Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at The University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
On March 21, a European leaders’ summit was held. Leaders of the 27 EU nations, not including the UK, agreed to delay the date of Brexit until April 12 (originally March 29). If Theresa May’s deal passes the House of Commons, Brexit would be delayed until May 22 to allow necessary legislation to pass. European parliament elections will be held from May 23-26. If the UK were to participate in these elections, a longer extension could be given, but the UK must inform the European Commission of its intent to participate by April 12, hence the new deadline. On March 27, the Commons passed this Brexit extension by 441 votes to 105.
On March 25, the Commons passed an amendment that allowed parliament, rather than the government, to control the agenda, and set indicative Brexit votes. This amendment passed by 329 votes to 302, with 30 Conservative MPs rebelling, though eight Labour MPs also rebelled. However, an amendment that would have attempted to prevent a no-deal Brexit failed by 314 votes to 311. On March 27, a motion for more indicative votes on April 1 passed by 331 votes to 287.
All of the March 27 indicative votes were lost, but two came close to passing. Conservative MPs were given a free vote with Cabinet members told to abstain, while Labour MPs were whipped on most votes. A customs union proposal came closest, losing by 272 votes to 264, with abstentions from pro-Remain parties. An amendment that would require a confirmatory referendum on any deal failed by 295 votes to 268, with 27 Labour MPs rebelling. Another soft Brexit option failed by 283 votes to 188, a motion in favour of no-deal failed by 400 votes to 160, with Conservatives favouring no-deal by 157-94. An amendment that would revoke Brexit to avoid no-deal failed by 293 votes to 184, with Labour MPs favouring revocation by 111-22.
Commentator Stephen Bush says that, while the second referendum proposal had more Yes votes than any other proposal, it also had more No votes than any other proposal that would soften Brexit, showing that it is a polarising proposal. Had the second referendum proposal lost badly, it would be clear to pursue the customs union proposal, but a live second referendum option makes no-deal more likely as MPs may be unable to coalesce around any option.
What these votes show is that, while there is a large majority against a no-deal Brexit, there is no majority for an option that would prevent a no-deal. Unless a deal is approved by April 12, the UK would be required to participate in EU elections to obtain a further extension to Brexit. Participating in these elections is also unlikely to win Commons support, as it would effectively remove a Brexit guarantee, and the Conservatives would likely suffer the anger of betrayed Leave voters.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the next election is not due until May 2022, but there are two ways to get an early election. One way is if two-thirds of the Commons votes for an early election (as happened before the June 2017 election when the Conservatives were deprived of their majority in a massive upset). An early election can also be held if there is a successful no-confidence vote, and no government can be formed in the next 14 days. The earliest an election can be held is April 25, taking it past the April 12 deadline. If the UK does not want a no-deal Brexit in the middle of the election campaign, it must agree to participate in EU elections first.
On March 27, May made a vague promise to resign if her deal was approved. The Conservative membership, which is pro-hard Leave, will choose between two candidates nominated by Conservative MPs if there is a leadership vacancy. This promise appears to have won over prominent hard Leave MPs Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who sniffed an opportunity to become PM. However, more moderate Conservatives do not want PM Johnson. May also made progress with hard Leavers by threatening them with a long extension and perhaps no Brexit if her deal is rejected again. The question is whether she follows through on that threat.
On March 29, the same day as the original Brexit date, the Commons rejected May’s deal for a third time by 344 votes to 286; the 58-vote margin was much reduced from 149 on March 12 and 230 on January 15. Conservative MPs voted for the deal by 277-34 (235-75 on March 12), but the ten Democratic Unionist Party MPs, who usually vote with the government, were opposed, and just five Labour MPs were in favour (three on March 12). This was a vote on the legally binding withdrawal agreement alone, and did not include the political declaration. By separating these documents, May got around Commons Speaker John Bercow’s disallowance of her deal being brought back.
In summary, May’s deal was defeated again, MPs will not be able to coalesce around a customs union because the second referendum option did unexpectedly well, a general election would require an unpopular extension to participate in EU elections, and concrete efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit failed. Unless something is resolved within the next two weeks, a no-deal Brexit looms. More indicative votes will be held on April 1.
For those wondering about what May is going to do, here’s a reported quote from a Cabinet minister:
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1111399511392317440
As Tony Abbott once said “shit happens”
And Brexitters who promised the world for UK people are responsible along with May and Corbyn.
As I posted a few times the least painful option for UK people is revoke article 50. On the day they originally suppose to leave, UK parliament rejected the only available deal. May wants to reintroduce the deal again next week for the fourth time. If they vote for deal the brexiters are finished otherwise a lot of pain for UK people.
