We use cookies to help improve and maintain our site. More information.

April 24, 2019

May's final and biggest gamble

Greta Thunberg is a welcomed distraction for Brexit-wary MPs and newspaper headline writers. But the reality beneath the surface is that we have entered one of the most intensive phases of the Brexit process yet. Theresa May is now considering a new strategy: not to bring another meaningful vote, but to go full-monty for the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, the entire legislative package, as early as next week. 

Of course, the majorities in the House of Commons have not changed, and there is zero chance that she can pass this bill without the support of at least a good number of Labour MPs. Her calculation is complex. The broad idea is that the legislation, which is amendable, could pave the way to a customs union. The Guardian reports that May appeared to be working towards  the reluctant acceptance of a customs union during a cabinet meeting yesterday. The parliamentary process could serve as a mechanism to produce such an outcome without May having to commit herself.

For now, May is running a dual strategy - the other being the official negotiations with Jeremy Corbyn and his team. May and Corbyn distrust each other. Both sides accuse the other of delaying tactics. Labour will only agree to support the WAB if May first signals a willingness to compromise. The strategy to table a withdrawal bill without a formal agreement between the party leaders would be risky for May. She would then need to rely on Labour rebels to support the bill - essentially those in favour of the customs union but opposed to a second referendum.

The gamble is risky, but not irrational. Labour advocates of a customs union are not opposed to the WAB itself, as it only sets out the legal terms for the withdrawal leaving the future relationship open. For Tories, the massive incentive to pass this bill lies in the prospect of accelerating May's departure without the need for a messy leadership challenge. If the bill were passed next week the UK would cancel the European elections, assuming that Brexit would be completed by end-May as agreed with the European Council. 

If parliament were to reject the WAB in its second reading, the government would be legally prohibited from tabling it again during the current parliamentary term. But the big procedural attraction is that this process would allow MPs to table amendments. If the Commons were to support Kenneth Clarke's version of a customs union in the form of an amendment to the bill, it might be easier for MPs to pass the package. 

All MPs would have to consider the consequences of a rejection. Elections would become more likely. Many MPs on both sides would be losing their seats. Nigel Farage's Brexit party has had a tremendously successful launch. The new Change UK Party launched its European platform yesterday, but is unlikely to have much of an impact. And their MPs would be most vulnerable in a national election. 

The customs union is the most likely amendment to succeed. The second referendum will almost certainly be an option. The Daily Telegraph reports that Sajid Javid, the home secretary, said the outcome should not tie the hands of future governments, and suggested unilateral amendments to the actual bills itself - in others words a course of action that would legally invalidate the bill. Astonishingly, the Tories are once again talking about the Malthouse compromise, to which they seem to return like a drug addict.

Another important strand of the story is the increasing probability of a Tory leadership challenge. We reported yesterday that MPs returned from the Easter holidays with a renewed determination to oust May at the earliest possibility. The 1922 Tory backbench committee is currently holding meetings to discuss whether to scrap the rule that protects a prime minister from a subsequent leadership challenge for one year. The debate is whether to reduce the time frame to six months - which would make another challenge possible in June - or whether to scrap it altogether. While the committee is generally split between remainers and leavers, opinion seems to be moving against May because of the dreadful polling numbers. A decision may be taken today, ahead of a full meeting of all Tory backbenchers. 

So how do these various strands fit together? The decision to focus on the WAB itself makes sense to us in view of the increasingly certain leadership challenge. Eurosceptics who are hellbent on a no-deal Brexit might still reject the bill. They might bet on May being replaced with a Tory eurosceptic, most likely Boris Johnson. It is not clear that he could single-handedly deliver a no-deal Brexit, but the risk of it happening are clearly higher with a prime minister committed to such action. It was May who prevented a no-deal Brexit, not the silly amendments to take no-deal off the table. 

The process would pose an interest dilemma for Labour MPs. Even if the official talks with the government fail, Labour could still prevail in the amendment votes - perhaps with the tacit support of May. In doing so, they could kill off the second referendum, an issue that threatens the unity of the Labour Party. May needs about 30 Labour MPs to support her and no Tory MPs to desert her.

Show Comments Write a Comment

April 24, 2019

Will the EP be Brexit's great parliamentary beneficiary?

Brexit has transformed the perception of British politics in the rest of the EU - obviously for the worse. The word obvious is operational for our purpose here: what made the change so very apparent to such a wide public was the televised transmission of the UK parliament’s descent into chaos - political reality TV, live from the mother of all parliaments.

