December 06, 2018
There can be no deal as long as delusions of easy alternatives persist
We noted a seasoned political reporter of the BBC talking utter nonsense last night about the political options available after next week's vote in the House of Commons. He suggested there was kind of a readily available menu choice between new elections, second referendum, a second vote, or a new deal. He ended with the usual assertion of the intellectually lazy UK journalists, namely that no-deal is unlikely because there is no parliamentary majority in favour of it.
We would like to draw readers' attention to a new ComRes poll out yesterday showing that the British are simultaneously against staying in the EU, against the withdrawal treaty, against a no-deal Brexit, and in favour of renegotiating. Now what can possibly go wrong!
The unfolding events suggest to us that a second referendum remains unlikely - unless the prime minister supports it. We noted a Guardian story that Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite trade union and one of the main backers of Jeremy Corbyn, has privately told a group of Labour MPs not to back a second referendum, on the grounds that voters could see it as a betrayal. The Labour Party is split on this issue, but it would require a high degree of party unity for an effective second-referendum-coalition to emerge.
We continue to see an uncomfortably large probability of a no-deal Brexit. It is what happens if nothing else happens. And it would be consistent with the above poll.
We are also concerned about some counter-productive news now coming out of Brussels. One was the suggestion, contained in a Reuters story, that May could go back to negotiate some cosmetic changes to the withdrawal treaty. Cosmetic changes will not shift majorities in the UK parliament. We note a tendency among some EU officials, especially those who allow themselves to be quoted anonymously, to belittle elected national representatives.
We also thought the apparent EU offer, as reported in the Times this morning, of a three-month extension not to he helpful either, as it might encourage Remainers to vote against the deal in the hope that something better might come up later. The pathway for a potential compromise is very narrow - much narrower than in usual EU-level negotiations, including most recently on eurozone reforms. We believe that more than just cosmetic changes are needed to save the deal.
One possible way forward would be to add clauses to the backstop that protect both sides against an abuse of the procedure by the other side. Ironically, we think the EU is more at risk of abusive action by the UK than the other way round. But given the mutual mistrust, it would be a good idea for both sides to think about how such abuse can be prevented. We think, for example, that the provisions for binding arbitration are problematic as it is not a legal procedure. If one side had legitimate reasons to believe that the other side is dragging its feet in the negotiations over a trade deal, then that party should have access to some form of legal redress.
Alan Ireland
06.12.2018 01:36 pm
The quality of the debate in the U.K. about Brexit is indeed terrible. No-one talks about what the EU might want, what their position is, all sides in the U.K. are still cherry picking ... I agree with you that this has implications for the final outcome ... but not in the way you suggest. I think it shows the underlying mentality of all MPs hasn't changed: they believe the UK can do what it wants.
This attitude is important because if you expect MPs to stand firm and reject May's deal twice then how’s it going to feel come mid January after a double rejection? Many people believe May will never resign. But if you believe she won’t resign then you are also saying you think the House is just going to sit back (for over two months!) and prep for hard Brexit when there is a majority to avoid this? No way. This does not seem that plausible in my opinion.
Come mid January the majority in the House to avoid no deal (which has been largely irrelevant until now) will become the single most important driving force in what will likely be an off piste constitutional environment.
At that point in time there would be more than two months available to produce a second referendum; a general election; a straight power grab by cross-bench MPs with a confidence arrangement ... plus maybe a couple of other constitutional options. And these scenarios all point in the same direction: remain. The fixed term act (which could itself be amended or voided) only concerns general elections. But you don't have to hold an election to form a new government.
So I would argue the House, with it's ongoing 'we can get what we want' attitude, and plenty of time available, is going to produce remain one way or another. No MPs will be bothered what the EU might prefer or what Art50 preordains. We wouldn’t be the first European country to get asked to vote on the same issue twice. The Advocate General's opinion was important because, if confirmed, it means the EU cannot extract a price from the UK for changing it's mind thereby making it much easier to do politically (easier relative to where we are, of course).
Sitting here today sure the exact final route is impossible to predict, but I don't accept the premise that after a double rejection the House will sit back for two months and prep for hard Brexit. No they will take all constitutional avenues available to them to prevent that. And when you are generally in an off piste environment some of these constitutional options look plausible.
The risk to this scenario is MPs wimp out and approve it next week or get bought off by January. And in this context the full legal text interested me because it seems to demonstrate there are no elements sufficient enough which the EU would be able to / would want to change/compromise between 1st and 2nd vote - because the U.K. objections are very deep rooted within the agreement. And it also perhaps suggests that tweaking the political declaration to include other trading options won't swing enough MPs.
However... to expect a double rejection is to expect MPs to stand firm ... and going long MPs credibility never feels great for good reason!