A rational approach might be a three way plebiscite to choose one of the following:
1. May’s deal
2. Hard Brexit
3. Cancel Brexit
Get an extension from the EU to allow enough time (say 6-8 weeks).
Use preferential voting or if that is unacceptable have a runoff between the top two if no alternative gets 50%.
Issue decided. Lots of people unhappy whatever the result, but it would end the farce.
But overall, I believe that the option with most (relative) “yes” votes in Parliament was that for a second referendum. Which is what I think they should do.
Alternatively, one Solomonic solution that would probably make everybody happy is to keep Brexit alive, but simply delay it until the 30th of February…. 🙂
Brexit serves as independent evidence that time exists, that time is elastic and that the universe will die not with a bang but with a whimper.
‘Ven says:
Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 2:29 pm
As Tony Abbott once said “shit happens”’
May’s paradox: ‘shit happens and does not happen at the same time”.
The Brexit of champions: nothing.
Previous thread: https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/22/brexit-minus-eight-days-possibly/
Posted on the previous thread . Two cartoons, EU perspective
from: https://www.dw.com/de/zeichnen-für-ein-europa-wie-illustratoren-den-brexit-aufspießen/a-47555413
A 25 minute podcast that explains it all.. a total tradegy of May’s making ably assisted by Corbyn ….
https://soundcloud.com/catherine-barnard/professor-catherine-barnard-2903cb-no-13-brexit-delayed
Catherine Barnard is professor in EU law at Cambridge Uni.
Crash & burn looks the most likely outcome
There are three options.
(a) Hard Brexit (no-body agrees to anything)
(b) Soft Brexit (any agreement at all)
(c) Remain (revoke article 50)
What we don’t know is which will happen, when it will happen and why. If anyone wants to hazard a guess I will record it for posterity. (25 word max for reasons why)
My guess is (a) Hard Brexit, 11pm on 12th April, because the UK can’t agree on anything and will not vote in the EU elections.
I blame Nick Clegg and his fixed terms. The Fixed Terms of Parliament Act 2011 is preventing the May government from collapsing and fresh elections being called. The Westminster model requires that the government be able to fall. The principle that the government of the day must control the floor of parliament is critical, otherwise what is the actual point of having a parliament?
As for how to deal with this by April 12, I think it will ultimately come down to the Queen using her reserve powers to fire May and appoints some who will get an extension and then attempts to seek a new deal. May doesn’t seem to want to go anywhere.
B. S. Fairman
I agree. Fixed terms are stupid and undermine the Westminster system.
Importing an Americanism that does not fit.
I think they should agree on the softest Brexit deal possible and adopt that and Brexit.
Then have another referendum in 12 months time and either confirm Brexit or reapply for EU membership.
Dutch cartoon
I have a sneaking feeling that May will wait for the last minute and cancel Article 50
She keeps saying that if her deal can’t be approved there may be no Brexit at all and just perhaps she means it .
Sceptic @ #11 Saturday, March 30th, 2019 – 4:04 pm
Thanks. Good listening. Nicely explains the separation of the Political Agreement (future trade relations) and Withdrawal Agreement (legal divorce from EU). I also should have but had not realized that revoking article 50 requires a parliamentary majority. She argues that in the end May’s deal is the only sane Brexit.
“Then have another referendum in 12 months time and either confirm Brexit or reapply for EU membership.”
Would Europe accept that?
If Brexit happens, which it almost certainly will, that’s it for a generation.
Would Scotland secede from the UK and petition to join the EU? (A hard border with England would ensue.)
Would N.I. secede from the UK and petition to rejoin the Republic of Ireland?
It seems like the discussion has come full circle.
LR
The Scots border is around 150km long. The Irish border is around 500km long.
Ostensibly, the border discussions have been about the control of goods.
But, given that the main driver for many leavers was to control human movement, Brexit plus Scotxit would inevitably mean 750 km of people-proof hard borders.
Boerwar, none of it makes sense. It all seems so wasteful.
No chance of NI seceding. The real issue is what will a hard brexit do to the Good Friday agreement. One should remember that the DUP have never exactly been great supporters of that agreement. I actually think the DUP see a great opportunity to contribute to a hard brexit and to set back the cause of a United Ireland.