Here is a prediction. The one institution that will benefit most from the image loss of the continent’s most-respected parliament is the European Parliament - the one that over the decades has struggled most with image problems. It had long and widely been accepted as an unassailable fact that, in the comparison between Westminster and the European Parliament,  everything spoke to the former’s advantage. Not so anymore. The EP’s sedate debating style, the courtesies shown to political opponents, the practice of cross-party cooperation, all suddenly seem refreshing expressions of a political culture delivering results instead of radical uncertainty in a matter essential to the future of the polity. MEPs have realised that positive image change to their institution’s and their own political advantage is afoot, and Brexit debates in the EP have seen more than a few gloating asides to this effect. As the French saying goes, the misfortune of some makes for the happiness of others.

The question is to what extent the EP will be able to capitalise on this unexpected rise of its political market value. The times when the EP was a club for lovable cranks, wide-eyed idealists and political retirees are long gone. These days, MEPs regularly rise to top political office in their home countries. But the EP’s impact on European politics has been obscured by the duopoly of EPP and S&D shaping its working for decades and often acting as a consensus machine. This has rendered the observation of EP politics a job for professionals or for that rarest of species, voluntary addicts to the meanderings of European policy. But that duopoly, as all polls predict, will no longer have enough voting power to secure its rule in the new EP. EP politics will become less predictable, which in itself should raise the EP's profile. Blocking decisions and making a fuss, as the Westminster telenovela has shown, is the best way to attract continental attention.

Show Comments Write a Comment

April 24, 2019

Can Loiseau fight the far right given her past?

Nathalie Loisseau was never a career politician. Now that she is  leading the list for Emmanuel Macron into the European elections, her political past from her student days in coming back to haunt her. Mediapart revealed on Monday that in her student days Loisseau appeared in sixth position on the candidate list of UED, a students' union at the Sciences Po university linked to the far-right movement GUD. This dates back to some 35 years ago, and students' affiliations may be more social than political. Still, how could she have ignored the radical nature of that list? 

Her defence today, that she did not know and was just stupid, sounds hardly convincing and ignorant at best. A storm of controversy followed on social media. This undermines her credibility just as she was about to construct her public persona as the major opponent of the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. The core of her campaign has so far been all about beating Le Pen in the polls. Given the latest revelations, this seems to not have been such a smart move. Loiseau still has some cards to play, like the LREM programme to be unveiled May 9. But doubts are rising, writes l'Opinion.

This episode will be Loiseau's baptism of fire as a politician. She will have to prove that she can move forward in the face of adversity and bring in her strength and persona as a quality rather than a liability.

Show Comments Write a Comment

This is the public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing, which focuses on the geopolitical aspects of our news coverage. It appears daily at 2pm CET. The full briefing, which appears at 9am CET, is only available to subscribers. Please click here for a free trial, and here for the Eurointelligence home page.


