Deal or no deal, here’s why Brexit cannot be stopped


Blackleaf
#1
The UK political commentariat are a lazy bunch. Brexit is one of their biggest topics in decades – a bonanza that any amateur can pitch in on – yet remarkably few have got to grips with the key texts. If they had, they would realise Brexit is at that stage of the chess game where the result is already a foregone conclusion. Brexit is going to happen...

Deal or no deal, here’s why Brexit cannot be stopped


March 4th, 2019
BrexitCentral





Written by
Christopher Howarth

Christopher Howarth is a senior researcher working in the House of Commons. Prior to this he worked for Open Europe, as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister.

The UK political commentariat are a lazy bunch. Brexit is one of their biggest topics in decades – a bonanza that any amateur can pitch in on – yet remarkably few have got to grips with the key texts. If they had, they would realise Brexit is at that stage of the chess game where the result is already a foregone conclusion. Brexit is going to happen.

Some more enlightened MPs saw this a while ago. Would Anna Soubry have resigned from the Conservative Party if she thought Remain or BRINO (Brexit In Name Only) were on the cards? Would Jeremy Corbyn offer a second referendum to his diehard Remainers if he thought there was any probability of Remain? You can hear the anguish of opportunists who placed their chips on defending BRINO from space as they realise they will end up on the wrong side of history.

So why should we be so certain that Brexit will triumph?

You would be right to be sceptical. We have a Remain Prime Minister, a Remain Civil Service, a Remain Cabinet, a Remain state broadcaster, a Remain undergrowth of NGOs, an increasingly bitter and unpleasant spectrum of Remain campaign organisations and, of course, a Remain Parliament. But no need to panic. They are all going to lose.

So here are the key facts and texts:

Article 50 & The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017

This legislation passed by Parliament by a massive majority authorised the Prime Minister to notify the EU under Article 50 (TEU) of the UK’s intention to leave the EU. The UK under EU law will leave the EU on 29th March 2019 at 11pm unless the UK requests – and gains EU approval for – an extension.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act (EWA)

The EWA, again passed by a large majority, is the domestic counterpart to the Article 50 notification. This Act sets 29th March as the exit day in UK domestic law. Exit day can only be changed by a Statutory Instrument that would have to go through the Commons and the Lords (s.20 EWA).

The EWA (s.13) also sets out the procedure for ratification of a Withdrawal Agreement:

  • It requires approval in the Commons;
  • It requires an Act of Parliament to implement it. The so-called Withdrawal and Implementation Act – the WAIB – would need to get through both the Commons and Lords.


The Cooper Amendment F passed on 27th February

This amendment – supposed to be a copy of the Prime Minister’s commitment to further votes – was added to a non-binding Commons motion that the Prime Minister has agreed to be bound by. It allows for a further ‘meaningful vote’ on a Withdrawal Agreement followed by (a logically flawed) vote to accept or rule out ‘no deal’ and lastly, if ‘no deal’ is ruled out, a vote to seek an extension to Article 50 to Remain in the EU.

These texts taken together make the life of a pro-Remain insurgency very difficult, even if that insurgency were headed by the Prime Minister.

Imagine yourself as a bitter Remainer…

Imagine you were tasked with trying to overturn Brexit. If that is too difficult, study the plans put forward by one of the authors of the Chequers Proposal/Withdrawal Agreement/Political Declaration, in a bar in Brussels – it’s much the same thing. You have some immediate and catastrophic problems.

Requirements for a straight Remain without ever leaving

Ultimately, unless you are a highly committed enemy of democracy, you would require a second referendum to overturn the first. Assuming the voters can be instructed to behave a second time, you would also require an Article 50 extension to gain the time to conduct the poll. This would require the following basic requirements:
  1. Parliamentary time to push a Bill through the Commons and Lords to empower or force the Prime Minister to seek an extension of at least nine months. This could be done in the Commons maybe via a rebel amendment to the 12th March motion to take control of the Order Paper followed by speedy readings of the latest iteration of the Cooper/Boles Bill. Gaining Commons time would be difficult enough but the Lords would present a similar problem. Attempting this Bill would be even more difficult to attempt if the WA had already passed, so diehard Remainers would end up having to vote against the WA (see below).
  2. All EU states would have to agree the extension to a specific date for a specific purpose. This is unlikely to be straight forward or cheap.
  3. Parliament would have to vote to accept the specific date and change the ‘exit date’ in the EWA.
  4. Parliament would have to pass a Referendum Bill and hold the referendum before you have timed out.
  5. Negotiate with the EU to turn the ‘extension’ into a permanent say – no doubt involving Parliament endorsing new terms.
Requirements for BRINO – keeping the option of Remain open

The current Withdrawal Agreement would lead to a customs union and dynamic regulatory alignment, keeping UK laws in harmony with the EU. Some more far-sighted Remainers might think this vassal status would be a good springboard to re-join the EU. If we accept all the EU rule book, why not go that further step and have a say on how they are drafted – i.e. membership?

