’ve become known) were out for a cheeky Nando’s last night and seemed still to be a happy bunch, free of PLP meetings or 1922 committee gatherings. In a characteristically maverick move they even announced after their first formal meeting yesterday that Gavin Shuker would be their ‘convenor’, and Shuker swiftly ruled out ever being ‘leader’ of whatever party comes next.
Their tails were definitely up last night on the release of a new Times/YouGov poll putting the Tories on 36%, Labour on a deathly 23%, TIG on 18% and the Lib Dems on 6%. The combined TIG/LD vote is 24% - higher than Labour. If the Lib Dems and TIG, as seems likely, have an electoral non-aggression pact, that could go even higher. Ex-No10 Labour man Theo Bertram tweeted what felt like an obituary, ’The Week That Labour Lost’, suggesting Labour was now haemorrhaging votes and ‘something has cracked’. He pointed out even in polls not including TIG, Labour is now between 7 and 11 points behind the Tories.
Watch this awesome slo-mo as Barry Gardiner touches Chuka Umunna on the arm (he did it several times) on Newsnight. Umunna was clearly unimpressed.
Some of the more cynical members of the PLP believe that Corbyn majored on Brexit last night to avoid a fresh confrontation over anti-semitism. And on a dizzying day in politics yesterday, it was easy to overlook Tom Watson’s letter to Labour MPs to copy him into any complaints about anti-semitism that they send party general secretary Jennie Formby, so he can monitor and log their progress. He will share that information with Corbyn, the Shadow Cabinet and National Executive Committee.
The issue did come up at PLP last night, with members like Louise Ellman raising it. Corbyn himself was the first to mention it, saying Luciana Berger had suffered grievously from abuse and confirming Lord Falconer had offered to improve processes in handling cases. He also said he had been in contact with the Jewish Labour Movement to stress it was an integral part of the party. I’m told this contact amounted to an email sent two minutes after PLP started, and the JLM were not amused.
Lest we forget, Westminster is still trying to deal with sexual harassment and bullying claims. Today, the Fawcett Society has a worrying report that staff. are “woefully unprotected” thanks to legal loopholes which effectively leave parliament “above the law”. Meanwhile, the Sun reveals that Sir Philip Green and his former colleague Karren Brady have been summoned to attend a hearing next month by the Women and Equalities Select Committee into the use of non-disclosure agreements in alleged cases of harassment.
If you’re reading this on the web, sign-up HERE to get the WaughZone delivered to your inbox.
Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Paul Waugh(paul.waugh@huffingtonpost.com), Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com), Rachel Wearmouth (rachel.wearmouth@huffpost.com) and Jasmin Gray (jasmin.gray@huffpost.com) and Arj Singh (arj.singh@huffpost.com)