By Geoffrey Smith
Prime Minister Theresa May arrived in Brussels without a Plan B, so the European Union wrote her one and sent her back to London with it.
The plan buys a couple of precious weeks more to help the U.K. avoid crashing out of the EU without any transitional arrangements. However, it does not appear to be enough, on its own, to break the deadlock in the U.K. parliament and allow an orderly Brexit. ‘No Deal’ is now arguably not only the legal default outcome, it’s also the most likely.
At least that’s what the foreign exchange market made of it. The pound lost over two cents against the dollar after May’s arrival in Brussels, although it recouped around half those losses to stand at $1.3125 at 8PM ET (00.00 GMT).
May left Brussels still clinging on to Plan A: she wants to bring her twice-defeated Withdrawal Agreement back to the House of Commons for a third vote next week. The Speaker of the House, who determines procedure, has ruled however that the government cannot bring the same motion twice in the same session of parliament without making substantial changes to it.
Thursday’s events haven’t changed the Withdrawal Agreement one iota. May had asked for a three-month extension to the March 29 deadline. In the end,the EU gave her until the end of next week to get the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament. If she succeeds, then the U.K. will leave the EU on May 22, the day before elections to the European Parliament. If she fails, then the U.K. will leave without a deal on April 12, barring a political transformation in Westminster.
In a press conference after the summit, EU Council President Donald Tusk pointed out that other options still remain open: the U.K. could ask for a longer delay, but it would have to accept holding elections to the EU parliament. Neither of the major parties has the stomach for that, having told voters for the last three years that they would honor the result of the 2016 referendum and ‘deliver Brexit.’
Alternatively, and more radically, the U.K. could revoke its formal decision to leave (the so-called Article 50 process). Neither of those options is likely. An online petition to parliament to revoke the Article 50 process may have gathered over 2 million signatures in two days, but it still carries far less weight than the 18 million votes for Brexit three years ago.
The best hope of avoiding a Hard Brexit therefore lies in bringing the divorce deal back to the debating chamber. But even here, risks abound: Bercow hasn’t specified what changes would qualify as ‘substantial’ enough to warrant a third vote, and the dissenting lawmakers can’t agree on what form of Brexit they would vote for if they had the chance.
While May was in Brussels, the main employers’ and labor union organizations took the unprecedented step of issuing a joint statement begging May to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
“Our country is facing a national emergency,” the Confederation of British Industry and Trades Union Congress wrote in an open letter, warning that:
“Decisions of recent days have caused the risk of no deal to soar. Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come.”
The most elegant solution, albeit one that would anger Brexiteers, is for the House to pass the Withdrawal Agreement on condition that it is confirmed by the people in a new referendum – ideally a three-way vote that also offered the options of remaining in the EU, and leaving without a deal.
An amendment on these lines, drafted by two Labour Party lawmakers, ran into the sand two weeks ago due to opposition from both May and Labour’s own leader Jeremy Corbyn, but it is conceivable that both leaders would find it preferable to owning the consequences of a disorderly Brexit.
The question is not whether Britain’s leaders have the wit to find the way out of the impasse, but whether they have the will. The signs are still anything but encouraging.