Recent News

  • December 03, 2019
  • What to look out for in the last week of the compaign
  • Trump threatens tariffs on French luxury exports
  • April 26, 2019
  • How Brexit has given rise to different perceptions of reality
  • The EP, not Madrid, will boost Spanish clout
  • How realistic is a Gaullist Europe?
  • September 17, 2018
  • About the new partnership between Russia and China
  • EU ponders Irish backstop protocol to help May
  • February 07, 2018
  • A short note on bitcoin
  • July 04, 2017
  • On the CDU’s programme
  • Macron defines his presidential style
  • Why do we criticise modern macro?
  • November 28, 2016
  • And now what Monsieur Fillion?
  • The inescapable logic of an interim agreement
  • On Germany's foreign policy post-Trump
  • How to lose against the populists
  • April 25, 2016
  • The death of the Grand Coalition
  • Insurrection against TTIP
  • Juppé to benefit from Macron hype
  • On optimal currency areas
  • Why the Artic region could be the next geopolitical troublespot
  • From a currency to a people
  • September 26, 2019
  • Could Johnson be headed for an electoral landslide?
  • Macron's conquest of public opinion over pension reform
  • Marion Maréchal keeps dream of political comeback alive
  • March 29, 2019
  • Don't take Macron for granted
  • Green is EU's future - Loiseau takes a stance
  • October 01, 2018
  • After the referendum, more turmoil in Macedonia
  • What will happen if the UK parliament votes No?
  • Barnier's no-thanks works much better than a yes-please
  • April 03, 2018
  • Is the time for Brexit revocation running out?
  • October 04, 2017
  • On why Theresa May is likely to survive
  • On how to resolve the Brexit talks
  • Social housing - not a good start for the French government
  • April 11, 2017
  • What to expect, and not expect from Schulz
  • The view from Berlin
  • The view from Moscow
  • October 17, 2016
  • Ceta is dead for now
  • L’après-Hollande, c'est Hollande
  • SPD against Russia sanctions
  • Nissan to join customs union and other fanciful tales
  • April 25, 2016
  • The death of the Grand Coalition
  • Insurrection against TTIP
  • Juppé to benefit from Macron hype
  • On optimal currency areas
  • Why the Artic region could be the next geopolitical troublespot
  • From a currency to a people
  • October 02, 2019
  • What Boris wants...
  • Ditched again - the decline and fall of Manfred Weber
  • May 27, 2019
  • The rising chances of a no-deal Brexit
  • January 18, 2019
  • Why Dublin won't yield on the backstop
  • Town hall debates vs street protests - who is winning?
  • September 13, 2018
  • Bravo Mr Juncker for raising the issue of the euro’s international role. But what now?
  • Are the eurosceptics imploding?
  • May 10, 2018
  • Time for some clear thinking on Trump and Iran
  • Will Corbyn accept the EEA? Brexiteers can relax. He won't.
  • What next for the DUP?
  • January 05, 2018
  • Catalonia's government by Skype
  • The case for EEA membership
  • August 24, 2017
  • Legislative hyperactivity for Tsipras' new narrative
  • On the deep causes of euroscepticism
  • April 23, 2017
  • The demise of the AfD has accelerated dramatically
  • On how France will need to confront Germany
  • December 21, 2016
  • A culture of denial
  • Ukraine agreement hangs in the balance
  • Valls U-turn on 49-3
  • Beware of exotic Brexit options
  • August 22, 2016
  • Gold for Brexit
  • EU and Turkey talking past each other
  • Switzerland is the next migrant transit country
  • On the death of neoliberal economics
  • April 25, 2016
  • The death of the Grand Coalition
  • Insurrection against TTIP
  • Juppé to benefit from Macron hype
  • On optimal currency areas
  • Why the Artic region could be the next geopolitical troublespot
  • From a currency to a people
  • November 19, 2019
  • Not the time to bet against the Franco-German relationship
  • German employers and union united against the debt brake
  • November 01, 2019
  • Beware of the fallacy of composition and hindsight bias - Brexit edition
  • October 14, 2019
  • What is Turkey's medium-term game?
  • Germany sabotages EIB climate change policies
  • September 26, 2019
  • Could Johnson be headed for an electoral landslide?
  • Macron's conquest of public opinion over pension reform
  • Marion Maréchal keeps dream of political comeback alive
  • September 11, 2019
  • What are the chances of a deal?
  • August 27, 2019
  • Remain’s narrowing pathway
  • Macron's diplomatic masterstroke
  • July 29, 2019
  • No-deal Brexit is no longer just a scenario
  • No German warships to the Strait of Hormuz
  • July 15, 2019
  • No queues in Berlin for von der Leyen’s succession
  • Mitsotakis moves fast with tax bill
  • The feel-good factor in the pre-Brexit days
  • July 02, 2019
  • How not to choose
  • Why no-deal Brexit has emerged as a strong probability
  • June 21, 2019
  • No appetite for extension
  • Macron and Ciudadanos - an unholy alliance?
  • June 12, 2019
  • What Spain wants from the EU
  • What to focus on in the Brexit procedure, and what not
  • June 03, 2019
  • Reinventing the French right without Wauquiez
  • Tory leadership election is between feasible and unfeasible Brexit options
  • May 27, 2019
  • The rising chances of a no-deal Brexit
  • May 20, 2019
  • Far right on the march
  • A plot against the EU - a new weapon to stop Le Pen?
  • May 13, 2019
  • Brexit Party has already changed UK politics
  • Orbán visits Trump, after a very long wait
  • Le Pen's appeal to the PiS likely to fall on deaf ears
  • May 07, 2019
  • … while Macron’s European troubles have already begun, and might get even worse
  • Don't discount a Brexit deal
  • Is Tsipras too complacent?
  • Costa - the fiscally responsible Socialist
  • May 01, 2019
  • Labour votes against obligatory second referendum
  • On the link between output gap measures and the rise of political extremism
  • Berlin's inconclusive Kosovo conference
  • April 29, 2019
  • Labour's national executive to vote on second referendum
  • What the debate about electric cars says about Germany
  • April 25, 2019
  • May will go, but probably not until September
  • Waiting for Macron's wow effect
  • April 24, 2019
  • May's final and biggest gamble
  • Will the EP be Brexit's great parliamentary beneficiary?
  • Can Loiseau fight the far right given her past?