Theresa May indeed ran down the clock. She was aided by Remainers who thought this would lead to another referendum (it won’t), as well as hard core Brexiters who think the clock will expire and no deal will win by default.
One side, if not both has to be wrong. But Brexiteers have more to lose. The worst possible position for them has to be a customs union.
May ran down the clock, but huge questions remain.
Final Shot Questions
Who gets the final shot? Will it go in?
I don’t know. Some believe they know, but they don’t. Let’s not confuse likely outcomes with knowing.
As I have stated many times, I do not know what is in May’s head, nor does anyone else unless this is some far-fetched conspiracy that the EU is in on with everyone managing to keep it a secret for two years!
Eurointelligence has a good synopsis of the setup tonight. At times I agree with them and at times I disagree. Far more often than not I agree with their take but since I am often first, I can claim they agree with me.
Eurointelligence
Today is the second and, we presume, final day of the indicative votes in the Commons. [The BBC says Wednesday] By next Monday at the latest, Theresa May will have to tell the European Council what the UK wants to do. After today, there are at most four days to reach a compromise.
We agree with the words of David Gauke, the justice secretary in Theresa May’s cabinet, when he says that if the indicatives votes come out in favour of a softer Brexit option it will be hard for the government to leave without a deal. [I agree with this, but I am not sure if in the same way]. For this reason, the outcome of today’s indicative votes matters. But if no single option carries a majority, the risk of an accidental no-deal Brexit would increase. [I completely agree]
The problem with all the alternative Brexit versions is that none is fully worked out. Ken Clarke’s version of a customs union probably stands the best chance of securing a majority today, but it is best to think of this and the other proposals as broad aspirations. A customs union is not as clean-cut an arrangement as it may sound. It would facilitate, but not solve, the Irish border issue. There are many regulatory complications that would need to be addressed. The good news is that they do not need to be addressed now. The way forward does not lie in the acceptance of a very specific version of the future relationship, but in a relatively simple re-drafting of the political declaration that allows alternative versions to be considered.
May has already said she would give the UK parliament the right to set the agenda for the trade talks by accepting an amendment, brought by six Labour MPs, that would give parliament co-decision rights in the future trade negotiations. Lisa Nandy, one of the six MPs, said that even with this amendment it was far from clear that a fourth meaningful vote would draw support from the Labour Party. [I highlight this because I was not aware of any such deal. Media did not mention it.]
We were reminded of the Labour Party’s state of Brexit confusion when we saw an interview with Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary. Her lack of knowledge of the Brexit process stands out even by the low standards of the House of Commons. She claimed, wrongly, that there was no need to hold European elections if the process went beyond May 22. And she was not aware that the backstop related to all of the UK and not only Northern Ireland. She also repeated the idea that Labour would renegotiate the withdrawal treaty, which of course the EU will not do.
Despite the failure of last Friday’s vote, there is a chance that this week’s meaningful vote could pass. Robert Peston writes that there is a narrow route to victory. 15 Tory Brexiteers could switch – and then May needs only 15 Labour MPs, which would be doable if May supported the amendment by the six Labour MPs. There is still no sign that the DUP will cave in. The DUP is not averse to a customs union, however. For them the bigger issue is the possibility of a regulatory wedge between Northern Ireland and the UK. A customs union would, in fact, mitigate some of their problems. But a customs union might not deliver the 15 votes from Tory MPs. So May is really facing a difficult trade-off between gaining and losing MPs from both sides.
In his FT column, Wolfgang Munchau considers the strategic questions for the EU when considering a long extension. The EU has an innate tendency to kick the can down the road. There can be no question that a majority of EU leaders would choose that option. It is in their DNA. But since this is a decision that needs to be taken by unanimity, the discussion in the European Council on April 12 could be more difficult. If the UK were to agree only to holding European elections, but had no other plan, the European Council would face the prospect of a hardline Tory eurosceptic prime minister soon joining their ranks as a full member. France and Spain would lose the five seats in the European Parliament that they would get if Brexit were to happen. And, given the likely distribution of British MPs across groups in the European Parliament, Macron’s leverage in the EU would likely be lower than otherwise. Munchau makes no prediction about what leaders will decide when faced with the concrete choice. But he says that the issues are real, and that at least some members of the European Council should be expected to raise them.
What We Know and Don’t
Eurointelligence went to great lengths to say what I can say easily: I don’t know.
I do know that May can force a hard Brexit if that is her will. She can also force a soft Brexit if that was her will.
But what’s her will?
So far, and this is why the conspiracy believers are crazy, May has done nothing but push her deal.
Eurointelligence thinks the indicative votes are over tomorrow. I hope so, and I hope they fail. However, I suspect that if the indicative votes fail tomorrow that there will be more on Wednesday.
