The simplest method is for Parliament to simply vote to to withdraw the A50 letter. The European Court of Justice has determined that the UK can do this at any time until Brexit actually happens–and it requires no agreement by the EU Commission nor EU Parliament.
If Corbyn and Labour get behind it and there is a General Election and they win. That is one path.
But there was a strong Brexit vote in the Labour voting areas. Many Labour MPs worry they will could lose votes in an election if they don’t support ‘the democratic will of the people’.
Though whether they prefer to vote Tory given their abject failure to deliver Brexit, that is another question.
Another path is the Tory centre ground splitting and joining the Independent Group. There could be a swing to the centre in the Tories to appease them and they could start talking about a Peoples vote.
It is hard to say what is going to happen next. Both parties are very divided. They may start playing their cards after these votes are out of the way and parliament rejects a No Deal and asks for an extension to Article 50.
I shall be interested to hear what the EU has to say about the delay to Article 50 and how long it should be. Given that the UK government has been unable to come up with agreed position in 2 years. Is anything going to change it is only a couple of months? It is not as if May has been any where near close to getting support and there is no other plan on the table. It would take a long time to come up with another plan. How long? A year, two years?
:dubious:
In the absence of an agreed deal, an extension or a revocation, the UK exits in the hardest possible fashion.
There is an agreed-with-the-EU deal, but that’s just been massively voted against by the UK Parliament for the second time.
An extension requires EU27 unanimity, and they’ll need a good reason for that to happen an election, referendum etc
Revocation is the only option available to change the default to remain.
It depends on the text of the motion presented to Parliament. I don’t think it’s been published yet. Possibly, it’s still being worked on, or simply is waiting for final approval. My prediction is that it will be a motion to require that any exit from the EU must occur under a legislated withdrawal act. That will take no-deal off the table. It’s been announced as a free vote, at least for the Conservatives.
What it won’t do is overturn the invocation of Article 50. I’m guessing there will be an amendment, probably from the SNP, that will seek to do so. I don’t think such an amendment would pass. Instead, Parliament will vote for an extension of the Leave date on Thursday. That should pass, but the EU could very well make counter-demands before agreeing an extension. Who knows what happens at that point. Basically, the government moved itself into a self-contradictory position, and needs to hire Schrodinger’s descendant to explain a path out.
That doesn’t take no-deal off the table, not at all. Only passing an agreed WA, or revocation, does that.
The No-Deal motion has since been published:
So not quite what I had predicted:
So it seems that no-deal is still on the table. However, Labour MP Mary Creagh is trying to take it off the table. Also, Jeremy Corbyn has stated that he wants no-deal off the table. So no obligations on Government yet, but in 20 hours, who knows?
Is there anything at all that would get a majority in Parliament? May’s deal? No. New referendum? No. Rescind Article 50? No. No deal Brexit? No.
The only thing that does get a majority is a statement of purpose that Parliament does not want a no-deal, but does anyone have a majority support for any path forward?
Yes, and it is yet another restatement of the legal position that has pertained ever since Article 50 was invoked. Parliament cannot legislate to prevent no-deal by fiat - there must be an agreement, or a revocation, to prevent no-deal. An extension merely delays that choice.
This has been the case for nearly two years now, and yet it still doesn’t seem to have sunk in.
I think there’s probably a Parliamentary majority for a Norway-type arrangement. How to get there from here though…
I’m amused by the fact that this thing has gotten so complicated that CNN had to post a freaking flowchart to show the possible options! From the flowchart, the path forward in summary seems to be “leave with no deal” in one step or two voting steps, or vote for a delay and face an unknown period of uncertainty. Sadly, “forget the whole damn thing and we’re sorry we ever had this stupid referendum” is not presently an option.
It absolutely is an option. CNN have simply chosen not to include it in their table - on the basis, I think, that the table only explores the options which flow from the motions the government will be moving.
How strikingly accurate Lord Buckethead was…
What is the benefit of a Norway agreement? It seems like they are an EU member in every way but in name, have no representation, and pay more for the privilege. Remain would seem a far superior option.
Same benefit as it has for Norway; it represents a compromise which takes account of the concerns of both leavers and remainers, and thereby manages to secure assent in a way that no hard brexit has been able to.
Remain is a far superior option - if you’re a remainer. But remainers were a minority (a large minority, but a minority) at the time of the refernedum, and even now are at best small majority. The dysfunction of a “winner-takes-all” approach to this question must by now be obvious. The UK has yet to grasp what the Norwegians have known all along; a viable position here requires buy-in from both sides.
And, incidentally, Norway aren’t in the EU “in everything but name”; there are signficant differences between Norway’s position and that of a Member State. Whether a brexiter thinks those differences matter depends on why they wanted Brexit in the first place and, as we know, different Brexiters want to Brexit for different reasons. But if you’re a Brexiter of the school that says “we joined a common market which has since morphed into a sinister political project”, and who wants to retain the economic benefits of EU membership without political elements, the Norway option has much to offer . All the economic benefits of the single market, but no tiresome commitment to “ever closer union”, no obligation to adopt the euro, no political or defence co-operation.
So, as a Remainer, you would rather Remain than have Norway. If you were a Leaver, you would rather have a “real” break with the EU. This compromise seems like instead of everyone getting a little of what they want, nobody gets anything they want. Almost like Solomon offering to split the baby.
How could that possibly command a majority in the Commons?
I come to this thread from time to time as an increasingly bewildered American who used to think our politics was dysfunctional.
How can May’s government have possibly survived all of this? It’s been clear - as it can be - to me that she’s been ineffective for years in her role. Now some of that is the fact that she’s faced with an insoluble problem. The British voters wanted Brexit so long as they faced no consequences. That appears to be what they were promised, isn’t it?
How are the MPs who overpromised still involved in government in any way? Shouldn’t the voters have slapped them down by now?
As I said: bewildered.
As a somewhat ill-informed American, allow me to lay this theory in front of you.
While I imagine there’s some hoop-jumping to be done, Labour could have and can at some point call for a new election, but as yet have not done so. It’s not like it’s required, after all.
I suspect that they’re waiting for everything to go pear-shaped, hard exit and all, and then call for election and reap the electoral benefits from all the problems that Brexit will cause.
Additionally, I doubt anyone wants to be governing at this time; Brexit is political poison no matter what happens. Why not wait, and pick up the pieces later?
Like I say, I’m an interested amateur in this matter, so take my thoughts for what they’re worth.
Okay, let me just check something here. At this point, there appear to be three possibilities:
- Some sort of extension - kicking the can down the road a few months, then returning to where we are now.
- Hard Brexit
- Withdrawal of Article 50
I’m betting on #1 for now, then #2 when the extension runs out, simply because there doesn’t appear to be any British politician willing to lead. The closest thing to a “good” choice I can see would be withdrawing the Article 50, and staying in the EU - and that would cause a firestorm, possibly literally.
I’m slightly skeptical that someone else would have been more effective within the same constraints May put on herself. But I think her continued survival has much to do with the fact that no one else in the tory party is particularly interested in getting their own turn in the barrel.
Did you mean to say “. . . nobody gets everything they want” here? Because, if you did, I agree. But if you meant what you wrote, no, I disagree. Brexiters get an actual Brexit; the UK ceases to be a member state. And they get at least some of the outcomes for which they consider Brexit to be desirable. And, while remainers don’t get what they most want, continuing membership, they do get to avoid some of the worst anticipated consequences of Brexit.
How does it command a majority in Norway?
It could command a majority very easily. A large (but minority) group of remainers might support it because they regard it as the best attainable outcome, “Remain” being precluded by the referendum result/attitudes of the leadership in both parties/other unpleasant political realities. And Brexiters might support it either because it actually addresses the reasons they support Brexit (if “ever closer union” etc is their particular bugbear) or because they regard it as suboptimal but still preferable to a no-deal Brexit. And those groups together could easily be a majority of the Commons.
Someone else could have been more effective, obviously, by not putting on themselves the constraints that May chose for herself. It’s no defence of May to say that she has done the best she could within the constraints she adopted; her ineffectiveness starts precisely with the adoption of those constraints.