This plan requires the adoption of a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration (WA&PD) deal built on a permanent backstop that leads with all certainty to a customs union. This agreement is the one that Parliament rejected.

In order to push through the WA&PD, the Government has a problem. The issue that MPs have taken up most vocally – the lack of an exit from the backstop – is the part the Government most requires to deliver BRINO. So how do they get their deal through Parliament? This is set out, following the Government’s acceptance of the Cooper Amendment F:
  1. Request a change in the WA from the EU27 to give what appears to be (but isn’t) a legally-binding exit from the backstop.
  2. By 12th March hold a new vote to approve the WA&PD and overturn the previous defeat by a majority of 230.
In order to pressurise MPs into voting for the WA&PD the Government will seek to deploy the threat inherent in the second two parts of the Cooper Amendment F: i f the WA is voted down, the Government (if it decided to acquiesce in Remain and follow the motion) would then table a motion to endorse leaving without a deal which, if defeated, would require a further motion on 14th March to instruct the Prime Minister to seek an extension.

Is threatening an Article 50 extension a credible threat?

It is of course gratifying that even Remainers acknowledge that remaining in the EU is a threat to be wielded. But it’s not a credible threat. If MPs are minded to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement they are not voting to stay in the EU. So, what would happen?

If the Commons defeats the Withdrawal Agreement again before 12th March, they may be presented with a vote on ‘no deal’. If for the sake of argument the Commons votes against ‘no deal’ and then votes on 14th March to request the Prime Minister to request an extension of Article 50, they are too late – there would be only 17 days left. In that time they would need:
  1. The Prime Minister to seek approval of the EU27 to a ‘short, limited extension’ for an unknown period for an unknown purpose. That would not be favourably received by the EU27. There would also be a threat of legal action if the request were not endorsed by a full Act of Parliament.
  2. Assuming an extension could be agreed, the Government would also need to move a Statutory Instrument in both the Commons and Lords to change the exit date in the EWA to the one agreed with the EU27 – but that would only buy a short extension before all the same issues re-emerge. Nothing would really have changed. If you do not want the Withdrawal Agreement, a small probability of a short delay is not a credible threat.
In any event, if the WA does get through there remains the need for the Government to push the complex WAIB through the Lords and Commons pre-29th March or be timed out.

So far, so technical. But this is a discussion in isolation to the world outside of Westminster. These decisions have electoral consequences for political parties.

Firstly, the cause of Remain requires the Prime Minister to actively promote it or at least acquiesce in the face of Remain MPs and Ministers. If the Prime Minister wants to leave, we leave.

There is no need for her to champion Remain, accept motions or give parliamentary time to Remainers – that is a political choice. It’s a choice that will have dramatic political consequences for the Conservative Party if the UK is still in the EU (or has BRINO) after 29th March. In that circumstance, the DUP might depart, if they had not already and the Government would either fall or require a new Prime Minister who had not supported the WA. That is not something a Conservative Prime Minister would want a as legacy – the balance of threat is very much in favour of Leave.

Secondly, the reputation of Parliament generally would take a hit. The EU issue would become further polarised to an extent that even committed Remainers (and EU partners) would realise that the UK’s continued membership would be politically unstable and counterproductive.

This brings us to the obvious conclusion that Brexit cannot be stopped.

If the EU does agree a replacement to the backstop (a scenario made less likely now the PM has floated an extension) then the WA may yet get through the Commons, and shorn of its permanence, a new PM could then build a genuine free trade Brexit deal.

If the Government brings back the same deal without an exit to the backstop, it will be defeated. If it is defeated, there will be no second referendum or prolonged stay in the EU. The UK will leave.

In short, don’t panic: if MPs hold their nerve, we are leaving the EU on 29th March without a permanent backstop.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-de...annot-stopped/
 
Hoid
#2
Is there some reason you can't make a Brexit Super Thread where you can flog this dead horse in relative privacy?
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Is there some reason you can't make a Brexit Super Thread where you can flog this dead horse in relative privacy?

It'll be a dead horse from 30th March.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It'll be a dead horse from 30th March.

I so hope so.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#5
Go, Brexit!
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Go, Brexit!


Much as I feel for my Brit friends regardless of how they voted...

I can't wait for this BS to be over.
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Go, Brexit!










