,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
On May's offer to Labour and why there won't be a cross-party deal. Thread:
What would be the basis of such a deal? On paper the main dividing line between the two parties is a permanent customs union. And - on paper - this is easily solved because the difference between May's deal and a permanent customs union is almost semantic.
May's deal calls the customs union (aka 'backstop') "a UK wide customs territory", while Labour seek to formalise this into a "permanent customs union".
The hard Brexiters are right when they say May's deal is very likely to lead to the later de facto because there is no unicorn solution to NI border.
So, simples, we get a cross-party consensus around permanent customs union. Er, no...
So, simples, we get a cross-party consensus around permanent customs union. Er, no...
Problem 1: there is no support for it in the governing party - no support in the executive that would need to deliver the legislation to turn it into a reality.
This is why the EU wants (correctly) the sign there is a 'stable majority' in the UK Parliament for the deal that emerges. They know that there are years of negotiations ahead requiring masses of legislation.
Just 36 Tory MPs voted for a permanent customs union. Even though the differences between May's deal are arguably cosmetic, the symbolic matters: Brexiters have died in a ditch for 'independent', deregulating global trade deals, they've whipped up Tory members behind it.
Problem 2: Labour can't support a cross-party deal for 2 reasons: (a) for the leadership it brings the crisis to an end and thus kills the early election; (b) for the membership and LP voters the leadership would have conspired in 'delivering Brexit'.
Problem 3: Changes to the Future Relationship declaration are not legally binding. And even Labour MPs who were keen on facilitating Brexit now know that once May goes a hard Brexiter will very likely be in charge for Phase 2 of the negotiations.
So Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove et al - whoever it may be - can rip up the Declaration on the Future Relationship and start again.
Is there an alternative to this? Yes, John Major proposed it:
Is there an alternative to this? Yes, John Major proposed it:
It's a National Unity government. But... Problem 4: hell will freeze over before Jeremy Corbyn enters a coalition government with the Tories. It. Aint. Going. To. Happen. Ever.
So that creates a paradoxical situation: a Labour leadership inclined to 'deliver Brexit' to implement the referendum result finds itself in the situation where the only way they can bring down the govt and force new elections is... by refusing (de facto) to "deliver Brexit"
Labour will almost certainly take May up on the offer of talks, but for both sides its a show - both are basically negotiating in bad faith.
The danger for Labour is May seeks a short extension on 12th April which doesn't cover the EU elections. This creates an absolute, My-Deal-Versus-No-Deal-Situation, and Labour is outmanoeuvred.
Here as @joncstone is tirelessly pointing out, the EU-27 will hopefully come to their rescue by blocking a series of 'recurring' short extensions and say there has to be three possible reasons for a long extension:
One of these - the election - is obviously to Labour's liking. So they need to hold their nerve. Put ratification referendum in their manifesto. Win the election. And play their small part in consigning Brexit to the dustbin of history.
