The House of Commons has just voted down Theresa May’s deal on Brexit, the terms on which Britain will leave the European Union, for the second time. In a few hours they will vote on whether to try to extend Article 50 and delay Brexit until it’s possible to work out what to do. The problem with this is that no one really knows what they want to do. Or, perhaps more accurately, not enough people hold any one idea of what we should be doing.
I should point out here that I’m not neutral in any sense at all. I used to work for UKIP and stood as a candidate for them. I ghost-wrote Nigel Farage’s newspaper articles. Even in that organization dedicated to Britain leaving the EU, I was an extremist, thinking that the very existence of the EU was a bad idea, should never have been started, and everyone should leave it. If Britain leaves without a deal and “crashes out,” then I might be the only satisfied bunny on this continent. Perhaps I should also point out that I currently live in Portugal, and I love Europe and its many peoples. It’s the political structure of the EU I’m against, trying to manage 500 million people with an unelected technocracy of bureaucrats.
But even given all of that, there’s a certain amusement at the corner Britain is in now. The legal position is that unless a majority of the Commons votes for something else, then Britain leaves on March 29 without a deal. We revert to WTO terms — we would trade with the remnant-European Union on the same terms the United States does — that is, slightly worse than Canada and better than North Korea.
From my point of view, that’s a “shrug, and?” moment.
The reason we got to this situation where that’s the default is that those who would remain in the EU insisted upon varied arrangements. Through court actions and parliamentary votes it was insisted that there must be a “significant vote” on whatever any alternative arrangements would be. That seems fair enough, the legislature must vote in favor of whatever is to happen. Over something as important as this we don’t want to let the executive slip something through on the sly. We’ve ended up, in American terms, with the Senate having to approve a treaty. It’s not something the president or prime minister can just declare or finesse on their own.
That all seems fine, but now comes the big problem. There’s no majority in favor of anything. Within parliament, despite the referendum result, there’s no majority in favor of leaving under any terms at all. There are a number of different flavors of staying. Do we stay in the customs union? The single market? Do we have an arrangement, as Norway does? Something a bit more removed, like Canada? None of these manages to gain a majority, either. Given the referendum result, while there is a majority who would have, unprompted, been delighted to stay in, there’s not such a majority to do so now. Some parliamentarians do indeed, to a certain surprise, think that the people’s vote should be upheld even if they think it’s not all that good an idea.
So, there’s just nothing that can pass such a significant vote. There is no majority in favor of anything, even while there is against any particular course of action. Thus we default to the, well, the default, crashing out to WTO terms without a deal.
Of course, the vote in the next few hours, or another like it next week, might delay actually leaving, at which point that remnant-EU has to agree. If that goes beyond June, then we’ll have to hold elections to the next European Parliament, not something we want to do and the EU would be horrified if our lot turned up for the next session. It’s not certain that the EU would agree to delay, that is. Even if they do, there’s still no majority in favor of any particular set of arrangements, and it’s most unlikely that there will be.
All of which is the real Brexit problem. If we don’t do anything, then we leave without a deal on March 29. In order to do something, there must be a majority in the House of Commons in favor. But there is no deal, ideal, or arrangement which commands such a majority. Delay might pass, but then that just delays that same point. What, other than leaving, are we going to do, and what, other than just leaving, will gain a majority?
Interesting times. Despite the likelihood of a delay, I might still be holding casting calls for that celebratory marching band come March 29. The best bet is that delay will happen, but all that will enable is to delay having to reach the decision that no one can agree on. The important thing to realize being that normally in politics when there’s no agreement, nothing happens. But we’ve already got baked into the system that we leave with no deal if no changes are made. But that requires that agreement, which there isn’t one of.
For those with a clever solution, please mail it posthaste to Number 10 Downing St., SW1, London. For everyone else, there’s popcorn.
Tim Worstall (@worstall) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. You can read all his pieces at The Continental Telegraph.
