Brexit means Brexit and we're going to makes a success of it. Those were the words of Theresa May when she first became prime minister in 2016 and it has been nothing but wall-to-wall failure ever since. Today we are told (HERE) she is writing to the EU asking for a short extension to the two year Article 50 period up to the end of June. There is no guarantee the EU will grant such a delay without a 'concrete plan' and justification. Quite what we will do with another three months is a mystery.
In a stunning lack of self-awareness and sign of her utter refusal to face reality, Number 10 said the PM shares the public's 'frustration' at Parliament's 'failure to take a decision'. This is the 'decision' they have already taken twice! It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. It seems the PM is still fixed on getting her deal through the House next week and then using the next three months simply to put in place the final pieces of legislation.
So, regardless of Bercow's ruling on Monday, the government is going to push MV3 to another inevitable and humiliating 'failure to take a decision' in the House of Commons next week by rejecting her deal for a third time.
At yesterday morning's cabinet we were told (HERE) there was a 'row' and a cabinet source said there was 'frustration' (there's a lot of it about) at the PM's refusal to be clear about whether she would ask for a short or a long extension. Well, this article in The Telegraph (HERE) probably helped to push her overnight towards a short one. She has apparently been told any delay risks the 'end of the Conservative party' (we can only hope) amid reports that some ministers are set to resign. It was probably Andrea Leadsom. Her departure would cause a significant rise in the average IQ of the cabinet so I wouldn't worry too much.
What will the EU say?
Yesterday, in a news conference in Brussels, Michel Barnier gave a statement (HERE) in which he spoke about what the EU27's reaction would be to the request for an extension. He said:
In a stunning lack of self-awareness and sign of her utter refusal to face reality, Number 10 said the PM shares the public's 'frustration' at Parliament's 'failure to take a decision'. This is the 'decision' they have already taken twice! It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. It seems the PM is still fixed on getting her deal through the House next week and then using the next three months simply to put in place the final pieces of legislation.
So, regardless of Bercow's ruling on Monday, the government is going to push MV3 to another inevitable and humiliating 'failure to take a decision' in the House of Commons next week by rejecting her deal for a third time.
At yesterday morning's cabinet we were told (HERE) there was a 'row' and a cabinet source said there was 'frustration' (there's a lot of it about) at the PM's refusal to be clear about whether she would ask for a short or a long extension. Well, this article in The Telegraph (HERE) probably helped to push her overnight towards a short one. She has apparently been told any delay risks the 'end of the Conservative party' (we can only hope) amid reports that some ministers are set to resign. It was probably Andrea Leadsom. Her departure would cause a significant rise in the average IQ of the cabinet so I wouldn't worry too much.
What will the EU say?
Yesterday, in a news conference in Brussels, Michel Barnier gave a statement (HERE) in which he spoke about what the EU27's reaction would be to the request for an extension. He said:
"EU Leaders will need a concrete plan from the UK in order to be able to make an informed decision.
"And key questions will be: Does an extension increase the chances for the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement? Will the UK request an extension because it wants a bit more time to rework the Political Declaration?
The last question is the killer isn't it? If she says no we may not get an extension at all. If she says yes she will be in trouble with her own backbenchers. Barnier goes on:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I recall that this Political Declaration, which sets out the framework for our future relation, could be made more ambitious in the coming days if a majority in the House of Commons so wishes. If not, what would be the purpose and the outcome of an extension?"
The EU's position seems clear. If we want to carry on arguing or moving further away from the EU - becoming less ambitious as Barnier puts it, they may not be inclined to delay Brexit at all. Barnier claims they are ready for a no-deal outcome and I would bet they are far more prepared than we are.
May's answers to the questions will be fascinating in any case - she never knowingly gives any answers to anything.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I recall that this Political Declaration, which sets out the framework for our future relation, could be made more ambitious in the coming days if a majority in the House of Commons so wishes. If not, what would be the purpose and the outcome of an extension?"
The EU's position seems clear. If we want to carry on arguing or moving further away from the EU - becoming less ambitious as Barnier puts it, they may not be inclined to delay Brexit at all. Barnier claims they are ready for a no-deal outcome and I would bet they are far more prepared than we are.
May's answers to the questions will be fascinating in any case - she never knowingly gives any answers to anything.
Barnier wants to know, "how can we ensure that, at the end of a possible extension, we are not back in the same situation as today?" - the key word being ensure. I really cannot see how the PM can offer to 'ensure' anything given the present state of politics in Westminster.
May is approaching the summit at the end of the week in exactly the same way she started the process back in March 2017, without a plan or a clear objective. It looks like a case of go and find out what you can get. But without a 'concrete' plan she won't get anything.
It would surely be the greatest irony if after years of saying no deal is better than a bad deal we are either forced into a no-deal outcome against the PM's wishes or it happens by accident. So, if we do indeed require an extension to Article 50, I think our fate is now solely in the hands of the EU. They decide if we are leaving on March 29th and not us.
Is it 'the law' that we leave on March 29th?
We keep hearing Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 - because 'it's the law'. They seem to believe that section 20 (1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 is the means by which we leave the EU. John Longworth of Leave means Leave said it again yesterday on the Brexit Betrayal 'march' going through (I think) Knaresborough with what looked like not much more than the queue from a busy fish and chip shop.
But the House of Commons Library briefing note published yesterday (HERE) dispels what it calls misconceptions about extending Article 50. Brexiteers understanding of the law seems to be just such a 'misconception'. Put simply, the Brexiteers are wrong - as they are on most things.
The note, which seems to have been aimed expressly at them, says:
"The domestic law definition of 'exit day' does not affect when the UK leaves the EU. It only affects when the UK changes its laws to deal with the domestic consequences of EU exit".