 
Blackleaf
#8
Jacob Rees-Mogg We the people have spoken on Brexit… let us now have have lift-off

As Remainers make a last-ditch bid to abort our departure, next week will see a series of Parliamentary votes to determine the future of Brexit

Comment
By Jacob Rees-Mogg
5th March 2019
The Sun

THE final few weeks before March 29 were always going to see the last-gasp effort of Remainers to block Brexit.

Regardless of the constitutional norms or their previous votes or statements, the diehards of the Brussels Brigade blithely believe they can keep the United Kingdom shackled to the European Union.

March 29 was voted on as being the date of departure from the EU, regardless of a deal or not

The Brussels Brigade blithely believe they can keep the United Kingdom shackled to the European Union

Three constitutional perversions have been used in this effort.

The relationship between Government and Parliament is now disordered, with the House of Commons trying to do Ministers’ jobs.

Collective responsibility has been abandoned so no one knows which minister speaks authoritatively for the Government’s position and, worst of all, the Referendum result, where 17.4million people decided that we should leave, is put at nothing by the extremist Remainers.

Next week will see this come to a head as there will be a series of Parliamentary votes to determine the future of Brexit.

First, there will be another vote on Mrs May’s deal.

In its current form this is unlikely to pass because of the backstop which divides the United Kingdom between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and could leave us indefinitely as a vassal state, where we have a mutual obligation to a superior state.

Assuming this fails, then the second event would be a vote to stop a No Deal Brexit.

Clearly some politicians have short memories because in 2017, 494 members of Parliament out of 650 voted for the law that led to March 29 being the date of departure, regardless of a deal or not.

Cabinet ministers, who are now abandoning collective responsibility, voted for it, the Labour leadership voted for it, even Yvette Cooper voted for it.

UNIMAGINABLE HORROR

Yet these same people now pretend that such an outcome is an unimaginable horror.

Even though removing the possibility of No Deal weakens the Government’s negotiating position and contradicts the law of the land, such a motion could pass but in itself would have no legal effect.

This leaves the third vote on the issue of seeking an extension to our membership of the European Union.

First, there will be another vote on Mrs May’s deal, but in its current form this is unlikely to pass because of the backstop

Even Yvette Cooper voted for the UK to leave on March 29 despite her current attempts to keep us in

As yet it is unclear what length of time would be requested or what the purpose of such an extension would be.

These key questions are left unanswered because the extreme Remainers do not just want an extension — they want reversal and see this as a first step.

It is worth remembering that those who love the European Union prefer it to democracy and always have done.

This is why so many other votes have been ignored in the past and why *referendums are now so unpopular with the European elite.

The Government has so far meekly accepted these developments, although Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is trying to achieve some apparently minor changes to the backstop.

Instead the Government must reassert the constitutional norms.

If the House of Commons will not accept the ordinary relationship between it and the Executive, then a vote of confidence ought to take place. If Theresa May were to win such a vote for a second time then there is no obligation for the Government to follow mere motions of the Commons.

Similarly, ministers who cannot support Government policy are entitled to leave the Government, as the honourable recent example of George Eustice shows.

Naturally, the Government must prove that it is committed to the referendum result, for that is the authoritative constitutional voice.

No responsible government ought to allow the constitution to be subverted because of its own weaknesses. The conventions are there for good reasons and, if ignored, confidence in the system that has served well for centuries will be damaged — with consequences that could include the rise of extremist parties. Failure to deliver Brexit would be a gift to Tommy Robinson.

DUTY AND OBLIGATION

Fortunately, it is in the power of the Government, and especially of Mrs May, to deliver Brexit. Votes in the House of Commons cannot override the law.

If they could we would have arbitrary government and the law says we leave at the end of this month.

The Prime Minister could simply refuse to ask for an extension or to move the Statutory Instrument that is needed to change the date.

Mrs May may choose to fulfil or to break her promises to the electorate and will be held to account accordingly.

Eurosceptics must similarly be guided by the electorate — it is our duty and obligation to those who trusted that the vote in 2016 would be decisive and would be implemented.

This makes it necessary to vote against the current deal as well as efforts to move the date beyond March 29.

The people have spoken. The case ought to be concluded. Let’s have lift-off.

Geoffrey Cox is trying to achieve some apparently minor changes to the backstop

Ministers who cannot support Government policy are entitled to leave the Government, as the honourable recent example of George Eustice shows

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/857043...ken-on-brexit/
 

Similar Threads

30
No Deal Brexit is the best deal for Britain
by Blackleaf | Jan 20th, 2019
5
MPs debate Brexit deal
by White_Unifier | Jan 9th, 2019
0
A no deal Brexit would be the EU’s fault
by Blackleaf | Dec 29th, 2018
0
Ireland backs down over No Deal Brexit
by Blackleaf | Dec 22nd, 2018