There is an excellent article at The Institute for Government on how MPs will be unable – given a genuine Brexit Prime Minister – to prevent a “no deal” Brexit. Unfortunately Gove, Johnson and Raab are compromised in their willingness to clearly leave the EU, although Johnson seems to have learned from his mistakes and is probably the best option.
Only when we leave the prison to which the EU has the key and act as a sovereign nation state can we bargain a future trade deal and relationship with the EU. It is pure poison to attempt any negotiations before we reach that state.
Boris Johnson is the clearest: “We will leave on 31st October – deal or no deal”. But he must make clear his opposition to free movement and mass immigration by understanding that future free trade will make mass movements of people not only wrong but unnecessary. The idea that we for instance should have freedom of movement with Canada Australia and New Zealand would impose on those countries the very uncontrolled threat which we have rejected from the EU! Of course UK citizenship for those of British ancestry from those countries should be made easier.
But leadership is about intellect, clear sighted action and making your philosophy deliver what party members want. A properly controlled, hard working Boris Johnson can do that.
Dominic Raab is dangerous insofar as he seems to think that only the Irish backstop is a problem. Far from it – equally fatal are (inter alia) the customs union base for future negotiations in the Political Agreement, the rights of EU citizens in the UK, the continuing powers of the European Court, the surrender to EU defence systems and the threat to the US, UK, Canada, NZ, Australia “Five eyes” security system.
And he “prefers to leave with a deal” – but we know what happens to those who start talking to the EU – especially with a deadline of 31st October (which would effectively apply to Raab). So he is wrong to say:
There is still time to negotiate changes to the so-called backstop of EU laws, over which currently we would have no say. That is a reasonable, limited request and would work in all sides’ interests.
Yes – it so limited a request that it makes no difference to that terrible deal for which May has just paid the price! Raab is also (at best!) somewhat woolly in his economic thinking.
Michael Gove has shown himself unreliable on so many occasions and his attempts to
“unite the Conservative and Union Party, ready to deliver Brexit”
shows a naivety that we can compromise on national sovereignty and the definition of Leave. We cannot. Leave first – negotiations later. Not sure we could trust Gove to do that. And he has already betrayed his meaning of “deliver Brexit” by voting for the May (Remain) deal. OK Johnson did as well but seems to have understood his failure and learned.
The other candidates are not worth considering:
Rory Stewart is a narcissistic Liberal Democrat who “will not serve” under a true Brexiteer like Johnson, Leadsom has proven too weak and naive, McVey is not leadership material and unbelievably thinks that the May deal would have meant that “at least we would have left”. Graham Brady thinks the Irish backstop is the only problem and is worse than Raab while Hunt (“doing deals is my business”) is prepared to dive back into the poisonous EU “negotiations”! Matt Hancock voted Remain at the referendum and is a cutter and trimmer who is prepared to “trade off” our economic interests against our sovereignty and is bound to cave in to the EU.
One of the best options was Liz Truss – but she is not standing. I assume she will back Johnson.
AFTER A REAL LEAVE
Then of course as a sovereign independent country trading initially under WTO terms we can (if the EU has learned its lesson and wants to avoid the billions of pounds in tariffs on their exports to the UK) negotiate reasonable trade terms with the EU just like scores of other countries in the world. Indeed it was only the disastrous Mrs May who turned down a Canada style trade deal for the UK! So given the reasonably frictionless trade already in place it should be straightforward to settle a trading arrangement.
If not the EU will suffer and we will go on to conclude trade agreements including a “major deal” with the USA – and of course the Commonwealth plus many of the other 100 plus countries in the world!
THE NEW PM CAN MAKE NO DEAL BREXIT INEVITABLE
Writing at the Institute for Government https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no-deal-brexit-cant-be-stopped-mps-0 Maddy Thimont Jack writes that with the right PM a no deal Brexit cannot be stopped – (I summarise):
- mere motions in parliament will not prevent a no deal Brexit and anyway a Brexit PM would not schedule any Opposition Days to allow them.
- Emergency debates under Standing order 24 are in neutral terms and not legally binding.
- A new session of parliament could lead to a Government programme being amended but the PM is not obliged to prorogue parliament and could choose to keep going until either the 31st October leave deadline or just leave earlier. **
- MPs could try to scupper other Government legislation but the PM could avoid putting any major legislation before parliament.
- A vote of no confidence would trigger a 14 day period for the same parties in parliament as now to form a new Government. But the clock would still be ticking for the 31st October deadline and neither Tory nor Labour MPs would dare risk an election.
A potential lost no confidence motion would put the seats of hundreds of Tories and scores of Labour MPs at risk – the former from the Brexit party and the latter from the Lib Dems, Greens and the Brexit Party. So would MP turkeys vote for Christmas?
** The Tilbrook case now before the Courts (which asserts we have already left the EU because May was not permitted to use secondary legislation to delay past March 29th) is either correct in which case we have already left or wrong in which case the Government need only not renew the extension on 31st October and we leave.
Thimont Jack also writes that a new PM who denies more “meaningful votes” denies the possibility of MPs taking control of the Commons business timetable again. And:
the no deal provision in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 – which would have required the Government to hold a vote in the Commons if no agreement had been reached with the EU by 21 January – has long expired
So Thimont Jack rightly concludes that:
It looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a prime minister who is determined to leave the EU without a deal
TIME IS SHORT
As the May blossom blooms we can happily rejoice that in both senses “the May is out”.
The Tory party has a very brief opportunity to implement the Brexit to which the 2016 Referendum their 2017 manifesto committed them – leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, exiting the single market and the customs union and reclaiming national sovereignty by the repeal of the 1972 Act. It is fallaciously known today as a “no deal” Brexit. Both the EU and the UK have legislated for it.
The next Tory regime has but a short time to live and deliver Brexit. Otherwise the Brexit Party will do the job and the Conservative Party will be no more. What an irony that the EU provided the Brexit Party with the platform to force MPs to follow the Leave instruction of the 2016 Referendum!
