Parliamentary Math
Several days ago my baseline scenario changed to “deal”.
Let’s do the math as analyzed by Eurointelligence.
The Tories have 288 MPs. A parliamentary majority is around 320. A majority would need the support of a sufficient number of MPs from the following three groups: the 10 MPs from the DUP; the 21 former Tory MPs; and the group of Labour MPs who stand behind Stephen Kinnock’s campaign for a Brexit compromise. The latter claim to speak for up to 50 MPs, but there is a core group of around 18-20. We think that most of the 21 [former] Tory MPs will support the deal – for which they would receive their Tory whip back. We also think that at least Kinnock’s core group might support the deal.
The FT reports this morning that the DUP is asking for billions of pounds worth of support as a quid-pro-quo. But that means that they are not opposed in principle. They are just haggling over the money. If the DUP were to support it, that would probably tip the balance in favour of a deal.
Another issue for Johnson to confront is extension. There is no way, we think, that Brexit can happen by Oct 31. The Times has a story quoting German officials that the EU would take another two months until the end of the year. We think this would create renewed uncertainty, and would interfere with a UK election campaign.
We think that a one month extension, or thereabouts, seems reasonable. This would coincide with the extension of the mandate of the outgoing Juncker Commission (see our separate story below).
We also think that the extension will be part of the actual deal, and will thus supersede the Benn Brexit extension bill if the UK parliament were to find a majority in favour of the deal. If not, the Benn bill will force a three-month extension. Elections are likely in either scenario.
Nearly Correct
I propose the deal will pass with or without DUP support if the EU frames it as “take it or crash out”.
Without DUP support passage will be minimal.
But with DUP support could be overwhelming.
Best Guess – Solid Passage
Why?
- I expect DUP will be bought out.
- I fully expect a free vote by Corbyn. Otherwise, Corbyn will have to expel as many as 18-22 Labor MPs who will buck the whip and have to be expelled.
My Math
- 288 Tories
- 45 Labour (assuming a free vote)
- 18 Expelled Tory Rebels (to regain the Whip)
- 10 DUP
I come up with 361 or so.
15 or even 25 here or there won’t matter.
What Might Go Wrong?
Plenty.
- The EU or Boris Johnson might demand too much.
- Corbyn might not offer the free vote I expect.
- DUP might vehemently protest
Whereas Eurointelligence says “If the DUP were to support it, that would probably tip the balance in favour of a deal,” I suggest that if DUP actively comes on board, a blowout in favor of passage is likely.
Regardless, I expect passage even if DUP does not come on board because I expect Johnson will negotiate a “this deal or no deal” framing by the EU coupled with a short extension to allow the UK and EU parliament to ratify the deal, making the Benn bill obsolete.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Well the headline at CNBC says WE HAVE A DEAL, Barnier is behind it and it is set to be ratified this week there. But, all but the conservatives and the DUP say they will not allow it to become law, and this should be interesting since they are the ones that have sunk all attempts at getting any deal, now they will be presented with a deal they like even less than May’s. But, it is this deal to leave or a no deal Brexit because Junker has as much as said the UK parliament better get behind it; there will be no extension. It will be presented to the UK parliament this weekend for ratification. And it will be too priceless to see the remainers shitting themselves because what it really means is that the UK will be out of the EU no matter what. If they refuse to ratify the deal then there will be a no deal Brexit that they will be blamed for and they know it. If they do ratify then they have to leave the EU on the 31st and again any blame will attach to the remainers since it was they who dragged it out to the very last minute and ratified a bad deal because it was all that was left that close to the deadline. Nigel Farage is dead set against it saying it is worse than May’s deal. But, it is the hardliners leave and remain, as well as the EU that made this deal what it is. This could have been over with more than two years ago with as good or better deal so the recriminations are going to be palpable.
From what I can see, as you say the dynamics have been turned around completely.
Perhaps the EU has finally woken up to the problem that if they are not seen as respecting democracy, then they are a broken organisation. If that is the reason behind their saying ‘take it or leave it’ then it is actually a good one.
Now which way will the MPs vote? The Benn Surrender act is now moot if I understand the situation correctly. The remainers who before voted against the deals in order to keep us in the EU wont be able to do the same for the same reason. So do they take what they have, or vote the deal down?
I have seen quite a few twitter posts calling for the revocation of article 50. Still stuns me how many anti-democrats there are trying to put the British people down. It looks to me as if the page is about to turn, and we get to find out if their scare mongering was for real or not.
The Juncker turn is interesting. It helps Johnson, there is no question about it.
However, Juncker is not in a position to declare anything about an extension. It depends on the EU27 governments.
It was approved (unanimously of course) within a few hours of being presented.
Here is Bloomberg’s math
link to bloomberg.com
The key point is for the EU to frame an agreed deal as “deal or crash out”. Boris would be cock-a-hoop either way whereas Corbyn would get absolutely slaughtered by party and the ballot box if he could be held to account for a no deal rather than a “Tory” deal.
