Brexit: What's next?

[andrewducker]

There's a really good article here which goes through the options for the Brexit vote, and what happens next.

Taking a look at them in turn:
1) May's Deal passes.
Really, really unlikely. With the ERG and DUP voting against, plus a bunch of anti-Brexit Conservatives, I really don't think it has anything like the numbers it needs to pass.

2) No Deal.
Also really, really unlikely. Enough MPs know how awful this would be that if we hit February without another alternative, I think that we'd go back to May's deal. (Which is still a deeply unpleasant Hard Brexit which would kill people and tank the economy, but is less apocalyptic.)

3) A second vote.
Only if we look like we're sliding into No Deal. Then back to option (2).

4) A major renegotiation.
The EU have repeatedly said No. And the things that people are talking about renegotiating (like the Irish Backstop) aren't up for grabs. So this isn't happening.

5) A general election.
Really unlikely. Theresa May probably isn't going to call one, and without her doing that, it can't get the 2/3 majority it needs.

6) A vote of no confidence.
Slightly more likely. But still incredibly unlikely. The DUP have said they'd support May, so you'd need some pro-Brexit Conservatives to vote no-confidence in their own party. Corbyn is clinging on to this, but it's almost certainly not happening. We'll probably need to fail this before we go to (7).

7) Another referendum.
I don't see any other alternatives which might get a majority. So I suspect we get this by default. You'll get enough Conservatives and Labour voting for it that it will probably go through. And it's a hideous compromise that allows everyone to pretend that it's Not Their Fault.

Comments

[momentsmusicaux]

If there is another referendum, we all have to mobilise. I'm dragging the kids out to every demo and march. I know Scotland had a majority to remain, but every vote is going to count. The Gammon will be doing the same.

[doug]

I have no confidence in any predictions of what will happen. But I do want to note that in situations of uncertainty, confusion, and division, what happens by default if there is no agreement becomes more likely, and the default position is that we leave with no deal on 29 March. I share your hunch that this prospect might be sufficiently unpalatable to enough MPs to get May's deal through - but it doesn't look like it is now.

[drplokta]

You left out Norway Plus (which should really be called Norway Plus/Minus, because it’s EEA plus customs union but minus Schengen). Basically, we change our negotiating objectives for the post-Brexit trade deal to something that makes it very unlikely that the backstop will be needed, because it will be (relatively) easy and will keep the whole border between the UK and EU open, not just NI and Ireland (except for people, but the arrangements for movement of people across the border between the UK and Ireland are explicitly outside the scope of the EU treaties). If Labour can get behind that (the SNP would definitely vote for it), then there will easily be enough votes in Parliament even with the ERG and DUP voting against. There is growing Parliamentary interest in and support for it, although it is admittedly growing from a pretty low starting point.

[nojay]

The current open border for goods between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a border between Britain and the EU. We can't trade with anyone under WTO rules on March 30 2019 unless we open our borders to everyone else in the WTO in a similar manner. We'd need a lot of trade agreements in place by Brexit and we've got four months.

Free movement of people across the Irish border means EU citizens can enter the UK without let or hindrance, not just Irish people. The only way to prevent this is to regulate travel to ensure only properly documented people can cross the border and that breaks the GFA "open border" big time. It will cost billions a year to operate and take years to implement and we've got four months.

Under any kind of Norway-with-bells-on deal we've got cover for both situations but it means taking EU rules in perpetuity, primacy of the ECJ and a whole raft of other red-lines which May and especially the ERG will not stand for. Opt-outs can be negotiated but that might take years and the EU are likely to be hard-nosed about such opt-outs since they would have us over a barrel since we would no longer be voting members and it's not to the EU's benefit to hand out such exceptions, especially to outsiders.

[andrewducker]

How do "we" do that?

Could there be an amendment to the withdrawal motion which says "and then the government has to do Norway plus"?

It sounds outside the scope of what that kind of legislation would allow.

[drplokta]

A deal between the Labour Party and the government in which the Labour Party agrees to vote for the May deal in exchange for the government accepting an amendment to the Trade Bill that’s currently stuck in Parliament saying “It shall be the principal objective of the government in the EU trade negotiations to remain in the single market and a customs union”, thus enshrining the negotiating position in statute.

[nojay]

The day the Labour Party trusts the Tory Government's word that they'll do something will be a cold day in Hell, and with good reason. Corbyn isn't a naive Tory-lite Middle-Way Blairite, he was in Parliament when Thatcher reigned supreme and he knows Theresa May is cut from the same cloth.

"principal objective" == "We're very sorry Mr. Corbyn (or duly elected successor), we tried, really hard but the nasty EU trade negotiators wouldn't give us a pony. They insisted on horrible things like the ECJ and regulatory compliance and, you know we just couldn't accept that. Thanks for propping up our shaky majority back then though. Kisses!"

[jack]

I really have no idea now. I don't even know if you asked MPs to rate what they'd vote for (between remain, no deal, deal, and possibly soft deal) what would come out ahead, how many will be swayed by whips, or whether it will be a staring contest of who loses nerve first and swings their support behind their second-preferred option.

After all, if no deal gathers momentum, that's a lot more pressure to accept May's deal amongst moderates, and vice verse amongst scorched-earth brexiters.