Legally, if Article 50 is extended we are still a member of the EU with all of the treaty obligations on March 30th that we had on March 29th. As the note makes clear:
"By a similar sentiment, the UK does not leave the EU simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. Repeal of that Act would only place the UK in breach of its membership obligations if it had not already left. The role of UK domestic law in the operation of Article 50 is to determine whether the UK Government can or must start it (by notification) or stop it (by revocation). No more; no less."
And it makes even clearer:
"In such a scenario [an extension being agreed] the UK would continue to be a member of the EU – with all the resulting obligations in EU law. However, if the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 were to be brought fully into force, this would have the effect of repealing the ECA. Even though much of EU law would have been 'converted' into UK law, no UK court could refer a case to the CJEU, many financial payments to the EU would be (domestically) unlawful, and UK law would not 'keep pace' with subsequent developments in EU law. Moreover, the commencement regulations for the 2018 Act provide that the European Union Parliamentary Election Act 2002 is to be repealed 'on exit day'. Unless 'exit day' is updated, the UK would have no domestic legal basis for holding European Parliamentary elections in May 2019".
It would surely be the greatest irony if after years of saying no deal is better than a bad deal we are either forced into a no-deal outcome against the PM's wishes or it happens by accident. So, if we do indeed require an extension to Article 50, I think our fate is now solely in the hands of the EU. They decide if we are leaving on March 29th and not us.
Is it 'the law' that we leave on March 29th?
We keep hearing Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 - because 'it's the law'. They seem to believe that section 20 (1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 is the means by which we leave the EU. John Longworth of Leave means Leave said it again yesterday on the Brexit Betrayal 'march' going through (I think) Knaresborough with what looked like not much more than the queue from a busy fish and chip shop.
But the House of Commons Library briefing note published yesterday (HERE) dispels what it calls misconceptions about extending Article 50. Brexiteers understanding of the law seems to be just such a 'misconception'. Put simply, the Brexiteers are wrong - as they are on most things.
The note, which seems to have been aimed expressly at them, says:
"The domestic law definition of 'exit day' does not affect when the UK leaves the EU. It only affects when the UK changes its laws to deal with the domestic consequences of EU exit".
Legally, if Article 50 is extended we are still a member of the EU with all of the treaty obligations on March 30th that we had on March 29th. As the note makes clear:
"By a similar sentiment, the UK does not leave the EU simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. Repeal of that Act would only place the UK in breach of its membership obligations if it had not already left. The role of UK domestic law in the operation of Article 50 is to determine whether the UK Government can or must start it (by notification) or stop it (by revocation). No more; no less."
And it makes even clearer:
"In such a scenario [an extension being agreed] the UK would continue to be a member of the EU – with all the resulting obligations in EU law. However, if the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 were to be brought fully into force, this would have the effect of repealing the ECA. Even though much of EU law would have been 'converted' into UK law, no UK court could refer a case to the CJEU, many financial payments to the EU would be (domestically) unlawful, and UK law would not 'keep pace' with subsequent developments in EU law. Moreover, the commencement regulations for the 2018 Act provide that the European Union Parliamentary Election Act 2002 is to be repealed 'on exit day'. Unless 'exit day' is updated, the UK would have no domestic legal basis for holding European Parliamentary elections in May 2019".
"If these changes came in too early, the UK would run the risk of breaching its obligations as a Member State. Infringement proceedings could be brought against the UK before the Court of Justice of the EU".
I might say this was reinforced earlier in the day by this item on the Politico website (HERE) which concluded:
"In Westminster, the U.K. government will be obliged to tweak the EU (Withdrawal) Act to change the exit day, but this can be done by a minister using secondary legislation known as a Statutory Instrument. It remains a source of contention whether the U.K. needs to change its domestic law to delay Brexit at all, because it would continue to be bound by its international commitments regardless".
What is Mrs May likely to tell the EU?
Let's hope the EU 27 have more luck getting an answer and a 'concrete' plan out of Mrs May than MPs had on Monday getting sense out of hapless DEXEU minister Kwasi Kwarteng (HERE). Any number had a go at finding out what the government intended to do if the deal was not ratified (nobody expects it to be approved next week) and Mrs May asked for and got an extension. This was his reply to a question from Mark Francois at Column 820:
Kwasi Kwarteng
"My right hon. Friend asked, essentially, two questions. He asked how long the extension would be. That depends on whether the meaningful vote goes through. If we have a deal and if the deal goes through, we will ask for a short extension. If, for whatever reason, the vote does not happen, or is frustrated, or the deal is voted down, we will probably ask for a long extension. [Hon. Members: 'How long?'] That would be a matter for the EU, and for our Government, to decide".
Then LibDem MP Tom Brake had his attempt at Column 824:
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
"The Minister says that he answers questions in the way he sees fit, but I think the House would say that that is not at all. If he cannot think of a reason for a long extension, who does he expect to come up with one?"
Kwasi Kwarteng
"As I have said, in a spirit of optimism, I still believe that there is a chance—perhaps a slim chance—that the meaningful vote will go through. People can scoff and laugh, but I still believe that. In the event that it does not go through, we will have to ask for an extension, then the SI will be laid before the House. There will be ample debate next week on what the House might wish to do in that longer extension period".
This is putting the cart before the horse. The EU are asking for a concrete plan THIS WEEK while the government intends MPs to debate what they 'might wish to do' NEXT WEEK.
Gary Gibbon, Channel 4's political correspondent even suggested from sources in government that MV3 will be put to parliament next THURSDAY - that's a little over 24 hours before we crash out!!
We are going to the very brink and then some more. One feels it is not going to end well. An almighty collision with reality is just nine days away. Brace yourself.
