Idiot's Guide to Brexit 5

n the days and hours leading up to the vote on May’s deal scheduled for March 19, it looked as if her chickens were finally coming home to roost. Hard Brexiteers were reportedly deserting the barricades and waving white flags to indicate they could hold their nose and support May’s Dea. And some Labour moderates were also looking likely to defy Corbyn’s whip to support May.

But the March 19 vote never happened. It was disallowed by the Speaker of the House, John Bercow, who determined that according to a Parliamentary precedent dating back to 1604, the Government cannot submit the same motion to Parliament twice in substantially unchanged form twice. (I comment on the absurdity of this rule at the conclusion of this post.)

No-one was more stunned and appalled at Bercow’s manoeuvre than the EU leaders, who had been praying for May’s deal to pass on March 19 so that they could meet her at their summit in Brussels on May 20 to put a final stamp of approval the withdrawal agreement, and grant the UK a short extension beyond March 29 to pass implementing legislation.

May shuttled off to Brussels on March 20 to request an extension until June 30. The European leaders demanded to know what she planned to do if she was unable to get Her Deal through Parliament, and after listening to her non-reply, concluded that there is no plan B.

May was asked to wait in the next room for two hours while the leaders conferred. They then invited her to return and said, “Here’s Our Deal”: if Your Deal is approved by Parliament next week, the UK will exit the EU on May 22 (giving the time needed for implementing legislation). Otherwise, the UK will exit with No Deal on April 14, unless you come back to us with a concrete proposal for a credible alternative to No Deal, and unless you agree that the UK will participate in the May 27 elections for a new European Parliament.”

May’s Deal seems unlikely to pass if it is put to another vote in Parliament next week (which itself is uncertain), April 14 has become the new “cliff edge,” replacing March 29.

May’s authority in Westminster has eroded so completely that a centrist group of MPs now look very likely to succeed with a motion that will allow MPs to vote freely (no whipping) on a laundry list of options, including Revocation of Article 50 (i.e. Remain), a 2nd Referendum, a Customs Union, and something which used to be called “Norway Plus” but is now called “Common Market 2.0.” No Deal will probably not be among the choices.

If the motion passes on March 25, the vote is likely to happen on March 27. I’ve read  that the voting system will be something called “blind multiple choice,” but I cannot find anything on the web that tells me what this is. If it is not a voting system like “ranked-choice” which guarantees that one of the alternatives will eventually be approved by a majority, then there is only going to be more trouble.

However, if either Revocation or May’s Deal emerges with a majority, May can go back to Brussels before April 14 and receive a very warm reception. The EU leaders may also be willing to accomodate a Second Referendum or Common Market 2.0.

But No Deal is still on the table, even if it is not one of the alternatives to be considered on March 27. April 14 is the new cliff-edge, and the UK will exit with No Deal on April 14 unless Parliament approves an option acceptable to Brussels. 

Here’s a footnote about the Parliamentary rule by which Bercow disallowed another vote on May’s deal on March 19.  Imagine that in August 1939, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had introduced a motion in Parliament to declare war on Nazi Germany, and that the motion was defeated. In September, Hitler invaded Poland. Imagine that in October, Chamberlain had again put the same motion to declare war on Germany before Parliament. Would Bercow’s rule have disqualified this second motion? Isn’t a rule that doesn’t allow for a change in circumstances, but instead looks only at the content of the motion, more than a bit silly?