Jolyon Maugham has noted that the Lords seem inclined to pass one of the two following amendments to the Bill permitting Article 50 to be triggered:
or
Please note both of these are extracts of what I think are the key elements for my argument. Jolyon then argues that he thinks these clauses miss the point and suggests instead another amendment saying:
It's not often that I think Jolyon misses the point, but I think he has here. The merit of the first two amendments, on of which may well go through, is that they do not seem to have an equivalent of his clause 1(b). In other words they do not provide the option of the Prime Minister leaving without a deal, but Jolyon does. I do not think no deal should be on option on the table: it's either a deal or stay that is required. In that case I think Jolyon's amendment may be much worse than those being considered and I rather hope no one tables it.
Any thoughts? Or corrections?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, I believe the point is to draft an amendment that will be passed. It will have to pass the Commons, and that means it has to secure the support of a significant number of Conservative MPs. They will not support an amendment that states ‘no deal means remain’. The Government is right that such a clause would make a deal less likely, as the EU would have an incentive to fail to reach a deal, if such a result meant that the UK would remain in the EU.
That may be what some of us desire, but it would be claimed to be (not entirely unreasonably) ‘blocking Brexit’. Remainers have to be smarter than that, rather than blindly charging headlong at the enemy with no plan. The aim must be to delay and obfuscate. Tie Brexit down for years with procedure, wait for enough uncertainty to creep in, and then force the vote in Parliament when public opinion has shifted. That is what the current amendments aim to do. The correct approach, in my opinion.
I think it’s leave who are proceeding without a plan
You included
At least I am offering plans
Did you read my comment? I am not advocating Leave. My point is that the outright confrontation approach won’t work, and the result will be a Brexit untempered by the concerns of those who wished to Remain. There is little point in offering a ‘plan’ the outcome of which will be whatever Brexit Mrs May’s government desire. I’m sorry Richard, but you are ignoring the political reality of this. The Lords are playing a far smarter game, in offering amendments which set the ground for opposition further down the line, but have a far higher chance of being accepted than your proposal.
I was backing the Lords’ proposal: did you read my blog?
Can I say that you are right Adam in stressing that any amendment must be likely to succeed in the Commons. I think you are wrong however to talk about delay and obfuscation.
The key issue is that an economic war with Europe(tariffs, tax competition etc.)was never offered by the Brexiteers in the referendum and therefore there is no mandate for it. The promise was that Britain would get tariff free access to the single market without conceding freedom of movement. That might be impossible but that is what was promised and the Brexiteers must be forced to attempt to deliver it.
The argument should therefore be that final Parliamentary approval is needed to ensure that the promises of the referendum are kept. This is also of course in line with the principles of parliamentary democracy. We should not be frightened to argue for this. Stoke showed how little there is behind the right wing bully boys.
I would therefore basically support the proposed amendment though it might be an idea to incorporate another referendum specifically if the government failed in the negotiations.
If there is no withdrawal without a deal, isn’t that just an incentive for the EU side to offer a terrible deal and stick their fingers in their ears for 2 years?
No deal, UK stays, Remainers win, trebles all round, as they say.
That is what they are going to do anyway….they have no reason to offer a deal now
Yes, sorry, my mistake, I got the Lords’ and Jolyon’s proposals back to front.
But my point was that Jolyon’s has a chance of succeeding, the Lords amendments as they stand will not pass the Commons. That surely must be taken into account?
I think they could pass
But none probably will
German exporters for example, presumably do want access to this big market beyond WTO arrangements. If the alternative is no deal, there is an incentive for Germany to at least try to get a deal.
But if they can get the same existing access by ensuring there is no deal (ie no deal = remain), why bother trying? May as well sit in the negotiation room with their headphones on.
If you are convinced that there is no incentive for the EU to try to reach a deal regardless, then your proposed amendment is a sure-fire way to sink leaving.
Let’s be clear – they have access, just at a price
Thanks, but my point it that with your suggested change, there is a positive incentive for them NOT to reach a deal. Failure to reach a deal would be guaranteed, in which case the UK remains, doesn’t leave.
The whole exercise, including the referendum would be rendered a complete waste of time.
I’d think there might be a backlash.
Whatever happens there is going to be a massive backlash: we are in deep trouble come what may
The choice is where and how the backlash
So the Lords would save a lot of cost and messing around if they simply refused the entire Bill, and stopped the PM or anyone else issuing an Article 50 notice at all.
Your suggestion would have the same result.
I do not think it would
I am sure their Lordships don’t either
The two draft clauses quoted appear to be the same. Have I missed something?
They came from different political directions
Only one will proceed
Later clauses differ a bit
I think the point of Jolyon’s redraft is that their Lordships suggestion only requires an act of parliament where there is an agreement of some kind. If there is no agreement there would be no need for an act of parliament approving it and the UK could leave the EU without any act of parliament.
His redraft makes it clear that you still need an act of parliament even where there is no agreement.
Maybe….
As I read Art 50:
1) negotiations don’t begin until the Art 50 notice is given. So presumably when the PM gives Parliament something to approve as described above, it assumes the Art 50 notice has been given.
2) If no agreement is reached after 2 years from giving the notice, we are automatically out. No Act of Parliament (or refusal to pass an Act as described above) can unilaterally keep us in. There is scope for extension of time for reaching the withdrawal agreement, but it just an extension.
After that, if the UK wants to re-enter, it must go through a process to re-join. Article 50 is clear.
I suppose Parliament could pass an act to apply to rejoin. It doesn’t need a referendum, but would be brave to avoid one, at least for a generation or so.
As you should know this is not settled opinion
I think that you have point.
My view however (which I have aired before) is that I think that the situation we are in is rather like being like someone who needs to know whether or not they have a severe illness.
To be honest I’d be relieved with either outcome that Jolyon has suggested because I would at least know either way.
The Tories are fixated on leaving and using it as way to win the next election in 2020 and they and the TLP (Tory Loving Press) will have their way.
I hate to have to say it but until people start to suffer from the consequences of this ‘decision’ they will not change their minds. It’s shame that the more wise amongst us will have to suffer too.
I write as someone who has nothing to gain from us leaving the EU. But the Tories will want to get the credit for it since they know that with more cuts to come they might become really unpopular. BREXIT is the modern Tory Party’s Falklands campaign. It will cloak their vicious austerity plans in glory.
As a public sector worker I am screwed if we stay, screwed if we don’t. All I know is that Council’s are even now cannibalising their assets and a huge transfer of public wealth and resources to the private sector is about to go up a gear. But at least I can use my MBA for shelf stacking or collecting trollies or working for free (the last being more likely since austerity is killing the ability of the retail sector to provide jobs).
All I want to know now is how bad it is going to be so that I can help my family through it. If I am lucky, I may well be able to keep my house. But a growing number of my friends and colleagues are being unnecessarily kicked out of their jobs and their lives are getting harder.
If the EU had kicked against austerity from 2008, more people in the UK may have believed in it and the referendum result could have been different.
But as even those of us against leaving know (I voted to stay because now is the wrong time to leave and I wanted to kick out the ex Goldman Sachs infiltrators in the ECB), the EU is infected with neo-liberalism and put the value of the Euro above the value of helping people in the Eurozone by not printing Euros to sustain the Euro economy after 2008. It put financial markets first and used the Treaty to do this.
The EU has reaped what it has sown and the tragedy of that will be played out in our homes and communities for years to come. Not in Brussels or Goldman Sachs or the top 1% they collude with.
I sense your concern
I think many of us share it in some way