 |
| Commons 13 March 2019 |
Tuesday 12 March saw the House of Commons reject - essentially for a second time - the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration which the government had negotiated in its efforts to enable the UK to exit the EU on 29 March 2019 with a deal. The principal objection to the deal was the so-called "backstop" arrangement for Ireland / Northern Ireland and those objections were not overcome by the additional documents of 11 March - The Joint Statement, the UK Declaration, and the Instrument relating to the Withdrawal Agreement - [see HERE for those documents]. The events of 12 March were considered in this previous post.
13 March - Commons rejects "no deal" exit:
On Wednesday 13 March, MPs debated a motion by the Prime Minister:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."
The Speaker selected two amendments for the House to consider. Hansard has reported the debate and voting.
The first amendment (in the name of Yvette Cooper MP and others) proposed - Line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add “rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European
Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future
Relationship.” The House voted in favour of this amendment by 312 to 308 (i.e. total votes 620).
A second, more complicated amendment (in the name of Damian Green MP) sought to delay Exit Day to 22 May 2019 so that the UK could prepare for the operation of new Tariff Schedules. The House rejected this amendment - Ayes 164 and Noes 374 (i.e. total votes 538).
Finally, the House voted 321 to 278 (total votes 599) to accept the Prime Minister's motion as amended. The House resolved "That this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving
the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for
the Future Relationship."
The New European - How did my MP vote on a no deal Brexit?
The New European - How did my MP vote on a no deal Brexit?
With or without a deal - Exit Day is still 29 March:
It is crucial to realise that the Resolution is not legally binding on the government but it is a strong expression of the view of the House that a deal is required albeit the House has already twice rejected the one deal currently available.
More crucially, the resolution does not alter the point that "Exit Day" is 29 March 2019 at 11 pm.
"Exit Day" is defined by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
29 March is also the end of the two year period set by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This sets the end of UK membership two years after the notification of intention to leave. If a deal has not been agreed, the UK will leave without a deal UNLESS either an extension to the two year period is accepted by the EU Council (unanimity required) or the UK revokes the Article 50 notification.
Extension to Article 50:
The next stage in this tortuous process - and the nation should never have been brought to the brink in this way - is for MPs to debate and vote on whether to seek an extension to Article 50 so that the UK can leave the EU on a later date.
It was thought that a short extension (e.g. to mid May) for technical / administrative reasons (e.g. to pass enabling legislation) would have been granted. Elections to the European Parliament take place over 23-26 May and a short technical extension would not have required the UK to participate in those elections. A longer extension would require such participation and that is something the government appears keen to avoid.
The EU view of a longer extension appears to be that an extension would only be granted if the UK were to present a clear proposal, agreed by Parliament, for some different form of withdrawal agreement. Even that cannot be said to be guaranteed since the EU Council has to act unanimously and possibilities exist that one of more members could decide to refuse an extension or that they might seek to extract terms for granting an extension.
The European Council is scheduled to meet on 21-22 March with discussion about Brexit on 21 March.
The EU view of a longer extension appears to be that an extension would only be granted if the UK were to present a clear proposal, agreed by Parliament, for some different form of withdrawal agreement. Even that cannot be said to be guaranteed since the EU Council has to act unanimously and possibilities exist that one of more members could decide to refuse an extension or that they might seek to extract terms for granting an extension.
The European Council is scheduled to meet on 21-22 March with discussion about Brexit on 21 March.
Commons Thursday 14 March:
The Prime Minister's motion before the House is:
That this House:
(1) notes the resolutions of the House of
12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees that the Government will seek to agree
with the European Union an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3);
(2)
agrees that, if the House has passed a resolution approving the negotiated
withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the
purposes of section 13(1) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20
March 2019, then the Government will seek to agree with the European Union a
one-off extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) for a period ending
on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation;
and
(3) notes that, if the House has not passed a resolution approving the
negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship
for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act
2018 by 20 March 2019, then it is highly likely that the European Council at
its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension,
not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019
would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May
2019."
Amendments to this motion have been tabled. It is for the Speaker to
select which amendments, if any, will be debated and put to the vote.
This motion appears to envisage that, yet again, the heavily rejected deal might be put to the House of Commons. There is no other deal to be put and, frankly, no other deal seems likely !
The motion appears to accept that a request for an extension will have to be made given that the House rejected a no deal exit.
The major problem is that there is no clarity whatsoever as to what "clear purpose" might be advanced to seek any extension beyond 30 June. No further plan to be put to the EU has been agreed.
It is no surprise that, in the face of the indecision and absence of a coherent plan, there are strong calls for the Article 50 notification to be revoked. The government claims that this will be dangerous democratically given that it goes against the referendum decision. Nonetheless, revocation would be preferable to a cliff edge descent into the economic uncertainty that a no deal departure will bring.
The Guardian 13 March - Jolyon Maugham QC - MPs have voted against no deal. Now here's how to make that decision stick
BBC 13 March - Brexit - What could happen next?
No comments:
Post a Comment