I would really like to think May wouldn't gain more support in a general election, but then I thought that all of the previous times and was often wrong :(

And I doubt any of them want a referendum, but it may be best dodge-the-question option where everyone in parliament on all sides can wash their hands of responsibility -- if we're allowed to extend the deadline in order to have it.

I've no idea what Corbyn wants. That is, I know that what he WANTS is something not available, i.e. a decent deal, exiting the EU without destroying the country, but I don't know if he's still futilely hoping to get it (probably, he doesn't bend much) or will eventually come down for no-deal or remain.

If there is a referendum, I hope the remain vote is energised the way it wasn't in the previous one. It seemed like everyone was lukewarm about the whole thing apart from ardent brexiters. But the polls don't seem to be suggesting that's the case, I'm not sure why, if they're under-weighting how likely people are to vote, or it doesn't make as much difference as I'd expected, or if previously mild brexiters are getting more ardent over time.

[skington]

Why does everyone always say that calling an election requires a 2/3rds majority in Parliament? I know that's what the Fixed-Term Parliament Act says, but surely Parliament could pass a law modifying the Fixed-Term Parliament Act to read "...but except on the xth of May 2019, when there shall be an election" or something similar?

[andrewducker]

They totally could.

But passing that, in a short period of time, is probably significantly harder than just no-confidencing themselves. Which doesn't, for instance, involve the House of Lords.

(And actually, if the government want to call a new election they'll tend to get one. It's very rare that the opposition won't go "Sure, let's do this thing.")

[ironyoxide]

Would it theoretically be possible for the Government, or Parliament as a whole, to just withdraw the original Article 50 notification, remind everyone that the Referendum was, at least nominally 'advisory', and just forget the whole idea of Brexit ever happened?

[andrewducker]

Theoretically.

But they are terrified that people will then vote for a different party which *will* take them out of the EU.

[cmcmck]

I suspect that's why if a second referendum got called the questions put would be stay or go with May's 'deal'.

I can't imagine them wanting to give a 'no deal' option because the possibilities would terrify them.

[danieldwilliam]

As I said on Facebook I think the first few hours after the vote on the deal will be crucial. Who is prepared to act? What is their plan? What are their objectives? How do they interact with other fast moving players?

I'd keep an eye on Ken Clarke, Chuka Umuna and Tom Watson. I don't think the ERG have the numbers or the guts to do anything.

I think you also have to have an eye on the fact that leaving the EU on the 29th of March with no deal is the default option. That's the easiest thing to happen in that it happens unless several groups do something about it.

I *think* the next easiest might actually be to rescind Article 50 in its entirety. Depending on whether the Justices of the ECJ agree with their advocate-general then that is something the UK can do unilaterally. It might require that the UK do that "in accordance with its constitutional processes". That might involve a short Act of Parliament if the Miller case applies to rescinding Article 50 in the same way it applied to invoking it. That is not clear to me - it might be the case that the Prime Minister still has perogative powers or a simple afirmation in the House of Commons might suffice.

In order to get political cover for rescinding Article 50 a referendum is probably likely to be required. It's not required constitutionally but I believe many MP's will consider it desirable. Rescinding Article 50 without a referendum might lead to personnally damaging electoral consequences for the MP's or their parties or lead to civil disturbance.

Important to remember that the UK Government still pays both the police and the army and that Parliament pays the UK Government. Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks pay the wages of none of the security forces and do not have their own private army. I am sanguine about the prospect of civil disturbance. It won't be happening in my city.

A referendum does require an Act of Parliament. Likely to be contentious and contended. It also requires some work by the Electoral Commission and a campaign period. We're already too late for that. So we would need to extend the transition period with consent from the EU or revoke Article 50 by Prime Ministerial action or Parliamentary action on the understanding that we might re-invoke it after the referendum. What that does to the current deal I don't know. Assuming that it is more or less mechanistic, that if you start from the opening position of the UK government and the EU you end up at about the same position if you re-run the process then nothing much ought to change assuming that the UK population back the Deal in a referendum and HMG remains the same. I'm not convinced that small but important parts of the Deal are entirely mechanistic. I can see, for example, Spain exercising itself over Gibraltar again or Macron or Merkel's replacement taking a different approach because of their own domestic situation.

In all of this there is the real possibility that something goes wrong. That an attempt to do a reasonable thing fails and we end up with a chaotic situation which leads to the default outcome of Exit with No Deal. Things going wrong range from an assassination attempt on an MP, the roof of the House of Commons falling in, Jacob Rees-Mogg discovering that he in fact has 47 friends after all, May having a heart attack at the dispatch box, Sein Fein actually turning up, the SNP putting a Section 30 Order in to the EU vote.

[mountainkiss]

Bear in mind that it has not been confirmed that A50 is revocable.

[danieldwilliam]

My understanding is that all the submissions stated that Article 50 is revokable, as does the AG's brief. What some of the other EU parties were contesting is whether Article 50 is revokable unilaterally.

It would be unusual for the ECJ to override both the AG and all the submissions of all the parties.

[mountainkiss]

I think that's the most likely outcome but I do not take it for granted. (Very moot point; we'll know on Monday.)

[danieldwilliam]

We will.

ECJ follows the AG about 80% of the time.

I'm not aware of a case where the ECJ has disagreed with all of the submisisons by all of the parties in front of it but it's been 20 years since I last read a judgement by the ECJ.

[andrewducker]

And now...no vote.

What next, one wonders...