As the deadline of 31st October approaches, it
becomes daily clearer that a plausible path exists for the prevention of a “no
deal” Brexit and indeed for the prevention of any kind of Brexit. The dangerous
incompetence of Boris Johnson’s government on the European issue has finally persuaded
many, probably most MPs of the need for a cross-Party government. Opinion has
not yet crystallised in Parliament on the precise mandate for this new
coalition, be it to hold a General Election or a People’s Vote. At present, the
balance of opinion in Parliament leans towards a new General Election, followed
by a People’s Vote. Once installed, however, a cross-Party government might
well wish to reverse this temporal sequence. A General Election now would be
highly unlikely to contribute anything to the resolution of the Brexit impasse.
By the vagaries of the current British electoral system, it could even result
in the election with a workable majority of an English nationalist government
headed by Boris Johnson. Opinion polls consistently suggest on the other hand that
a People’s Vote would lead to the UK’s remaining within the European Union. Faced
with choice, a coalition government would not need to hesitate long before
calling a People’s Vote, an option for which it would anyway probably be easier
to obtain an extension from the European Council.
“We can tolerate neither our vices nor their cures”
(Livy, Roman historian, 1st century AD)
by Brendan Donnelly Director, The Federal Trust
2nd September 2019
The recent unexpectedly lengthy prorogation of Parliament,
carried out with brutal speed and secrecy, should be a salutary reminder to
those hoping to prevent a “no deal” Brexit on 31st October of the
range of powers the British government possesses to manipulate Parliamentary
business. There is every sign that this ruthless and determined government
intends to use these powers to the full over the coming months. The ramshackle
constitutional and political arrangements of the British state, cruelly exposed
by the Brexit process, will allow the cabal at the head of the present
government ample opportunity to ride roughshod over Parliamentary opposition.
It was a disappointment to many that the Labour Party and those
Conservative MPs opposed to a “no deal” Brexit did so little last week to
oppose the installation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. The summer recess
will, however, allow both Labour and moderate Conservative MPs a pause for
reflection on their best way forward. If they can use this for profitable
discussion, it will not be too late for them to mount an effective campaign of
resistance when Parliament reassembles in early September. The foundations of
this resistance must, however, be laid in the coming month. Every wasted day
that passes makes more likely a catastrophic “no deal” Brexit on 31st
Much justified criticism has been heaped upon Boris Johnson
and Jeremy Hunt for the unrealistic European policies they have promised the
Conservative membership in the current leadership contest. It is not however
always sufficiently understood how necessary such unrealistic promises are in
order to win over the current Conservative membership; and how important these
promises will be, once given, for the European policies pursued in government
by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt.
At the time of writing it seems unlikely that the Withdrawal Agreement will be accepted by Parliament on 29th March, the day originally set for the UK to leave the EU. Parliament has decided that in these circumstances it will hold a further round of voting on 1st April, in the hope of arriving at a consensus on Brexit after the indecisive votes of 27th March. It is entirely possible that on 1st April a majority of the House of Commons will vote for permanent British membership of a Customs Union with the EU or for a further referendum. This will bring great political satisfaction to those MPs who since the beginning of the year have been arguing that Parliament should “take control” of the Brexit process.
UPDATE 25/03/19: Last week the European Council gave the United Kingdom two further weeks to come up with a plan for avoiding a “no deal” Brexit. It is now up to Parliament to adopt such a plan and make the government adopt it too. If this government remains set on “no deal,” Parliament needs to replace it.
It is frequently claimed that the central flaw of the 2016 European referendum was its failure to clarify the nature of the Brexit for which Leave voters were voting. There is some truth in this analysis, but it does not precisely capture the inadequacy of the result as a basis for subsequent action. Many, probably most, Leave voters had a clear idea of what they thought they were voting for: maintenance of the economic benefits of EU membership, coupled with the disappearance of the legal and political obligations arising from that membership. The Leave campaign spent much time and effort presenting this seductive and dishonest prospectus to the electorate. Indeed, they would not have gained their narrow victory if they had spoken frankly of the unwelcome trade-offs that would inevitably accompany Brexit.
It is significant and appropriate that the Conservative MPs who voted on 15th January against the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union should have been drawn from opposing wings of her Party. While the majority of her internal opponents came from the European Research Group, some came from a very different part of the political spectrum, like Dominic Grieve and Justine Greening, who favour a new referendum with the option to remain in the EU. The 2016 referendum was largely a product of divisions within the Conservative Party and the conduct of the Brexit negotiations has been dominated by the internal manoeuvrings within the Party. The Prime Minister’s attempts to please everyone within her fractious Party during the Brexit negotiations have ended up pleasing very few Conservative MPs outside the ranks of her government, members of which are bound to support her in a public vote.
In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the “will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. The 117 votes recorded against her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.