The fallout from this week's EU summit is likely to hang around for some time. It went quite badly for Theresa May with the BBC (HERE) reporting one official once describing the Brexit process as "continually building more road ahead of Theresa May", to give her more time and space to navigate the political path. When you run out of road to kick the can down, the usual answer is to stop kicking but apparently May's answer is to demand more road.
Laura Kuenssberg says with "the EU's flat 'no' on Thursday night and Parliament's rejection, they might be all out of new Tarmac" and I think that's a fair summary. Kuenssberg goes on:
"This is Salzburg 2.0, when after months of being told a pick-and-mix approach to the EU was impossible, the prime minister insisted on pushing on, and presenting her Chequers plan to her fellow leaders. But guess what? As they said they would, they said "no", leaving her frustrated, embarrassed and without a plan.
"That's what's happened in the last week - on fast forward. She said she could get more guarantees from the EU. They have said no, leaving the UK, again, without a clear plan.
"Her many critics will ask - when does determination to achieve what seems impossible become a dangerous delusion?"
There is footage being aired on TV (HERE) showing May and Juncker in what was described as a 'heated discussion' where she appears to remonstrate with him about what she though was his accusation that she was 'nebulous' and imprecise about what she wanted. He subsequently explained that he was talking about the general debate in the UK.
Nebulous, by the way, means indistinct, indefinite, unclear, hazy, etc.
Sky News described the after summit press conference as a 'midnight horror show' when Tusk and Juncker confirmed there will be no renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement (HERE).
Robert Peston at ITV (HERE) describes what happened at the summit:
"But it was during the course of [EU leaders] questioning her that they concluded such a process - such an extension of talks [to provide extra reassurances] - would be a total waste of time. Why?
"Well according to one observer of the conversation between May and the EU27 leaders, “she could not say what would actually deliver a majority in parliament for her”.
"Why on earth could and should they start talks in the absence of knowing what May actually wants?
"The other things she could not give them comfort on were:
And it's ironic that one leader asked if it would not have been better to build a majority for some version of the deal before asking for help since Mrs May herself called for exactly this in 2007 when she co-wrote a pamphlet for Politeia (HERE) which specifically deals with how negotiators should get a mandate from parliament before going to Brussels. This is what she said (page 17):
"On European matters, the relationship between government and Parliament is not unbalanced; it is broken. Radical change is needed to allow Parliament and its scrutiny committee to fulfil its role. In particular there should be:
Statutory Scrutiny Reserve:
"The Scrutiny Reserve should be put on a statutory basis, so that ministers are required to come before the European Scrutiny Committee before negotiations at the European Council. It would therefore be impossible to override it. Ministers should have to set out their negotiating positions to the Committee, and gain its approval. It makes sense for this to be conducted in private, so that ministers are not put at a disadvantage in Council negotiations. The minutes of these meetings could then be made public after the negotiations are complete. This system would need to be backed by clear sanctions, such as a formal censure or the resignation of the minister in question".
"This is Salzburg 2.0, when after months of being told a pick-and-mix approach to the EU was impossible, the prime minister insisted on pushing on, and presenting her Chequers plan to her fellow leaders. But guess what? As they said they would, they said "no", leaving her frustrated, embarrassed and without a plan.
"That's what's happened in the last week - on fast forward. She said she could get more guarantees from the EU. They have said no, leaving the UK, again, without a clear plan.
"Her many critics will ask - when does determination to achieve what seems impossible become a dangerous delusion?"
There is footage being aired on TV (HERE) showing May and Juncker in what was described as a 'heated discussion' where she appears to remonstrate with him about what she though was his accusation that she was 'nebulous' and imprecise about what she wanted. He subsequently explained that he was talking about the general debate in the UK.
Nebulous, by the way, means indistinct, indefinite, unclear, hazy, etc.
Sky News described the after summit press conference as a 'midnight horror show' when Tusk and Juncker confirmed there will be no renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement (HERE).
Robert Peston at ITV (HERE) describes what happened at the summit:
"But it was during the course of [EU leaders] questioning her that they concluded such a process - such an extension of talks [to provide extra reassurances] - would be a total waste of time. Why?
"Well according to one observer of the conversation between May and the EU27 leaders, “she could not say what would actually deliver a majority in parliament for her”.
"Why on earth could and should they start talks in the absence of knowing what May actually wants?
"The other things she could not give them comfort on were:
- could Northern Ireland’s DUP MPs, who keep her in power, ever be brought round?
- when would it be best for the EU to actually provide the assurances she wants?
- and in the words of one EU leader, wouldn’t it have been better for the PM to build a majority for some version of the Brexit deal BEFORE asking for their help?"
And it's ironic that one leader asked if it would not have been better to build a majority for some version of the deal before asking for help since Mrs May herself called for exactly this in 2007 when she co-wrote a pamphlet for Politeia (HERE) which specifically deals with how negotiators should get a mandate from parliament before going to Brussels. This is what she said (page 17):
"On European matters, the relationship between government and Parliament is not unbalanced; it is broken. Radical change is needed to allow Parliament and its scrutiny committee to fulfil its role. In particular there should be:
Statutory Scrutiny Reserve:
"The Scrutiny Reserve should be put on a statutory basis, so that ministers are required to come before the European Scrutiny Committee before negotiations at the European Council. It would therefore be impossible to override it. Ministers should have to set out their negotiating positions to the Committee, and gain its approval. It makes sense for this to be conducted in private, so that ministers are not put at a disadvantage in Council negotiations. The minutes of these meetings could then be made public after the negotiations are complete. This system would need to be backed by clear sanctions, such as a formal censure or the resignation of the minister in question".
I posted about this some time ago (HERE). Mrs May has no excuse. She knew what she should have done but spectacularly failed to do it and this is the reason she has landed us in the constitutional mess we are now in.
