Nothing has changed as May goes round in circles on Brexit
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s description of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons today as being “like Groundhog Day” was for once not far wide of the mark.
On the surface, nothing has changed (a familiar theme for Theresa May). Whenever pressed on the state of the negotiations, the prepped line this time was “We continue to work for a good deal for the whole of the United Kingdom”. No new plans of any substance were aired here, but rather insurance policies for insurance policies dominated the discussion.
The delivery of a statement by May was prompted by yesterday’s dramatic developments. Discussions held yesterday between Dominic Raab and EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier unexpectedly broke down, with the Brexit Secretary walking out after just one hour. Talks are at an impasse.
The main purpose of the statement – to outline the details of the Irish backstop, and now the proposed ‘backstop to the backstop’ – gave the game away. The reality is that all negotiating energy is now focused entirely on the contingency plan to keep the whole UK in the customs union potentially after January 2021. Even talks on that are not progressing – according to EU officials there now isn’t even time to agree on the contingency plan, so we need a contingency plan to the contingency plan. Have they stopped to think about what might be taking up all the time?
Importantly – and worryingly – the aim for the final future relationship still hasn’t changed, and May seems committed to the “common rulebook” idea at the heart of her Chequers proposals.
There’s one small problem with this: the plan was rejected out of hand by EU leaders at last month’s Salzburg summit – indeed, Stephen Kinnock, Labour MP, today described it (accurately) as “dead in the water”.
The Prime Minister was quizzed by Opposition members and her own backbenchers, including Stephen Crabb, on the negotiating position and when a clear text will be available. Refusing to look facts in the face, the Maybot simply restated that the July White Paper, supported by almost no-one in Brussels or in Westminster, is still the goal.
A shocking but not surprising feature of the session was the occurrence of no fewer than seven calls for a so-called “People’s Vote”. These came from both sides of the chamber, with notable calls from Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Justine Greening and Anna Soubry. Hilariously, the justification used in the House was that the final deal won’t be “what the people voted for” – as though the people did vote to be ignored and asked to vote again.
Many members decried the prospect of No Deal, insisting no majority exists for it in the House. However, on this the veteran Eurosceptic John Redwood has the legal high ground. In truth, no parliamentary approval for No Deal is needed – in the absence of a deal Bill passing, unless Remainers can find a way to amend other legislation to halt Brexit, the current legislation will see Britain exit the EU on 29thMarch 2019, come what may.
Much discussion focused on the Northern Irish border question and the Prime Minister said the province’s “unique circumstances” needed to be addressed. May insisted that Northern Ireland would be coming with the UK in any future trade deals it strikes, but also refused to rule out completely the notion of Northern Ireland remaining in parts of the Single Market and customs union when pressed by Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s Westminster leader. All the while, May staunchly defended her commitment to protecting the Good Friday Agreement.
With no stated progress on the shape of the final deal, no agreement on the backstop, no agreement on the backstop to the backstop (following this?), and no answers provided to Brexiteers’ questions – including notable interventions from Boris Johnson and Iain Duncan Smith – on guaranteeing a time limit for emergency customs arrangements, the Prime Minister was, to coin her favourite phrase, “very clear”.
Very clear, that is, that other than planning for the failure of her plans, no progress towards an agreement has been made. If there’s no time to agree to the UK backstop, then how is there time to negotiate the permanent relationship? All this increases the chance of either No Deal or an indefinite customs fudge, probably followed by the fall of the government. Either way, chaos is likely to ensue. A combination of British incompetence and EU intransigence will be to blame.
But with the think tank Open Europe predicting today that Britain could see as little as 0.04% lost growth by 2030 on WTO terms (if it follows the right policies), will No Deal be the apocalypse everyone is predicting? Mr Redwood is known for many things, but failure to do his homework isn’t one of them. His sanguine approach towards a walk-away exit looks unnerving – but maybe he’s right.