We will still be leaving on 31st October.
I expect the deal to come on the basis of we leave formally, but nothing changes for a period of 3 months while the final details are sorted. A sort of pre-transition period, for want of a better name. We continue to pay a modest contribution, border arrangements remain unchanged but we are free to get on with deals for life outside. It’s too critical to Boris’s electoral chances and his legacy to have any sort of stay-in extension, even for only a month.
If at the end of the 3 months with one foot in, one foot out there is no satisfactory concord meeting the needs of all parties (including consent by the new European parliament, don’t forget), either side will be able to walk away and a no deal will ensue.
We’re still going this month. Mark my words.
.
There are a few people who know what the deal is. Until it is published no one knows how any vote would pan out. All we do know is that the UK is likely to remain in the EU ’til 2020, and that isn’t certain.
The NI-only backstop is a life-or-death issue for the DUP. It leads to an economically united Ireland separated from the UK in regulation and customs regime. They might get a few subsidies and a lot of bureaucratic mishmash in exchange. Any support from them is total sellout.
By the way, the case is very similar for several Tory MPs. They are supposed to be conservative AND unionist. What about Scottish Tories? Would they support a deal that opens the gate to secession? What about the ERG? Would they all support a deal that gives away a part of the UK? This is all very-very shaky. Not to mention Labour MPs…
Meanwhile, LibDems will go for a referendum amendment and it has a similar chance of going through.
I hope that the DUP are not sold out by this deal. All of the UK should be under the same set of laws after we Brexit.
The Lib Dems are a sad bunch. A second referendum within a generation after not having implemented the result of the first signals only that democracy is broken. If you give the power to the people to decide, and then try again if you dont like the result it means that your first vote was under false pretences, and by the process of logic, so is your second. I dont know if that party are useful idiots or bribed or blackmailed, but they clearly do not care about democracy. To them all that matters is to get a decision that enriches and empowers them, not how that decision comes about.
Your point about the second referendum is solid.
The problem is that whatever happens now, the first vote was really under false pretences. Both sides wanted full mandate in the event of victory, therefore they constructed a deliberately vague question. No details, no deadlines, no guarantees for the minority. In a well-functioning democracy, a referendum like this is impossible.
My vague speculation is that if the deal is voted through, then the referendum amendment will be voted down. My theory is that the minority of labour/other MP’s who will be voting for it, will be doing so mainly to get Brexit ended. I can’t see many Tories wanting a referendum.
I thought that the words on the ballot paper were well worded, it was clear what we were voting for.
The problem is that MPs didnt like the result and have concocted this charade to keep us in the EU. What should have happened is that every remain MP should have recused themselves from process. If they had been honourable and done that, and left the leavers to negotiate an exit deal, we would be out of the EU now with a good deal, or perhaps better still, out with No Deal.
The problem with adding all of those extra things onto the ballot paper about how something would exactly happen is that it might end up like the terms and conditions when you download some software. No one would understand it. You have to have some trust in the process somewhere. Sadly, Remainer MPs have betrayed that trust.
The majority did not, and subsequent polls show would not have, voted for a no-deal Brexit. The fact that you think a no-deal Brexit is better does not make it a democratic decision. A no-deal Brexit may well restart the troubles over the Irish border, and is thus no more a solution to the Irish problem than would be a (any) deal. The Irish border question is intractable, and the position of N Ireland and the wishes of 800,000 unionists appear incompatible with any deal, but they would also not be served by no-Deal. Implicit in the Brexit vote is the reemergence of the Irish problem.
Obviously, no one was asked on the ballot what to do about N Ireland.
“The majority did not, and subsequent polls show would not have, voted for a no-deal Brexit.”
First of all, the polls havent been that great recently with respect to the real ones. There is a real problem here of fake news organisations putting out fake polls to make some political point, and this is almost certainly the case here.
Secondly, the question of a deal will cause a split in leavers, no doubt about it. But you can be sure that every leaver will at some point say that if there is no deal worth having within a timescale we should leave without one. None of that 52% is going to wait around for ever, because if they did then the EU would simply keep the UK as a tax farm by offering bad deals.
And lastly of course any polls will also canvass remainers. They wont think too much about the implications for democracy or the principles of how to negotiate a deal. They will en masse tell the pollers no Leave without a deal in the hope that they can overturn the decision. I bet though, if you explained to them that democracy itself is undone if you dont walk away at some point, more than a few would understand and change their point of view.
Therefore if you go and ask 100 people what they want, you are going to get 48% plus a few more wanting a deal. Get people to think about it a bit more, and those numbers would change, but news organisations are not interested in that.
I am not sure why you are attacking the first referendum. It came about because the two main parties in the UK were split amongst themselves over the EU, but a majority of the MPs wanted to stay in the EU. This was not matched by the feeling of the people in the country.
Then UKIP came along, and they gradually built up support until they reached a point where they were polling 20% plus. It was even possible that they would have won the 2015 election given their momentum. David Cameron saw the danger, and offered to hold a referendum on the matter in the 2015 general election, and on the back of that promise managed to secure a GE victory. The size of the victory was unexpectedly large.
Now he may not have wanted a referendum, but he had promised one and he decided to deliver on that promise. And the rest is history.
I dont know about you, but up until and including the result of the referendum, isnt that how democracies are supposed to work? Politicians having to respond to their electorates and doing as they are voted to do?
I agree with you that we have a deep political crisis now. MPs who stood on a platform of Brexit are doing all they can not to deliver. The speaker went out of his way to corrupt the process of government, and the Supreme court is making up nonsense to override the wishes of the British people. Amazingly too, a minority government cannot get a general election called making it all but impossible to get any legislation through Parliament at all. Now that is a crisis.
The root of the problem is that the political elite is working against the people for decades. In my opinion, the EU is a result of this work (far from the only one). If the people don’t want it, don’t need it, then it should have never been created in the first place.
Now Britain is at the point where people are starting to rise up. Since the elite does not want to give back anything. they are following the ancient strategy of “divide and rule”. The Brexit referendum was invented to serve this strategy. That is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Not attacking the first referendum. To me democracy is debate and the voice of reason. Lots of reasons to avoid referendums.
A lot of the Brexit animus was carried by anti-migration sentiment, not the desire to exacerbate the Irish question.
Chief question about leaving the EU is “Depends what the deal is!” But that’s not part of a referendum.
Just look at it from a different angle… What if Remain wins this referendum 52% to 48%? In that case, all the 48% would be told that nothing has to change about the EU. They lost and must go away. What would you think of that?
Democratic referenda cannot work this way. They can only be used to answer exact questions, even if this is complicated.
Of course, the losers are not going away. I am not saying they are right, only that the problem is deeper.
Deep,
I think that the answer hypothetical question you pose isnt a good one. The reason is that if they hold another referendum, I would not vote, what would be the point? If they didnt see Brexit through on the first vote, they wouldnt on the second. I know many that feel exactly the same way. That means a second referendum wouldnt have the confidence of the people that it would mean anything. What is the point of a vote on a decision if it isnt really a choice?
So all a second referendum would do is poison the well. Its result would be meaningless and it would render future referenda meaningless. This is why it is so important they carry through the result.
I am not defending the second referendum here. I am attacking the first. 🙂 It cannot be undone, of course, but it was in itself a symptom of the deep political crisis.
Webej,
“A lot of the Brexit animus was carried by anti-migration sentiment”
Yes it was. A lot of people in the UK were unhappy that the decisions about immigration control were beyond any democratic control at all. Many noticed this and decided that leaving the EU was the only way of solving this, and they were correct to do so.
Immigration is a massive problem on our over crowded island. There are huge numbers of young people who cannot afford to buy a home in our country, and at the same time the EU laws meant that immigrants were treated the same as UK citizens and if they met the criteria, would be given free homes in preference to our own citizens who had none!
Back in 1994 I recall that we had a different problem, some of our cities were depopulating. For about 10 years after that, immigration wasnt seen as a problem by the people. But it became a problem due to the sheer numbers of people coming to the UK and now it is beyond a joke.
Controlling immigration to the UK requires 3 steps.
We have just managed 1). There is no guarantee that 2) and 3) will happen.
Actually if any UK government had implemented EU rules on the freedom of movement of labour EU immigration could have been controlled. EU law is straightforward. Any EU citizen could exercise their rights under the following conditions 1] 3 months entry, 2] Self sufficiency for this 3 months i.e. no recourse to public funds 3]requirement to leave the host country after 3 months if no employment obtained. Every other EU country observed these rules, the UK not so. It was/is next to impossible to remove EU citizens who failed to observe EU law because freedom of movement of labour became in the UK freedom of movement full stop. The fault was UK governments of all stripes who refused to enforce EU rules.
avid,
the UK still could not refuse an EU person entry if they have a job for example. Those rules are only if the person cant get a job or make one up. We may wish to reduce immigration simply because our nation is overcrowded and the additional environmental cost of building on new green land to accommodate newcomers isnt in the interests of British citizens. Under EU law that wish could not become law, there is no democratic route by which it could have happened.
Leave is all about having the freedom to set the laws and rules that we want to set, not having to abide by the EU laws dictated to us that are beyond our democratic control to change.
Sadly not so. There are provisions for a country to temporarily
derogate from EU law in these matters. I’m afraid the immigration mess is absolutely and entirely the fault of successive UK governments, this is a home grown mess and will continue whether we are in or out of the EU. You are correct to be angry at the state of affairs in our country but you direct your anger at entirely the wrong target.