Theresa May made a statement to the House yesterday on her meeting with the European Council (Hansard - HERE). I have to say it wasn't well received by the Brexiteers. Bill Cash called her trip to Brussels an 'abject surrender' and asked her to resign. He reminded her she had said we would leave on March 29th more than a hundred times (and he believed it, what a fool he is). He was not a happy bunny.
But neither was Mark Francois MP, touted earlier this week by someone in The Telegraph as a possible leader (HERE), which only shows how low we have sunk as a country, who said (Col 524):
"The Prime Minister’s first extension was based on the fact that we would ratify the withdrawal agreement, and in what was in effect meaningful vote 3 we turned it down again. Now she has been given another extension—longer than she asked for—yet again on the basis that somehow we will ratify the withdrawal agreement. Perseverance is a virtue, but sheer obstinacy is not. [Interruption.] Prime Minister, if, as I suspect, the Leader of the Opposition strings you along in these talks and then finds a pretext to collapse them and throws in a confidence motion, what will you do then?"
The 'interruption' was when he uttered the word 'obstinacy' and his own colleagues pointed to him behind his back! Only the DUP and the ERG could accuse the PM of obstinacy and keep a straight face. Francois looks heated and angry at the best of times but steam appeared to be rising from him yesterday.
Mrs May is still intent on forcing a majority of MPs to accept her deal with or preferably (from her point of view) without, any changes to the political declaration which might be agreed with the Labour party in the next few days or weeks. It's not impossible that she will indeed get something through eventually although one of the stumbling blocks is Labour's insistence on a confirmatory vote. She took any number of questions from opposition MPs to the effect that if she would include in her deal the requirement of a confirmatory vote, they would support it.
She steadfastly and stubbornly refused to offer any such vote - knowing it would go through in a flash. But she was less than unequivocal as we see below.
If she does manage, against the odds, to get the deal through parliament it will be on a narrow majority, perhaps as little as one or two votes, with little support in the country for what she has negotiated. What sort of foundation is that to begin detailed negotiations on our future relationship?
On the question of a 2nd referendum Mrs May gave what I thought was a carefully crafted answer (Col 515):
"The Government have not offered a second referendum. I said to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions that our position on that issue had not changed. A second referendum has been rejected twice by this House. But, of course, once we have agreed a deal and the Bill is going through that puts that in place, I am sure there will be Members of this House—because there are Members who do support a second referendum—who will want to press their case".
She then referred other MPs back to this answer when they kept asking (as they did rather a lot) about another vote. She was very careful not to rule one out in the future so we live in hope.
Joanna Cherry (SNP) said the indicative vote for a second referendum reached 280 on it's second attempt and pointed out this was a higher vote than the PM's own deal got on it's third attempt.
Perhaps equally important but almost unnoticed was this answer from the PM (Col 534):
"We have already indicated our intention to ensure that Parliament has a greater role in relation to the future relationship by accepting, as we said on 29 March, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Elements of this are about the political declaration, but there are also elements that are about what we do here in this House in UK legislation to ensure that we are entrenching objectives for that future relationship. Of course, the negotiation still has to take place with the EU on that future relationship, but there are many steps that we can take here in the United Kingdom to give confidence to Members of this House".
I had a look back to the 29th March debate (HERE Col 701) where Mr Snell, said to the Attorney General:
"The amendment that I tabled with colleagues today was very clear. Any process for the House would have to be underpinned by legislation—it would have to form part of a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill, and there would have to be a clear role for the House to agree the future relationship before it was signed off with the European Union. Can he give confirmation at the Dispatch Box, if he introduces the Bill next week, that those measures will be in clear text, in that Bill, in black and white?"
The Attorney General confirmed the government was minded to accept it. If this hung parliament does indeed become more involved in negotiations as he confirmed, it will be a recipe for yet more argument, division and delay. Trade negotiations are difficult enough with a small, highly focused, experienced team but when 650 MPs are involved they will take forever.
The Withdrawal Agreement is contentious, but nothing like as contentious as the future trade and security relationship that we will be negotiating (if we ever leave!). Imagine what will happen when the EU demand access to our fishing grounds in exchange for access to their market for our catch. Fishermen and fishing communities will accuse MPs of selling them out. In truth there will be many communities and industries we will have to sell out. This is how trade deals work. There will be ructions and endless capacity for more and bigger arguments. Which brings me to another point.
In my opinion the chaos that we know as Brexit was brought about by rank dishonesty, not being up-front, open and straight about the long and difficult road that we have started down but which stretches out ahead of us and over the horizon. But we have learned no lessons, or at least Theresa May hasn't.
Continuing her invariable policy of misleading the country she told MPs she is still aiming to end the transition period on December 31st 2020 although she gave herself a little bit of wiggle room. In answer to a direct question (Col 540) she said:
"It is certainly my view that that transition period can end at the end of December 2020, and indeed we should work to ensure that it does end at the end of December 2020".
Note 'can' rather than 'will'. But this is an absolutely Herculean task, even assuming a united country, parliament and cabinet and a clear, detailed mandate. We have none of these things, plus MPs unable or unwilling to compromise standing right behind the negotiators. We would be embarking on the next phase of talks in precisely the same way that we began the first. No clear objectives and divided opinion about where we should be headed.
The issue of the 'blind Brexit' as it has been described, will come back to haunt whoever leads the talks and I assume that will not be Theresa May. But a blind Brexit it must be. No Conservative PM can afford to show the party the real choices it is facing.
Change is surely the most difficult thing to manage. We are all creatures of habit and get used to things as they are. Upheaval is to be avoided at all costs. If Brexit happens we will live in a world where constant change is the new normal. People will have enough change to last a lifetime - and it probably will.
