In a turn of events that looked impossible, the UK may be headed for a no deal Brexit:
In the latest thrilling parliamentary episode of Brexit, the hopes and expectations of, among other Remainers, House of Commons speaker John Bercow were largely disappointed, and the hopes of Brexiteers began to rise again. That was not supposed to happen.
Before the actual votes on seven amendments to a government motion supporting Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, it was generally expected that some would pass and either delay the date of Brexit, or transfer control of parliamentary business from cabinet ministers to a coalition of Remainers, or allow MPs to choose among several alternative versions of Brexit. All of these were departures from usual parliamentary conventions — which Bercow had approved, contrary to both precedent and his duty of impartiality — and almost all represented a reversal of what a vast majority of MPs had voted for a year ago. Most significantly, however, they would all have had the intended effect of delaying Brexit indefinitely and likely canceling it altogether.
That was expected because it has become conventional wisdom that a House of Commons with a Remainer majority would inevitably vote only for a Brexit tolerable to the Remainers and thus disappointing to Leavers. It very much didn’t turn out that way. Of the seven amendments, the five most hostile ones were defeated, all by healthy majorities. The two amendments that did pass were (1) the Brady amendment, which the government had accepted as a way of keeping May’s plan alive, and (2) a non-binding amendment calling for the government not to pursue a No Deal Brexit but not providing any means to prevent it.
The latter is an example of a rule I’ve just discovered: “Votes that matter matter more than votes that don’t matter.” It’s been very easy for Remainer MPs to posture as principled opponents of Brexit when only other MPs were paying attention and Remainer cabinet ministers were quietly cheering them on. Remain seemed to be gaining ground, and its parliamentary advocates were almost blasé about reversing the referendum result. But the high-octane Brexit debate in the media and the campaign by Remainers to erect clever parliamentary obstacles to its realization meant that more and more voters were paying attention. One effect has been that public support for a No Deal Brexit — in which the U.K. would trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, rather than through a separate trade deal — has been rising since Christmas. In two successive BBC Question Time programs, the audience cheered when a lonely Leaver on the five-person panel demanded a simple No Deal departure. And both ministers and whips began to fear that a defeat would weaken the government on more than Brexit.
Under this combined public and party pressure, the rebels shrank in numbers and the government survived.
The practical effect of the Brady amendment was a modest one: to unite the Tories around a policy of sending May back to Brussels to ask for a time limit on the so-called Northern Ireland backstop (which would keep the U.K. in the EU customs union in order to avoid a hard border in Ireland). She herself is time-limited; she has two weeks to get this concession. Already the grand EU panjandrums have issued statements saying it’s out of the question. Very likely they are determined to hold that line. If so, May will come back either empty-handed or with some agreeable form of words — “ideally we would like the backstop to be temporary” — that she would try to sell to her party.
Remainers are painting all sorts of unlikely nightmare scenarios, from the specter of a “no-food Brexit” (because farmers and food companies hate selling food to willing customers, customs union or no customs union) or NHS being unable to buy drugs (because drug companies are notably unwilling to sell their product).
Oh, and Brussels wants the exit money May foolishly agreed to, even if Parliament rejects the deal. People in Hell want icewater, too…
Some related tweets. On the contempt the UK’s political class shows to voters:
“In the two-and-a-half years since the Brexit vote we have witnessed the most appalling elitism in living memory. The political class has heaped contempt on voters, treating us as a dumb, racist throng. It’s time voters fought back.”
Brendan O’Neill on @Dunphy_Official pic.twitter.com/I2s4ZNXw6k
— spiked (@spikedonline) January 31, 2019
Nigel Farage:
The UK is dealing with fanatics who are not prepared to be reasonable. Unelected bureaucrats like @JunckerEU and @MichelBarnier have been humiliating @Theresa_May and the British public do not like it. pic.twitter.com/lqPe57F9y0
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) January 30, 2019
A Remainer who would now vote Leave:
Remain voter would now vote to leave!
"I think honouring the result of the first referendum is really important. I believe in democracy."
Help save Brexit @ https://t.co/7va4JFnv8y pic.twitter.com/detH751lNW
— Leave Means Leave (@LeaveMnsLeave) January 30, 2019
Pat Condell:
No renegotiation = no deal = no £39 billion. Suits me. https://t.co/VjwuXrne3P
— Pat Condell (@patcondell) January 30, 2019
And don’t forget the onions:
Brexit: Why Dutch fear no deal will leave onions to rot https://t.co/mHFCjhBhfo
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 31, 2019
Tags: Brexit, EU, Foreign Policy, Nigel Farage, Pat Condell, Theresa May, UK