Mrs May took another serious lambasting in the House yesterday after she updated MPs on the EU summit on Sunday. I didn't watch the entire debate but during the hour or so I was watching, it was hard to see any member speaking in favour of the deal. The one or two who did, later on in the debate, did so almost furtively and were hardly enthusiastic about it. The Independent report it HERE saying her deal was 'torn apart' and Sky HERE say she was 'attacked from all sides'. The government looks like it's under siege
I lost count of the number of times she said the government would not extend the Article 50 period, nor call a people's vote and we would leave the EU on 29th March 2019. This was her answer to every member who asked what her plan B was if parliament voted against the deal. In other words if the vote goes against her she was asking MPs to believe we would exit without a deal. This is out of the question as most of them know.
So, also be in no doubt that a Plan B is definitely needed. If she hasn't got one, she would be well advised to get one quick.
Rachel Reeves made an excellent point that, should the vote be lost, the PM is likely to give MPs a second vote - but she steadfastly refuses to give the British people a second vote. Needless to say we only got waffle.
Dominic Grieve took the PM to task (HERE Col 42) about her letter to the nation and came close to suggesting she was misleading people:
"..... I must say to her that I did worry when I read at the weekend
her letter to the British people, which sets out a picture of the
future that seems to me to be at clear variance with any rational
analysis of the text in relation to the political declaration. How can
we seriously say to people that the Northern Ireland backstop will not
act as a fetter on our future freedom of action? How can we say that we
will lose the jurisdiction of the ECJ, when it is in fact going to
continue to play a major part in our lives for the foreseeable future?
If we are to have an informed debate, would it not be better that we are
completely transparent about the sorts of problems that we will have to
face when, if the Prime Minister succeeds with her motion in two weeks’
time, we get through the stage of leaving the EU on 29 March? The truth
of the matter is that our problems have hardly begun".
Sir Michael Fallon told the House:
"Nobody
can now doubt that the Prime Minister has tried her very best. Are we
not none the less being asked to take a huge gamble here: paying,
leaving, surrendering our vote and our veto without any firm commitment
to frictionless trade or the absolute right to dismantle external
tariffs? Is it really wise to trust the future of our economy to a
pledge simply to use best endeavours?"
There cannot be any commitment to frictionless trade because it simply isn't possible outside the SM and the CU. On The Today programme this morning Fallon was calling for negotiators to go back to Brussels and get a 'better deal'. This is another fantasy.
If we ignore the Brexiteers whose hatred of Brussels is so deep that they would demand to leave next March even if a meteorite collided with the planet and plunged us into a nuclear winter, there is even less appetite in parliament for no deal. Most MPs are well aware of the cost to the economy of crashing out. It will never happen.
After December 11th when the vote is due to be held we will be on a blank page. Anything could happen. But it looks like the PM's deal or no Brexit. Hang on to your hats.
