So how important was that Government defeat on the EU Withdrawal bill?

Now we know that the single market isn't that important (post of  20 December), how important was the government's defeat in the Commons last week? This was, of course, amendment 9 to the EU Withdrawal Bill and it means there has to be a vote in Parliament on the terms negotiated with the EU. The answer is equally unimportant.

I found the initial press view here, that the vote meant a soft Brexit was more likely, surprising. That view changed over the next few days but in the meantime Eurointelligence pondered why a vote that made it dramatically easier for MPs to veto the Article 50 withdrawal agreement reached with the EU was thought to be good news for a soft Brexit. The conclusion was that people who think this, including some of the MPs who voted for Dominic Grieve's amendment, "do not have a clue about the EU's decision making procedures....only focus on UK politics" and "have probably not even read Article 50". They reported a comment by Danuta Hubner, who heads the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee:

“Once it is finalised and it is signed by both parties, then any change to it means reopening negotiations, meaning we will not make it within the two years, meaning there is a hard Brexit.”

 They go on to say that, while the Tory mutineers might hope for something different:

"Like the Scottish separatists in 2015, and the Catalan separatists in 2017, they believe the EU will come to help them. That won't be so. There is no way the EU will reopen negotiations after an agreement is signed. The rebels may hope that the ensuing political chaos in the UK would unseat Theresa May, trigger elections, and get another leader into 10 Downing Street with an explicit mandate to hold a second referendum. We have heard suggestions that Jeremy Corbyn may base his entire campaign in a hypothetical election on the claim that he would get a better deal. It will take Jean-Clauder Juncker, Donald Tusk, and Hübner, only seconds to debunk such nonsense, should it ever come to this."

So, as I thought, all the Tory rebels have done is increase the chance of a Corbyn led government in the near future. If their actions were relevant to Brexit it was only to increase the likelihood of a hard Brexit - exactly what they say they don't want! Ironic really, as they have shown that, for some in the Tory party, Brexit (whether hard, soft or not at all) matters more than whether they are in government. As the Tory party has traditionally been thought of as the UK's purest political machine in terms of winning and keeping power over the last hundred years - with the exception of the Blair years - that is quite something. Whatever happens as Brexit unfolds the scars in the Tory party will run deep for a generation. It's 20 years since John Major's "bastards" and it could be another 20 before the bad blood between the Tory factions has run its course.

Meanwhile Labour has cast aside all principle to make mischief over Brexit, regardless of the impact on the country, as it tries to position itself to win power at any cost. But remember the cost is irrelevant to them as John McDonnell wants to smash the system anyway.

The new year sees talks moving on to the transition, which the EU has said will last till the end of 2020, not quite the full 2 years expected. And, maybe by Easter, trade talks which won't be easy as we want a bespoke, "Canada plus plus plus" deal and the EU only want to offer Norway or Canada dry. But at that point things might get interesting as the EU 27 definitely do not speak with one voice on trade. Then, when the clock is running down, the Irish problem will re-emerge. And apparently Brussels will insist on some sort of UK-Spain agreement over Gibraltar.

So this could end stuck between a hard place (Ireland) and a rock (Gibraltar).....

*The eurointelligence piece is at http://www.eurointelligence.com/public/briefings/2017-12-15.html?cHash=6c3b1505ff78fef255f1d6c0c177ffa7