Those who claim to rule us still aren’t understanding reality here over Brexit. It’s not that there aren’t alternatives to a no deal Brexit, of course there are. It’s that those who rule us can’t agree upon an alternative to a no deal Brexit. Thus plans for agreements among those who rule us against a no deal Brexit aren’t going to work, are they?
Thus these two plans just aren’t going to cut it:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] MPs have revealed how they are planning to block Theresa May from taking the UK out the EU without an exit deal. Two proposals were published after the prime minister urged MPs to give her more time to renegotiate an agreement with Brussels, but faced claims she is running down the clock. Jeremy Corbyn is leading the Labour frontbench bid to force a vote on the EU divorce deal itself or let MPs come up with their own plans to change the course of Brexit. From the backbenches, Yvette Cooper has teamed up with Labour colleagues and Tory rebels to try to give MPs a separate vote a fortnight before Brexit day on 29 March. [/perfectpullquote]Neither of them work. For, thanks to Gina Miller, we’ve a legal position here. Unless everyone – OK, a majority of MPs then – agrees to some alternative then the Brexit we’ve got is a no deal one. And Brexit we will have unless all – a majority – agree otherwise. That’s just where we are.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] There is a joy to all of this though which is that the entire Parliamentary travail is because Gina Miller won her court case. Not, in the least, what she wanted nor meant but it is indeed the reason why it’s all going pie shaped. Without the insistence on a meaningful vote then the executive could have – and would have – cobbled some deal or other together which they could then have rammed through. Or even just announced and stuck the proverbials up to the Commons. Given that court victory this cannot now happen. A real and proper vote has to be had. And that’s the problem, there’s isn’t a majority for anything at all. No majority for any actual deal that is. It’s possible to gain a majority against pretty much any possible combination but not one in favour of any. But since we’ve got to have the meaningful vote that means that it’s really rather difficult to put together something which will gain approval – rather than rejection – in a meaningful vote. [/perfectpullquote]There is no majority in favour of anything. Thus we’re to have what is the default currently in place in the absence of such a majority – a no deal Brexit.
Except. If Parliament closes down No Deal Exit, and won’t accept May’s ‘deal’, the EU will allow Article 50 to be extended until a new Act can be passed to make it legal for the Government to revoke Article 50.
Parliament still has to agree an extension and the EU has to agree that. I don’t believe there is any kind of majority to revoke Article 50 – there is not anywhere near a majority for a second referendum, let alone a straight revocation.
The Tories know they will lose the next election if the do either, and Labour cannot be sure what will happen to them. if they push for either. Labour might win, but at what cost?
Article 50 has nothing to do with it. It is a provision in an international treaty and the UK simply cannot ‘revoke’ it or any other provision. The 2018 EU Withdrawal Act, among other things, repealed the 1973 European Communities Act and specified 29 March 2019 as the date after which the UK would no longer be part of the EU, because the repeal of that enabling 1973 Act would come into effect on that date. There will be no legal base for the UK to be in the EU after 11pm 29 March 2019. To extend UK’s membership of… Read more »