Cometh the hour, cometh the man, with a plan? Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the Tory backbench 1922 committee, is no one’s patsy. He shunned ministerial office (having quit the frontbench to fight for grammar schools), boasts impeccable Brexiteer credentials and has a healthy scepticism about the way No.10 works. Brady’s priorities are to deliver Brexit on time, avoid a damaging split in the Tory party and keep Jeremy Corbyn out of office. Those priorities also happen to be Theresa May’s, but it may be Brady who can do a better job in achieving them. He’s the man who confirmed she’d won her Tory confidence vote last month, and he may be the one to save her from the abyss again.
His Brexit amendment (technically Andrew Murrison’s, as Brady is the second signatory) “requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border”. The wording is both precise and vague, and it could pull off the trick of winning the DUP and many Eurosceptic Tory MPs. Even hardline Remainer Tories may find it difficult to oppose.
The main sticking point is the EU’s refusal to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement or to time limit or ditch the backstop (as made plain by Irish deputy PM Simon Coveney yesterday). But even here, Brady has been shrewd enough to be flexible. In perhaps his most important remarks, he told Radio 4’s Westminster Hour that: “You wouldn’t have to open up the withdrawal agreement. You could do it through a legally binding codicil to the withdrawal agreement.” The ‘codicil’ idea was floated in a draft Murrison amendment earlier this month but abandoned for some reason. Now, it may open the door to more talks with Brussels, at least.
There is a deal to be done, for sure. Remember the actual, agreed Political Declaration states a joint “determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing”. The big issue is whether the DUP or Tory hardliners will end up humiliated, especially if the wording of the new ‘codicil’ is essentially more of the linguistic gymnastics they’ve so far ridiculed. If the Attorney General says it’s legally binding, that could be crucial. If it’s legally bland, the DUP could abandon ship again.
And yet, and yet. Brady’s amendment may not even be selected by Speaker Bercow (we’ll find out about 12.45pm tomorrow). He previously refused to select amendments that were helpful to the government. Why? Well, the conventions are opaque, but you lessen your chances if an amendment is submitted late, lacks cross-party support and lacks signatures. The Brady amendment will need lots more names, probably the DUP’s and maybe a Labour Leaver name or two. Bercow is also likely to reject any late manuscript amendments from the government, should it try to adopt Brady’s plans itself. May could unilaterally try to resurrect talks with Brussels (Politico’s Tom McTague reveals three options being considered), but without clear support from Parliament such talks may be doomed. The clock, meanwhile, ticks away.
Yvette Cooper’s amendment (to delay Brexit, if no-deal looks likely) is far from a done deal. But there are increasing signs that it could squeak through a tight vote tomorrow. Labour won’t formally declare whether it’s whipping to support her plan until the amendments have been selected by the Speaker, yet it’s clear the party will indeed throw its weight behind it. As we reported last week, what has helped reassure the Labour frontbench is the clarification that the Cooper-Boles bill could mean a Brexit delay of three months rather than nine months. And Labour MPs in Leave seats, who could scupper the entire plan, are expected to abstain rather than vote against, the Times reports.
The other key, of course, is Tory votes. Despite No.10’s warnings about the ‘constitutional vandalism’ the amendment would inflict, moderate Conservatives think Cooper-Boles (as well as Grieve’s days of extra debate) creates the space to avoid no-deal. Nick Boles told the Today programme that March 29 was ‘an arbitrary’ date and that ‘a short extension’ of Article 50 would make all the difference.
Remember that Cooper-Boles is just a procedural device about timing, it is no substitute for actually getting a Brexit deal that can command a Commons majority. And although few say it out loud, many MPs hope it can clear the way for a permanent customs union deal (aka ‘soft Brexit’), if May’s backstop gambit fails. Cooper herself told Marr yesterday: “We’ve got to get a workable deal. For me that includes a customs union.” May has resisted any such idea, fearing it would split the Tory party. But as Henry Zeffman reports, if Cooper-Boles goes ahead, some moderate Tories who backed the PM’s deal are prepared to push for a ‘softer Brexit’ including a customs union. It’s conceivable such a deal could squeak through Parliament, and the EU would agree a deal to hammer out negotiations. The question is whether May would wear it.
Boles told Today that his plans have “a great deal of support among ministers”, and there is indeed chatter that some of them will abstain tomorrow on his and Cooper’s amendment. Abstaining may be difficult, as the only way No.10 would allow such defiance of a three-line whip is if a minister somehow found themselves on duty away from Parliament (as when Boris ended up in Afghanistan for the Heathrow vote). With internal discipline at a premium, there will be no ‘free vote’ for ministers or any other Tory MPs tomorrow.
Boles claimed today that his amendment was “the last chance for Parliament” to avoid a cliff-edge Brexit. The counter-argument from May’s allies is, as Philip Hammond said last Friday, that tomorrow’s vote is not a ‘High Noon’ moment. Hammond hinted that ministers and others would be allowed a real say during the second ‘meaningful vote’ on the Brexit deal itself next month. “Some of my colleagues, including some who are in government, will want to be able to express their view...Parliament will have an opportunity to express its clear view.” David Lidington wrote in the Observer yesterday that MPs would “have another meaningful vote as soon as possible, I expect in February”.“Parliament will have an opportunity to express its view then…As last time, the motion will be amendable.” He left hanging whether free votes on ‘indicative votes’ would then take place.
Hammond and Lidington are effectively trying to warn some of their more nervous Remainer colleagues in Cabinet to hold their nerve, to side-step Cooper-Boles and use the second meaningful vote as a chance to stop a no-deal. It may be working. The Telegraph’s Steve Swinford reports that in a conference call last night some Remainer ministers agreed not to rebel against the PM - as long as she agreed to bring her Brexit deal back to the Commons within a fortnight. They’ll be listening closely for any such guarantees. The PM won’t open the debate tomorrow (she made her statement last week), but perhaps could use Cabinet to make her point.
Fiddling while Rome burns, 2019-style. Watch Venezuela’s President Maduro look exactly like a mad dictator as he takes part in a salsa and drumming session.
Another day, another amendment that shows cross-party working can really pile pressure on a minority government. It’s the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill today in the Commons and Labour’s Harriet Harman has won the support of senior Tories Dominic Grieve, David Davis and Andrew Mitchell for an amendment that would prevent people from being held indefinitely in detention centres. Home Secretary Sajid Javid is to meet a delegation of MPs. Harman tells the Guardian she expects him to listen because he knows the “political arithmetic” of our hung Parliament.
Tory insiders have revealed that the annual Black and White fundraiser (it used to be called a ‘ball’, it’s now a mere ‘party’) is struggling to attract interest from donors and activists. Less than a fortnight to go, mimimum-priced £500 tickets are not shifting, PoliticsHome reports. ”Most donors now see the Prime Minister as toxic so prefer the private events, not the event that ends up on the front page of Mail Online,” one donor says. Intriguingly, leadership contenders are now inviting donors for private dinners instead. An activist adds: “The obscene ticket prices go directly into CCHQ’s coffers and then local associations have to beg for that money back during elections.”
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)