Leading Indicators? The votes in the House of Commons last night tells us more than it seems

Yesterday was a very strange day at Westminster. It started with the probability that there would be a unique experiment with indicative votes and that, in the absence of a free vote, the largest number of ministerial resignations on a single day in recent British history would occur (the formation of the National Government in 1931 technically triggered a record that would not have been beaten) and that the sitting Prime Minister would be obliged to pre-announce her resignation.
As matters were to transpire, the indicative votes did indeed occur but did not lead to any single option carrying an outright majority in the House of Commons. The prospect of mass resignations did not materialise due to a curious wheeze by which all Conservative MPs who do not attend Cabinet were allowed a free vote (sort of), but those who do turn up to Cabinet were in effect whipped to abstain. Added to this was the declaration by Theresa May that if her deal passed then she would stand down (implicitly) by early summer, which moved some of her opponents into line but did not (as of yet) shift the DUP. At the moment, therefore, her move looks like a human sacrifice of little value. All a bit of an anti-climax.
As ever in this seemingly eternal saga there is more than meets the eye. The drama of the next 36 hours will be whether, even at this very late hour, the Government can find the support needed both to force a Meaningful Vote 3 to take place and to win it. The danger for them is that some MPs may be willing to vote to hold a vote but only because they want the thrill of voting against it yet again. That is a moving story. Last night’s votes in Parliament deserve closer inspection in this BVCA Insight.
There are five observations and conclusions about not merely the eight votes but the 10 key votes (including the Business Motion and the Statutory Instrument on the date of withdrawal) to be made.
There was an awful lot of tactical voting and tactical non-voting on display across the eight votes
The Business of the House vote authorising the indicative vote passed by 331 votes to 287 votes, or put differently 618 MPs participating. A few of those who did not vote might have been paired or deliberately abstained. That means around 625 MPs or so could have taken part in the eight votes. The Cabinet attendees, though, agreed to absent themselves from proceedings. That means that about 595 MPs could have filled in ballot papers.
Yet in none of the eight votes was that number reached. The number of active votes (yes or no) ranged from a low of 442 for Amendment H (stay in the EEA via EFTA but no customs union) to a high of 563 for Amendment M (the de facto second referendum position). Some of the reason for this variation was due to a small number of pro-Brexit Conservatives who either boycotted the whole exercise or participated in it very selectively (backing No Deal amendments).
Most of it came from the most dedicated adherents of a second referendum, who either abstained from or sometimes voted against softer Brexit proposals which they quite like if Brexit were to be totally unavoidable, but which they will not endorse while there is any chance of a second referendum reversing the first one and keeping the UK in the EU. Hence Amendment D (Common Market 2.0/Norway Plus) went down to a heavy defeat (188 for it, 283 against it) because the pro-referendum camp did not want to back a soft Brexit that would dilute the case for another public vote on EU membership. Yet despite its loss, it actually had a lot of cross-party support for it.
There are absolutely clear majorities against any form of No Deal Brexit
There were two different forms of No Deal on offer last night. The first was Amendment B moved by John Baron MP which favoured a No Deal now. That was sunk by a huge 400-160 margin with 560 MPs casting a vote in that section of the ballot. The second was Amendment O, advanced by Marcus Fysh MP, which envisaged a more managed No Deal after a delay in leaving the EU which was hit for six by an even wider 422-139 score, with a near identical total of 561 MPs participating (thus Fysh had his chips as it were. Sorry). The Statutory Instrument cancelling 29 March as the departure date sailed through the House of Commons by 441 to 105. There is absolutely clearly no way that this House of Commons will pro-actively endorse a No Deal. It can only happen if the EU imposes it.
There is no ‘hidden majority’ for a second referendum in the House of Commons
Supporters of the second referendum made a lot of noise late last night about the fact that their preference (Amendment M) secured more positive votes (268) than any other option even though there were 295 votes cast against it (a majority of 27 votes). Yet this outcome is a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because they had either abstained or voted against two other amendments D (Norway Plus) and J (Customs Union), even though they would favour them if they knew Brexit was unstoppable, of course their own Amendment M won the most positive votes.
The blunt reality is that the 268 votes for Amendment M is very close to the ceiling of support for a second referendum in the House of Commons. Only eight Conservative MPs backed it while a much larger section of 27 Labour MPs voted against and a further 10 Labour MPs who hold shadow posts were afforded permission to abstain, even though the official Labour line was to support it. If you throw in how those who attend Cabinet and those on the pro-Brexit side who did not take part in this aspect of the ballot, then it would struggle to exceed 275 votes and would fall short of a majority by at least 60 votes. Absent an astonishing event, this Parliament will not vote for another ballot.
There is, by contrast, probably a ‘hidden majority’ for a continued Customs Union with the EU
The numbers on Amendment J (Customs Union) are really interesting (honest). It fell short by a mere eight votes on a 264 to 272 count which means only 534 MPs positively voted at all (29 fewer than on the second referendum amendment). It was embraced by 33 Conservative MPs (a potentially pivotal faction) and was only opposed by 12 Labour MPs. It failed to pass because 32 SNP MPs, four Plaid Cymru MPs, 10 Liberal Democrat MPs and a smattering of hardcore pro-referendum Labour MPs (who privately like the idea of the continued Customs Union with the EU if Britain has to exit) all chose to abstain on the amendment, while 10 The Independent Group MPs, who again sympathise with the idea in the event of a departure from the EU, voted against it because they did not want a plausible soft Brexit option to stay on the table and diminish the chances of a second referendum.
If the House resumes its search for an alternative to the Withdrawal Amendment on Monday and the notion of a second referendum is finally, totally, discounted then there are enough ‘hidden votes’ in these numbers, plus a few more who sit around the Cabinet table who very privately would accept a Customs Union as the price of an orderly Brexit (Clark, Rudd, Gauke, Mundell, probably Hammond), for Amendment J to have a real chance of emerging as the parliamentary Plan B. That possibility should unnerve at least a few more of those pro-Brexit Conservative MPs who have yet to swap to backing Mrs May.
Any other implications?
Yes, and it is a big one. These numbers indicate that if not a snap then an earlier general election is becoming increasingly likely. It cannot be a snap one because the Conservative Party has to have a leadership election and settle on an ‘end state’ policy on Brexit before any election can occur and Labour needs to make a final decision between a soft Brexit outcome and a second referendum. But whether MV3 somehow squeaks through tomorrow or not, a 2019 election is starting to loom large. Among other factors, it would be the alibi for the EU to allow a longer extension of UK membership. Whether the outcome of it will in itself break the Brexit deadlock is a question for many other days.
Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA