,
20 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I have been v.sceptical that its possible to "rule out" no deal (without backing a deal).
This *may* be shifting, partly as Corbyn wants to "rule out No Deal" while being sceptical of referendum/remain. And partly as Boles-Letwin-Cooper might have a mechanism to do it.
This *may* be shifting, partly as Corbyn wants to "rule out No Deal" while being sceptical of referendum/remain. And partly as Boles-Letwin-Cooper might have a mechanism to do it.
It seems likely A50 extension to April 29th on offer (maybe to June 29th/July 2nd), if EU derogation for UK Euro Elections could be offered legally). Almost certainly a Commons majority for that (the Letwin-Grieve votes). But as 2/7 is a v.real deadline, cankicking risk here high
A much more controversial move would be to replace No Deal with Revoke in UK law as the default, while seeking consensus on the deal to avoid the default
Corbyn appears to be demanding/supporting this (while cool on & opposing a referendum, and thinking Brexit deal needed)
Corbyn appears to be demanding/supporting this (while cool on & opposing a referendum, and thinking Brexit deal needed)
Commons resolution, to do either (both?) Of
* advise PM to request extension to 29/4 (or 29/6 if derogation solution)
* if no deal/extension by (29/3, 29/4 or 29/6) instruction to revoke by 5pm that day (!)
* commitment to seek majority for deal, starting from current WA
* advise PM to request extension to 29/4 (or 29/6 if derogation solution)
* if no deal/extension by (29/3, 29/4 or 29/6) instruction to revoke by 5pm that day (!)
* commitment to seek majority for deal, starting from current WA
The problem (if do not support revoke/remain, as only 175 MPs do) is how, having successfully "ruled out no deal", you do not get stuck with no Brexit (& no legitimacy, if agree need referendum to reverse).
This could kill this idea (though that means No Deal remains default)
This could kill this idea (though that means No Deal remains default)
Do not have solution to this conundrum.
If could be clear there is majority for content of Withdrawal Agreement (200 Cons + 150 Lab), subject to content of PD & agreed process of parliament role in round2
(Nb, backstop is *not* crucial dealbreaker for *this* majority coalition)
If could be clear there is majority for content of Withdrawal Agreement (200 Cons + 150 Lab), subject to content of PD & agreed process of parliament role in round2
(Nb, backstop is *not* crucial dealbreaker for *this* majority coalition)
Perhaps counterintuitively, Labour seems rather more likely to back "replace no deal with revoke as default" (*without* supporting default) than it is to back a referendum
Making Revoke the default does not need to meet any ECJ conditions, because not actually revoking (yet).
(Nor does it wreck negotiating hand, if WA negotiations have closed, though that would be one critique).
(Nor does it wreck negotiating hand, if WA negotiations have closed, though that would be one critique).
Part of the conundrum is that there is a latent (crossparty) majority for the WA as negotiated on the exit issues (but nobody in opposition can admit this, because they are "against the deal" based on the red lines/content of the (not negotiated yet) post-transition phase
Govt would hate "replace no deal with revoke as default". Arguably May should resign as PM rather than accept "no deal is worse than remain" foisted upon her by 330 MPs.
Govt could offer to seek the short A50 extension instead. (It is a final breathing space, not a solution).
Govt could offer to seek the short A50 extension instead. (It is a final breathing space, not a solution).
Actually Revoking on 29/3 (or 29/4 or 29/6) would mean this "build consensus for deal, not no deal" strategy failed. It would have to be unequivocal. It would have no domestic political legitimacy (esp with no referendum). So it would not be the end of the story.
It is not impossible to revoke and later issue: all member states have the right to leave the EU under Article 50. (You can't intend the reissue when you revoke). But boundaries are unclear. This report @UKandEU @BinghamCentre
A govt which sent a clear unequivocal withdrawal letter could also do some of these things:
* embark on a citizens process on what next, with no options ruled in or out
* hold referendum to ratify revoke
(And lose?!)
* hold a general election
(Can't bind successors)
* embark on a citizens process on what next, with no options ruled in or out
* hold referendum to ratify revoke
(And lose?!)
* hold a general election
(Can't bind successors)
Several pros & cons here. I think case for "revoke as default" (rule "no deal" out) is strengthened if those proposing it make clear they are willing to support legal text of WA (so ruling "deal" in) while seeking consensus over content of PD & future process of UK-EU talks
On reflection, more viable (less melodramatic) approach is:
* if Commons has not voted for a deal (by eg 1st March), the govt will seek an extension to 29/5 or 29/6.
* leave revoke out of it (but suggest have in back pocket if March)
* think Gvt cd accept with talks on deal
* if Commons has not voted for a deal (by eg 1st March), the govt will seek an extension to 29/5 or 29/6.
* leave revoke out of it (but suggest have in back pocket if March)
* think Gvt cd accept with talks on deal
The deal can be done by 29/3
* it is current legal text
* negotiation on political declaration is contentful part
* process for Commons engagement in future negotiation
+ Agree to hold a Commons free vote on referendum (& Euro elections too): rule out referendum if this loses.
* it is current legal text
* negotiation on political declaration is contentful part
* process for Commons engagement in future negotiation
+ Agree to hold a Commons free vote on referendum (& Euro elections too): rule out referendum if this loses.
In theory, you could not say this & then oppose eg changing the default away from no deal
The Chancellor clearly supports at least the softer (mandate an extension) version, citing the Boles bill approvingly, in leaked private call on Tuesday, as a way to reduce/remove No Deal threat
telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/…
telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/…
The softer (mandate extension) version will be attempted by the Boles-Letwin-Cooper administration
