The debate tomorrow on the Withdrawal Agreement is expected to include votes on various amendments, depending on which ones the speaker, John Bercow, selects. One of them is widely anticipated to be the amendment (n) submitted by Andrew Murrison and Sir Graham Brady.
This is written in the agenda of the Commons (HERE) as follows:
Amendment (n)
Dr Andrew Murrison
Sir Graham Brady
Damian Green
Mr Charles Walker
Dame Cheryl Gillan
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Mr Nigel EvansBob Blackman
At end, add “and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change.”.
It's not clear when Brady thinks the 'alternative arrangements' are to be decided but I'll come to that in a second. The Irish government, Michel Barnier and the European parliament have all made it clear that the backstop is not negotiable. But let us assume for the sake of argument that it is. The next question is: are these proposed re-negotiations to be carried out before or after the WA is ratified?
For some reason, there is a belief that this holds the magic key which will unlock the whole thing and allow parliament to ratify a Withdrawal Agreement. I say 'a' WA because it will clearly not be 'the' Withdrawal Agreement so painfully negotiated over the last eighteen months. It will be a totally different one, because opening it up will simply restart the negotiations.
What emerges will be another deal that might contain 'alternative arrangements' to avoid a backstop but with no guarantee it would be any more acceptable to parliament than the current deal. Juncker, we know has already said the price of getting rid of the backstop might be a permanent customs union.
There is clearly not enough time to renegotiate anything between now and March 29th. The Article 50 period would need to be extended, perhaps indefinitely, until a solution acceptable to both sides is found. So, do we ask for an extension? Do we ask for the backstop to be removed altogether as the PM apparently wants? I don't see the first of these options as being remotely acceptable to Brexiteers and neither to the EU. Do we revoke Article 50? I don't believe Brady wants that even if we do.
What I think is actually coming is a pointer to our weakened post Brexit future. A strange and uncomfortable reversal of the role we have usually played in forcing smaller countries to come round to our way of thinking. The EU are, sooner or later, either going to humiliate us into accepting the present deal or face the prospect of leaving without one and suffer an even greater humiliation later as we meekly return to the negotiating table.
It will be the moment of truth for Brexit.
