She’s only gone and bloody done it again hasn’t she! Theresa May’s government has once again gone to a stonking defeat on a Brexit withdrawal agreement bill, losing 391-242, and throwing the process into a higher degree of chaos than hitherto, insofar as that can be imagined.
The bill that May presented to the parliament was yet another variant of the bill she has been trying to sell for six months now: withdrawal from the EU on March 29, with a customs union taking over, until a UK-EU trade agreement is negotiated.
Relevant UK law would be conformed to EU law, and a special Irish “backstop” agreement, which preserved a de-facto free trade process with Northern Ireland, in order to prevent the re-establishment of a hard border between the Irish republic and Northern Ireland.
The deal had two sticking points for pro-Brexiteers: one, that the UK-EU conformation of laws would be indefinite, thus defeating the whole point of Brexit; and two, that the backstop could eventually apply to Northern Ireland alone, thus putting an EU border down the middle of the UK.
After the delay last year and then massive defeat — the greatest ever on a non-trivial matter by a government in the Commons — May had a last-minute negotiation in Strasbourg, which gained (among other things) a commitment that the UK could try and “disapply” the backstop if an EU-UK trade deal broke down.
This was celebrated by the Tory press as some sort of triumph — May alternates between the British lion and Eeyore on their front pages — until the attorney-general delivered the final blow: the “disapplication” clause would not be legally binding. The law override and the backstop could be in place indefinitely.
That news broke just before the vote, and it broke May. The new deal persuaded 39 pro-Brexit Tories back to the government’s side, but it wasn’t enough. All but three of Labour’s 260 members voted it down, the pro-Remain, pro-second referendum Lib-Dems, Scottish Nats and Plaid Cymru voted against. And so too did the fervently pro-Brexit DUP.
The result couldn’t have been worse than the earlier vote, but it was still the fourth-worst defeat by a government in the Commons, and the second and third were non-core matters that the very minority Labour government faced in 1924.
Following her defeat, May, her voice cracking and failing, gave the House a vote on a “no-deal” departure tomorrow with Tories released from the whip. That will presumably be won, with Labour backing. The question is whether the EU will then grant them that delay.
The EU have already made it clear that they won’t grant it past May 22. May 23 is the date of the European Parliament elections — and that they won’t grant an extension unless there’s an indication that more time would produce a different process, and not the madness that is currently going into its seventh month.
The EU will make this decision next week, which will be the point of no return. If no extension is granted, there will be no possibility of putting a full agreement in place. By any basic standard of governance, May and her cabinet should resign immediately of course, and let the Commons propose an alternative government to the Crown, ahead of an election as soon as possible.
If the inability to determine future sovereignty isn’t the occasion for democratic choice, what is? But the UK is not a democracy. Nor are democracies. The state of exception — the exercise of power — rules, and it is at points of crisis such as this that fact becomes most visible. And the one-time ruler of the world goes to hell in a backstop…
What do you think about May’s handling of the Brexit crisis? Write to boss@crikey.com.au.
Why should she resign? In favour of whom? Who would you say would do a better job? Jacob Rees-Mogg? Jeremy Corbin? What would a better job even look like?
The current situation is the inevitable result of the In/Out “referendum that opted for Out. It’s not Teresa May’s fault. She negotiated a deal that was as good as anyone could have got. The Parliament won’t buy it because it’s split between No Dealers, Leave with the Best Deal we can Doers, and Remainers.
No Deal will ultimately win because that’s what’s left when there’s no perfect deal available.
What does it matter who presides over the process that leads there?
Bet you are wrong.
May resigning at this point would be an act of bastardry that would taint her record even further. As you note, there are real timing issues in play here, and a May resignation ensures they can’t possibly be resolved in any reasonable period of time. No, May has to stick it out.
But she can’t continue to fight for this deal for which there is no constitutency. Hard Brexiters don’t want it. Remainers don’t want it. There doesn’t seem to be a big group out there for a soft Brexit where Britain is still tied to some EU rules it has no say in. May has wasted too much time trying to get this deal over the line and must surely abandon it now.
I can still only see one way forward, being a second referendum to choose between no-deal Brexit and no-Brexit-at-all, for all the marbles. This time everybody is fully informed and can see what the two choices lead to. I find it hard to believe the EU would refuse an extension of time to allow for this, or that the EU would refuse to allow the UK to rescind the article 50 notification if the vote is “no Brexit”, so that shouldn’t be a big problem.
But will May do it?
At this point, a May resignation or May continuing to dither just runs down the clock towards a hard Brexit by default.
You and others who want another referendum are extremely optimistic. First there’s the question of what the alternatives would be; to be fair there should be at least three, and if three were offered none of them would get a majority. Even with only two, who would bet on Remain winning? After all, Remain was supposed to win by a mile last time but didn’t.
The second referendum is the one and only possible circuit-breaker. I don’t read either May or a majority of the Commons wanting to have the UK go into a no deal Brexit, and all other options are now exhausted.
In theory a referendum with 3 options and preferential voting would be the fairest way of doing it, but I don’t believe the Brits are allowed to do a preferential vote, and to run a first past the post referendum where the Brexiter vote was split between two options would be extremely unfair. It’s got to be one Brexit vs one Remain option, and with the May deal being so heavily rejected by the Commons, it seems to me that a no deal Brexit is the one that has to be put up against remain.
As for which would win, I do not know. I’m not British, and while I think Brexit is daft it’s not my fight. I’m simply stating what I think will or should happen in terms of the process. The data I’ve seen suggests that the country is more pro-Remain now than it was at the time of the referendum but that only translates to a win if young Remain voters actually turn out and vote, which they failed to do in the original referendum.
They can actually do whatever they like, because their referendums are not like ours. There’s no written Constitution of the United Kingdom, and referendums have no binding force — they’re like our plebiscite on same-sex marriage, i.e, glorified public opinion polls. So they can have two alternatives, or three, or twenty; but as soon as you have more than two (which is all that we can have), the likelihood is that you won’t have a 50%+ majority for anything.
“where the Brexiter vote was split between two options would be extremely unfair.”
You mean the John Howard republic options? Yep, I remember.
Send that crafty rodent over to advise May & co . After he’s done his worst he can kiss the royals arses before he returns.
I have said since the start of the Brexit referendum thing that I cannot believe David Cameron didn’t do a Howard on the referendum. His great mistake.
Yeah, well, the filthy and sad facts are pretty much obvious now after three years down the road. I wouldn’t be too sure that Brexit wouldn’t romp home this time if another referendum were held.
And why should there be three alternatives? Two are more than enough. Besides which, there are at least 11 on the table already and look where that’s got them.
Yeah, what Arky said. Plus the fact that parliament had the opportunity to vote no-confidence in May less than two months ago, and chose not to. If MPs aren’t willing to co-operate to throw her out, I don’t see what right they’ve got to complain.
It has to be a second referendum now, to take place no later than about May 15. I would have gone with the binding choices of “Remain”, or “Leave under the May Deal”, rather than a no-deal option. Perhaps they could offer “Remain and Review in ten years” as a sop. Regardless, nothing but a second referendum is going to get through the impasse.
The point of a second referendum would be to give legitimacy to the whole thing – whatever decision is made, is made in full knowledge of the true options. I think a referendum without no deal can’t possibly have that legitimacy.
A case for a referendum couldn’t be made clearer at this point. Parliament has proven that it cannot decide – even after three years – therefore the only legitimate course is to go back to the people and ask them for a clear direction.