|
How Theresa May Botched Brexit
Those were the times …
bigger
The Times page 1 is of January 18, 2017. Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union about Brexit were just beginning. The "you'll be crushed" arrogance in the headline characterizes the attitude the British government under May demonstrated during the talks.
Recently that attitude has somewhat changed. This screenshot was taken about an hour ago:
bigger
The BBC writes:
Theresa May has said she "sincerely hopes" the UK will leave the EU with a deal and she is still "working on" ensuring Parliament's agreement.
Arriving in Brussels, she said that she had "personal regret" over her request to delay Brexit, but said it will allow time for MPs to make a "final choice".
At the EU summit the PM spoke to the other 27 leaders to try to get their backing for a delay beyond 29 March.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said Mrs May spoke to EU leaders for 90 minutes and was asked several times what her contingency plans were if she lost the third "meaningful vote" on her deal in Parliament.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that if MPs vote down Mrs May's EU withdrawal agreement next week, the UK will leave without a deal.
May asked the EU to move the hard coded March 29 Brexit date to June 30. She may be given May 23, the day of EU elections, as a compromise but only if her deal passes the British parliament.
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy.
May's withdrawal agreement was already voted down twice. If it comes to a third vote in parliament it is very likely to fail again.
Yves Smith, who you should all read, opens her Brexit sit rep today with this:
We’ve been more pessimistic than most commentators about the likelihood of the UK escaping the default of a no-deal Brexit. We may not have been pessimistic enough.
There is still the possibility that May takes a 180 degree turn, but that would be the end of her career and likely also the end of the Conservative Party:
Now there is a popular push for an Article 50 revocation, with a petition already at over 400,000 signatures as of this hour. But as we’ll discuss, May would have to do a complete reversal to revoke Article 50, which is within her power, not just a Prime Minister, but also implementing the motion by Parliament rejecting a no-deal Brexit.
Article 50 is the part of the British withdrawal law that governs the Brexit process. If May revokes it, there is little chance that another Brexit attempt will ever be made. The majority that voted to leave the EU will have been betrayed.
An analysis by the BBC Europe editor says that the "Leaders want to avoid no-deal Brexit":
[W]hile EU leaders have ruled out re-opening the Brexit withdrawal agreement and the "backstop" text, you can bet they'll discuss a longer Brexit delay at their summit today.
This is, in my view, a misjudgment.
Yes, under normal circumstances and with a competent and trustworthy negotiation partner on the British side, ways would be found to fudge the issue and to avoid a Brexit in all but its name. That is why I predicted long ago that Brexit was not gonna happen.
But May has really done everything to affront the other side of the table. She did not stick to commitments she had given, delivered papers too late to properly discuss them, and came to emergency summits called on her behalf without anything new to offer.
Matthew Parris, a conservative political commentator in London who originally favored May, now remarks of her:
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid. I have heard that from almost everyone who has dealt with her," Parris says. He said he had never expected this much hatred, "and that is not a word I use lightly."
The leaders of other EU countries also have had it with here. The voters on the continent do not care about Britain. There will be no punishment for Merkel or Macron for letting Britain crash out.
The EU will survive without the United Kingdom. With a no-deal Brexit the United Kingdom is likely to fall apart. Within a few years North Ireland would join the Irish Republic, peacefully one hopes, and Scotland would vote to leave.
A bit of hope may still rest in this one line in the BBC report which it leaves unexplained:
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
Is there a EU deal being made with the opposition leader and behind Theresa May's back?
Given that she is the Prime Minister how would that work out?
b asks:
Is there a EU deal being made with the opposition leader and behind Theresa May’s back?
> No. Corbyn has been very distant, very hands off, sometimes contradictory, and imho he has made no reasonable, or interesting, they might be whacky, proposals re. Brexit, with *committed* gusto. I. e. articulating some kind of position, even if it means a sacrifice – for him, his mates, the Labour party, the voters, etc.
For ex. He was at some point accepting of a second referendum. Complete BS, distraction. No time to organise it – etc. Also, taking into account that the first ref. was v. strange: a political ploy by Dodgy Dave just advisory, which then became something someone promised to respect and was … subsequently set in stone!