I do point out something that Eurointelligence missed. Unless there is UK agreement to participate in EU elections there will not be an extension beyond May 22. That acceptance needs to happen by April 11.
I am certain that May is aware of this. She does not bring it up because it is not in the best interests of her “stall ball” game.
Stall Ball Synopsis
If May can somehow force a final vote on her plan vs No Deal on April 8 or later, I believe her plan passes.
If not, the next round of indicative votes will decide the fate of Soft Brexit or No Deal.
Place your bets, but don’t underestimate the advantages of a determined government.
The bet is on what’s in May’s head. I don’t know, and unless there is a conspiracy, no one else does either.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Brexit may have peaked now that lawmakers are paying attention to 7M signatures.
If this proves to be the end it means that Brexit peaked long ago. The same will happen in the US with Trump and other movements elsewhere. A recessionary economy will place blame on the people in power and people will show up en masse in 2020.
“You say you don’t know what is in Theresa May’s head, but at this point I think it is obvious: she has the single-minded goal of making her deal law.”
That is indeed my position but what we do not know is her second choice or if she is willing to go along with a customs union. I say no, Eurointelligence says yes.
I have no way of knowing. That’s what I am talking about. Stall Ball was obvious long ago.
When I say she is “single-minded”, I mean she does not have a second choice, I don’t think she even allows herself to think about a plan B.
You say you don’t know what is in Theresa May’s head, but at this point I think it is obvious: she has the single-minded goal of making her deal law. She can think of nothing else, she is like a dog with a bone who will not allow herself to be distracted by anything or anyone. No deal (hard Brexit) or a customs deal or another referendum are not HER deal and therefore she will never accept them. If it looks like parliament is heading for a customs union or another referendum she will scare Brexiteers into accepting her deal as a better alternative. If it looks like we are headed to a default no deal, she will scare Remainers into accepting her deal as a better alternative. If the scaring doesn’t work she will delay. It is all about her deal which she sees as her legacy.
Does she have the Speaker’s agreement to have yet another vote? Key issue.
If No Deal is so terrible, why don’t they just make a deal AFTER Brexit takes place without one?
Because EU citizens and students will have to leave GB and English workers and people settled in the EU would have to leave. Goods would be stalled at the border, nobody would know on what terms services and goods could be exchanged, what is the status of balances at financial companies, etcet, except the assumption that these would be on WTO terms, but things like this have to be worked out in detail for immigration, customs, tax officials and the like, not to speak of all the parties involved. People have to know what the score is.
Makes you wonder how the allies managed to win two world wars against the ‘organised’ Germans when the rules for movement and trade were so unclear. Must have been something to do with the alternative of a despotic regime being so horrifying — and the allies having a backbone.
A lot less trade and movements of goods and services, and a war time economy with rations (for years) and authoritarian control. Today there is not a party who can tell everybody what to do, and if there were, they would like to be informed how & what is expected.
Before “things like this have to be worked out in detail for immigration, customs, tax officials and the like, not to speak of all the parties involved” they have to be real. Not mere stories about all the scary hobgoblins residing under children’s beds.
“People have to know what the score is.”
Which resolves to: No more can kicking. Britain should have left the day after the referendum count was over. The frictions already have been resolved by now.
You make it sound too simple. Do people get to stay or do they have to get out, find a new place to live, get a different job elsewhere? None of this is clear if you don’t talk to each other. Does the customs guy have to stop British good, inspect them, charge the company money, how do they have to pay, how much? All of this kind of stuff works on the basis of agreements. Nothing to do with fear-mongering, just the difference between ironing out how to do stuff. Otherwise every customs officer can do his own thing? Go back to the Middle Ages, with toll houses on every road and brigands stealing from traders? Even if Britain had left on the day of the referendum, all kinds of things would have to be discussed. If somebody skips the border, do we shoot them, or can we rely on you to stop them and return them to us. Who paves the road in the transitional zone? Which laws apply in England if all the EU rules go out the window?
First you get out of the EU. Then you see what the real pain points are, as opposed to mere imaginary ones. Then you work on ironing out the real ones.
In any complex scenario, you simply don’t know all the effects of an action, until you go ahead and act. Once you do, all kinds of unforseen, as well as kinda-sorta-forseen, things become much clearer. Giving you an opportunity to knock the problems down as they pop up.
Columbus didn’t (re)discover America by obsessing over every possible scary eventuality. He got there by hopping in a boat and setting sail. Confident in his entourage’s ability to deal with issues as they arose. Ditto the allies landing on the beaches of Normandie.
“Because EU citizens and students will have to leave GB and English workers and people settled in the EU would have to leave”
Bullshit. They’re not just going to kick everyone out en masse. London was flooded with immigrants from its former empire before eastern Europe entered the EU.