On Tuesday, the Prime Minister made a statement reaffirming the Government’s commitment to hold another meaningful vote by March 12. Significantly, Theresa May also outlined a role for MPs to determine what happens if the Government fails to win a meaningful vote by that date. On March 13, the House of Commons would have the opportunity to vote on a motion on leaving the EU with No Deal.
If the House decides against this course, the Government will bring forward another motion requesting a “short, limited extension to Article 50” which it would then seek to negotiate with the EU. These commitments have successfully seen off the plan proposed by the backbench MPs Yvette Cooper and Oliver Letwin to have the House of Commons take control of the standing orders and determine the terms of an Article 50 extension.
On one level, May’s promise of holding a vote on an extension is a concession to the Remainers within her Cabinet. The threat of ministerial resignations seems to have been a factor here, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated promise to deliver Brexit on time. On the other hand, by insisting that an extension would have to be a “one-off”, and also that “an extension cannot take no deal off the table,” May has sought to reassure Brexiteers that she is agreeing to this course of action reluctantly.
Her comment that the UK “will ultimately make a success of No Deal” if it happened was striking – especially so given that the Government’s assessment papers published yesterday gave a fairly stark picture of the serious economic consequences of a No Deal outcome.
Where does this leave Brexit? In a way, nothing has changed. The three possible outcomes are still the same as they were last week: leaving with the current deal (or something very close to it); leaving with No Deal; or abandoning Brexit altogether. Proponents of each of these outcomes can plausibly claim that the events of the last few days keep their preferred option open. An extension of Article 50 is a bridge to the final destination.
While attention is now focused on the possible extension, the Government is clearly hoping that it can short-circuit this route by persuading MPs to support it on the meaningful vote by March 12. Much depends on whether the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, is able to secure meaningful reassurances about the temporary nature of the backstop. Whether this is enough for the two key groups that the Prime Minister needs to win over – the European Research Group (ERG) and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – remains to be seen.
ERG members clearly hope that the backstop can be removed or rendered ineffectual by the commitment to explore the “alternative arrangements” envisaged in the Malthouse proposal. But they have struck a more conciliatory note in recent days and there are hints of compromise.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG Chairman, has said he could live with a “de facto removal of the backstop,” suggesting that an appendix to the treaty or a text of equivalent legal weight setting out an end date would be an acceptable alternative to formally re-opening the Withdrawal Agreement. The ERG are still demanding a significant change, but there is clearly a chance of winning some of them around.
As for the DUP, there are also signs that the party is looking for a way to vote for the Brexit deal. The party’s Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds, has said that “without a legally watertight way out of the backstop, we certainly could not support any future withdrawal agreement brought to this House” – a carefully chosen form of words hinting that Unionists could accept the backstop provided they have reassurances about the exit route.
The Government clearly needs to handle this aspect of the negotiations very carefully, while also doing as much as they can to encourage Labour MPs to support the deal. Ultimately, Ireland will not agree to any compromise which allows the ERG or the DUP to say they have scuppered the backstop.
If the next meaningful vote fails, it seems certain that the House of Commons will not sanction a No Deal Brexit at the end of March. An extension is therefore likely, though the Government’s aim will be to keep it as short as possible. This course of action must be approved unanimously by the EU27, but all the signals are that they would be prepared to facilitate an extension – even if France has taken a slightly firmer line seeking clarifications about the purpose of the extension. The Prime Minister’s unwillingness to go beyond the end of June is probably shared by some EU leaders, given that a longer extension raises the thorny question of British participation in the European Parliament elections.
Ruling out No Deal now does not mean it is ruled out completely. As May herself noted, an extension simply creates a “sharper cliff edge in a few months’ time.” Brexiteers are giving mixed signals about whether they see an extension as part of a Remainer plot, or whether they would be prepared to accept it in the hope that the sharper cliff edge might focus minds and bring further concessions. There is a danger that British politicians simply continue the same debate for several months to come, while some Brexiteers may see a short extension as the ultimate way to secure No Deal at a later date.
What about the possibility of reversing Brexit? The Labour Party’s pivot towards a second referendum is partly a party management issue and does not mean that a referendum will be passed by the current Parliament. Open Europe’s Dominic Walsh has estimated that even if the Labour Party whipped for a referendum, there would be an anti-referendum majority of 49 – taking into account those Labour MPs who have said they would not support a referendum regardless of the party’s position. Equally, supporters of a second referendum have long known that the only way to secure one is with official Labour backing. This week’s Labour announcement at least keeps the path open in the event that a longer extension is granted or a snap General Election is held. It goes without saying that another referendum would not necessarily stop Brexit, but it is probably the only way to do so.
For now, all the parties are waiting to see what emerges from the talks between London and Brussels in the next ten days. A compromise which brings over a significant number of ERG MPs and the DUP would be significant and would create momentum in the House of Commons in favour of the Brexit deal. It may or may not be enough for the next meaningful vote on or before 12 March – but the Government could try again before the end of the month, even if an extension is granted. At that point, the Prime Minister would have to judge whether the majority would hold together to enable it to pass the related Brexit legislation quickly.
Finally, some Tory Brexiteers are now hinting that they could support the Brexit deal if May agreed to stand down shortly afterwards – allowing a new leader to take a more vigorous approach in the next phase of the negotiations. For her part, May still hopes that she can get the deal through on time, securing her legacy as the Prime Minister who delivered a sensible Brexit. It is just possible that she could be successful.