Who could guarantee that? Cameron, May, Prince Charles? Individual pols can’t make promises like that. They can swear, I will do my best to support / see through, etc. X. Not more. Once they quit or die the promise dies with them, and moreover with rapid situation change (> the facing party, EU) such a promise makes no sense.
So repeating this dodgy referendum pitfall – presumably with the aim of reversing the previous result, with REMAIN winning, not very likely (the polls are close but are rubbish) is complete madness. It is the stuff of alternative realities in dark committee rooms, or seeking to fool the populace (bad.)
Corbyn has nothing to propose. If he had, he would have done so! His lack of action is a result of, imho, seeking Party Unity, or at least not destroying that which exists. A call too tough, as the Labor party is (elected members, local potentates, supporters, voters, etc.) a motley crew:
Third-Wayers (yikes! pro-EU, see T. Blair) – middle class and young ‘remainers’, who love Europe, Erasmus, free travel, some solidarity, ‘socialism’, etc. – remainers who have mixed families – biz interests – etc.. Then there are the Leavers, the trad. working base of the Labor Party who have been shafted since Thatcher, have suffered greatly from austerity, de-industr., privatization, neglect, being demeaned, etc.
Conciliating, gathering, these groups under one umbrella is impossible, so Corbyn is paralyzed.
Brexit has split both the main parties in 2 at least, 3 or more factions – showing that the present functioning of the UK political system has to hit the dust before a way forward can be found.
May is in a similar position. One side, the ERG (disaster capitalists, profiteering gangsters and traitors, say, destroy! profit!), on another Tory Remain (biz interest, Finance, London City, some Big Corps, etc.) Inbetween, ‘some compromise deal must be found’ – but how? ..?
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 22 2019 16:54 utc | 109
🙂 a lot of misunderstandings…brexit derangement…
somebody at 144. Well I’m glad to hear there is a plan B (taking it as your interpretation), don’t mean that sarcastically. I had thought a Norway type relationship might suit or should at least be seriously considered.
——————————————
Brexit. imho.
In the latest meet between May and the EU Council – no aides were allowed in the room to encourage her to speak frankly – it is reported that she was asked repeatedly what she would do if the, for the Brits, her Withdrawal Agreement, was voted down again, for the third, or possibly even the fourth time by Parliament. (Provided the Speaker would allow that, and I think he would find a loophole as he hardly wants to go down in history as Bercow who Botched Brexit.) She gave no response. Of course that doesn’t mean there is no plan B, May might not have wanted to reveal whatever.
As I understand it:
1) if Parliament approves the *only* existing ‘deal’ or proposal on the table, the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated over the past 2 years, the deadline for Brexit is pushed forward to 22 May, to allow some time for extra legislation, adjustments, whatever. Once the WA is signed by both parties, accomodations on specific matters, such as widget certification, drug imports, will take place, via ‘special temp measures’ – because everyone will be, will have to be, on the same page, working towards the same goal. Difficulties and disruptions will appear but *in principle* would be ironed out.
2) If the WA is not approved by a majority vote in Parliament, the deadline for a crash-out (fall-out is the usual term) Brexit is 12 April.
The conditions for extending the 12.4 deadline, to an unspecificied longer period, are imho rather vague, providing a way forward and such type of language.
What the way forward might be is opaque. In the UK, a new Gvmt, new PM, new proposals, perhaps. The EU does not want the UK to leave and is very willing to consider \new BS/, to bend over backwards, etc.
The EU is now in control of the process, it can choose to pursue some other path, and state, for ex. that, due to current unexpected positions / events UK-side, it is necessary for the good of all, to cancel deadlines, in order to closely explore, discuss, etc. a new future ‘deal’, thereby preventing a crash-out for some time.
Alternatively, the EU can throw up its hands in mock despair, and leave the UK marooned, tied to 5-eyes, (loosely) new trade deals with India, WTO frame, etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 24 2019 17:36 utc | 146
|
