BrexitPoliticiansPoliticsThe ConservativesTheresa May

People don’t seem to understand that nothing is required to get No Deal

Most of the commentariat don’t seem to get this point. And neither do most people, apart from Leavers who’ve been paying attention. No Parliamentary vote was needed for No Deal. All Theresa May had to do was not ask the EU for the delay. She was not required to ask for a delay by the recent Parliamentary vote concerning a delay, because that was not binding. And Parliament had already signalled its commitment to No Deal by a proper Act of Parliament (the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018. So nothing was required to achieve it, merely the absence of a request would have done.

I write this after reading a column on Brexit by Andrew Roberts. Roberts, as far as I can tell, is a fine man, a seriously distinguished scholar, and has pretty much the same views as me. The column is excellent and I would heartily recommend it, except for this puzzling bit:

When it finally became unavoidably clear that the Remain-supporting Parliament, led by its Speaker, was intent on subverting the clearly-expressed will of the people, Mrs May should have called another vote of confidence in her Government like the one she won on January 16. After facing down her Remainer rebels and winning, she could then, as is her constitutional right, have asked The Queen to prorogue Parliament until April 1. By the time Parliament reconvened, Brexit would have happened, most probably using a series of sensible bilateral deals to preserve a trading status quo that benefits everyone.

There was no need for Theresa May to call for a vote of confidence, or ask the Queen prorogue Parliament, if she had wanted No Deal. All she would have needed to do in that case was not ask for the delay. And not present the SI that modified the exist date to Parliament. That’s it. Keep the conveyor belt of preparatory No Deal legislation going, obviously, but nothing else was required. Parliament couldn’t force her to delay. And as the saying goes, you can’t take No Deal off the table, because No Deal is the table, so she just needed to take her wretched WA off the table, and wait.

The same applies now. A No Deal Brexit is the default on April 12 UNLESS May asks for another extension (assuming she doesn’t get some bullshit deal through before then). She has to actively stop No Deal for it not to happen, and that is what she is doing. Technically, she is still the one with the power, despite all her loss of authority. She still holds the future on the country in her hands. She is the one actively preventing No Deal. She keep saying ‘There’s a risk Brexit may be cancelled’, but the only one who can cancel it is her.

There are lots of traitors in Parliament at the moment, and in the civil service (the ones advising May in particular), but in the end she is the Queen of the Traitors. She is the one stopping Brexit, not the DUP or the ERG.

Social media

11 thoughts on “People don’t seem to understand that nothing is required to get No Deal

  1. Last weekend, the Chancellor declared that it would be physically impossible to leave on March 29th. Since it is his job to prepare Government systems for departure, his statement is an admission of dereliction of duty. He should have resigned, apologising for his own incompetence. Since he didn’t, the Prime Minister should have sacked him because of his incompetence. Since she didn’t, it seems that his course of inaction has the Prime Minister’s approval – and probably always has.

  2. I’ve thought for about three weeks that our only hope is for the EU to refuse an extension and, effectively, kick us out. Clearly the PM doesn’t want us to leave, or she’d have let us.

    I thought it would happen with a veto at last Thursday’s Council, however the Commission is now making noises to that effect. Not that it’s up to the Commission, mind you, but still. It’s something.

    “She keeps saying ‘There’s a risk Brexit may be cancelled’, but the only one who can cancel it is her.”

    Of course, that’s all part of the Plan: produce an unacceptable BRINO “deal”, plant the idea in the public mind that it is “Brexit”, then blame the Brexiteers for the ensuing mess.

    We saw it all this week: “You could have had Brexit on Friday if you’d supported the ‘deal’”. But we couldn’t. The May-Junker treaty wasn’t Brexit. “Hardline Brexit extremists” “killed Brexit” by refusing to compromise. No they didn’t. Brexiteers killed a treaty that would have continued EU jurisdiction in this country for an indefinite period. At some point, compromise crosses the line into surrender, and that’s it right there. They did produce at least three compromise solutions that I’m aware of – some of which went further than I, personally, would be comfortable with, for what that’s worth – and every one was rejected either by Parliament, or the Speaker himself (for some reason).

    The Prime Minister killed Brexit (pro-tem, at least) by asking for an extension to the negotiation period when a) there’s nothing to negotiate; the other side refuses to go back to the table, and b) she wasn’t obliged to. It’s all on her head.

  3. “I’ve thought for about three weeks that our only hope is for the EU to refuse an extension and, effectively, kick us out.”

    If the EU refuse to extend the extension, where does that leave the UK Government and Parliament? What can they do to prevent a no deal exit? Is it just to unilaterally revoke A50?

    If that is so, then that sets up the mother of all votes in the run up to to the 12th – it would be a straight choice between No Deal and Revoke A50, ie to go with the 17.4m or the 16.1m? Not forgetting that the 17.4m are better placed to win a Parliamentary election, as they are geographically more spread, the 16.1m being highly concentrated in urban areas. Would the individual MPs have the balls to vote themselves out of office, if they vote to revoke and are in a Leave majority area?

    I’ve said all along that MPs will be afraid to openly wield the knife to kill Brexit, when faced with the reality of that. They will have hoped that they could manage to kill it quietly, out of the public gaze, via a back room stitch up like the WA. But now they won’t be able to hide the act, they’ll have to do it right out in the open, a public Brexit execution, with the whole country watching. And I don’t see them having the balls to do it. Its such a slap in the face to their own personal electorates. Its not the usual political fudge, where they can hide behind some BS reason for not implementing their promises, or at least point to the ones they have kept, its an open ‘F*ck you!’ to each and every person who voted on a specific issue.

  4. Precisely, Jim. I actually think they might have the balls to do it but yes, they’ve been forced into a position where they’re going to have to do it in the open. They’re already spinning the “hardline Brexiteers killed Brexit” line, but nobody except their own side is falling for it. We’ll know who to blame if they do it.

  5. >If the EU refuse to extend the extension, where does that leave the UK Government and Parliament? What can they do to prevent a no deal exit? Is it just to unilaterally revoke A50?

    The gov. and Parl. would be pretty screwed in that situation. I think they’d just beg and beg the EU and offer them more and more until the EU gave them a delay.

    >If that is so, then that sets up the mother of all votes in the run up to to the 12th – it would be a straight choice between No Deal and Revoke A50

    I think they’d resist incredibly strongly offering that as a vote. They’d probably just revoke rather than do that.

  6. I don’t mean the electorate being offered that choice, I mean Parliament having to make that choice themselves. Any Parliamentary vote to revoke A50 is a de facto vote on No Deal as well, because if revoking A50 gets voted down, No Deal is all thats left.

  7. I meant Parliament, I think the government and Parliament (meaning Bercow and the Remainers) would do all they could to avoid a vote. They’d rather just revoke without warning rather than risk it with a vote. Although maybe if they were confident of Revoke winning such a vote they’d go with it, to spread the blame around more.

  8. They can’t do that, the Gina Miller case proved it. A Parliamentary vote was needed to invoke A50 so revoking it would be the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *