The irony is delicious. For Brexiters, leaving the EU next spring would restore parliament’s control over Britain’s destiny. Inconveniently, parliament has jumped the gun.
The irony is delicious. For Brexiters, leaving the EU next spring would restore parliament’s control over Britain’s destiny. Inconveniently, parliament has jumped the gun.
Theresa May’s government has lost control. So too have her party’s anti-European fundamentalists. In its infinite wisdom, the House of Commons seems minded to withhold backing from the versions of Brexit now on offer. You could call this sovereignty in action; or, perhaps, in merciful inaction.
There are twists and turns aplenty yet to come in this dismal story of national self-harm. For all that, events have cleared away much of the clutter. Collisions and contradictions put to one side since the referendum are now centre stage. Mrs May’s efforts to reconcile her party’s irreconcilables have reached the end of the road. By appeasing Leavers she hardens the resolve of the stalwart band of Conservative pro-Europeans.
The Brexiters’ assumption has always been that they will impose on the rest of us their Elizabethan fantasies of a buccaneering England restored to global pre-eminence. As the cheerleaders for departure, they assumed they could set its terms. Now they find that parliament wants its say. They can wreck Mrs May’s plans, but lack the votes to carry their own. Their rage is palpable. Stalemate could yet see Britain staying in.
Ministers will tell you soothingly that the compromises in the government’s white paper strike the balance between economic pragmatism and national political independence that was always going to be at the heart of a deal with the EU27. Tempers, they add, will cool over the summer. Mrs May will be back in business come September. This is how it may look in Whitehall. To my mind, the politics have a very different feel.
The noisy departure from the cabinet of leading Brexiters Boris Johnson and David Davis was followed by a trickle of resignations from the junior ministerial ranks. Most of those departing were among the never-has-beens and never-will-be’s of national life. The rebellion was enough, however, to unnerve 10 Downing Street. Elsewhere, the white paper has been disowned by Labour pro-Europeans. The sympathies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn lie with Brexit, but Mrs May has thrown a bridge over the opposition divide.
This week’s passage through parliament of the government’s Brexit legislation testified to the prime minister’s weakness. Faced with a rebellion by the Brexiters, she surrendered the ground. But her acceptance of amendments to the government’s customs legislation served only to provoke a revolt among pro-European Tories. Mrs May was left to rely on a handful of Labour rebels to rescue the government from a humiliating defeat.
The purpose of the hardcore Brexiters in the backbench European Research Group is clear enough. They want to send a message to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, that whatever might be said in the white paper, the prime minister does not have the political authority to strike a bargain. They may be right. Where they are wrong is in saying that the alternative to a negotiated settlement is a “no deal” Brexit in which Britain crashes out from the EU. There is no such binary choice.
Most of the fundamentalists are English nationalists by another name. This explains perhaps why they know so little about the process of bargaining with the EU27. They want the government somehow to “prepare” for a cliff-edge Brexit. But, just as the terms of the present negotiations have been set by Mr Barnier’s team, so too would be the conditions of a no-deal rupture.
It would be for the EU27 to decide whether they should halt all imports from Britain until its products had secured the appropriate EU certifications. Likewise, the government would have no say over how long European aviation authorities would take to give clearance for aircraft flying from the UK; or over under what conditions British freight companies would be permitted to operate beyond Calais. The same would apply across almost every area of national economic activity, from data transfer to the licensing of medicines and nuclear safety. Do Mr Johnson and his chums want Mrs May to “prepare” for a national shutdown?
The intelligent alternative to a settlement this autumn is a delayed rather than a cliff-edge Brexit. If Mrs May succeeds in securing a deal with the EU27 but fails to secure a majority at home, it will fall to parliament, not the Tory fundamentalists, to chart a course. In the best of circumstances this would mean a national government that recognised parliament’s pro-European majority. In any event, there are enough sane MPs across all parties to be confident that parliament would seek a suspension of the Article 50 process in preference to a kamikaze Brexit.
Mrs May showed her hand this week when putative Tory rebels were threatened with a general election should the government lose an important vote.
Her strategy is to push ahead through the autumn in the hope of securing an agreement with Mr Barnier along the lines of her universally unloved white paper. If — and it remains a big if — she succeeds she will present her party with a choice — accept the deal or risk putting Mr Corbyn in Downing Street.
Perhaps she will pull it off. It does not feel like this at Westminster. This sorry saga started with a referendum. Parliament may yet decide it will take another plebiscite to break the stalemate.