The schmaltzy nature of Late Riser’s two childish cartoons nicely illustrate this quote:
> All sorts of sentimental narratives had to be invented to make people forget the disempowerment of national democratic politics that is at the core of the EU construction.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/29/the-eu-is-an-empire/
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/brexit-minus-two-weeks/#comment-3113571
The Good Friday Agreement has provision for a dual referenda in Northern Ireland and (the rest of) Ireland on Irish unity. If both referenda vote for a united Ireland, Ireland is united and Great Britain is separate. Brexit is a powerful force for some otherwise UK supporting Northern Irish people to want to be part of a United Ireland within the EU (which the majority of people in Ireland shows no signs of wanting to leave) and this is likely to tip the Northern Irish referendum in narrowly favour of a United Ireland, especially if it is a hard Brexit. A Corbyn lead Labour Government, likely to eventuate in the turmoil of post-hard Brexit UK, would call such a referendum and Ireland would likely be united.
Tom ….and best
Indeed.
My hope is that brexit results in (is the midwife for) three positive outcomes:
1. Scotland Independent
2. Ireland United
3. England accepting reality.
I suspect both the DUP and the hard brexiteers have made very bad tactical decisions.
Honest Bastard @ #24 Saturday, March 30th, 2019 – 9:28 pm
Yes they are schmaltzy cartoons, but they also poke fun at Britain and at the EU.
There’s another quote in the article that I think goes to the heart of Brexit.
The question arises, why should countries define the boundaries for solidarity, and why only for protection from employers? I had a similar conversation many years ago when I was a youngster and the guy I was talking with was upset at the young people costing him his pay rise because we youngsters got paid less and he had to compete with that. He had a real point. But I was unsympathetic. I needed a job. He was wrong though in blaming me for his woes. Inserting “country” into the discussion feels like that, though you might call it nationalism. That’s what Brexit looks like from the outside. And that’s the moral dimension.
swamprat, do you know if anyone has considered how to implement a hard border between England and Scotland? My only experience of a border that might be similar is the border between Canada and the USA. With mutual trust and efficient processes people can move fairly freely, and freight with minimal delays. But there would no doubt be a new level of inconvenience to get used to.
Tom the first and best, thanks for that. I did not know that about dual referenda.
Late Riser
No. I do not know of consideration about that factor.
Scottish Indy supporters have always pointed out that the connections with England will always be important and with goodwill it could be as smooth as you suggest.
Obviously if England was in EU too the border would be frictionless.
Also, I have read EU officials have indicated that an Independent Scotland would be effortlesly readmitted to EU.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/brexit-minus-two-weeks/comment-page-1/#comment-3113593
The EU does hold powers that would otherwise be held by the member-states, that is the nature of federations. It is just like the federal governments/parliaments of Germany, the USA, India, Australia, etc. hold powers that would otherwise be held by their states. There is nothing undemocratic about that. Democracy is not about existing lines on maps (such as the member-states of the EU), it is about effective elections.
There is a an undemocratic lack of control over the EU Commission, by the democratically elected EU Parliament, however that is not just the poor design of the mechanisms of control (specifically the two-thirds super majority required to sack the EU Commission) but also a lack of assertiveness by the EU Parliament (not insisting on making fully their own choice of Commissioner, based on the majority in each new EU Parliament). The European Parliament actually has more formal control over the EU Commission than the House of Commons has over the appointment of the UK Government, which remains legally the choice of the monarch and is only done democratically because of the centuries of political pressure on the monarch to conform to the will of the House of Commons.
Employee barganning power is most undercut by employer controlled temporary migration (through employment linked temporary visas), something that is directly stopped on an intra-Europe level by the free movement of labour making the workers to which it applies not subject to the risk of employer initiated deportation and thus much better able to enforce their rights.
The gold standard nature of the Euro is highly problematic and should be replaced by a system whereby there is currency level fiscal transfer, compensating for regional differences, as in most of the world. However there is no reason for that to be at member-state level, rather than EU level. If fact there are many reasons for it to be at EU level, including the ability for EU taxation (which requires a democratically controlled EU executive, something a more assertive and empowered EU Parliament would be up to) and EU-wide wage minimums and wage bargaining (raising wages across much of Europe, with member-state still able to set higher levels).
Sorry, not sure how to post image but think link will work.
63% MAJORITY BELIEVE SCOTLAND WILL BECOME INDEPENDENT
New polling and research organisation Progress Scotland has published further tranche of findings from its inaugural large-scale opinion poll showing that a large majority believe that Scotland will become independent.
POLL FOR PROGRESS SCOTLAND FOLLOWS RESULTS SHOWING STRONG BREXIT IMPACT
Among those with an opinion on the issue: 63% think Scotland will become an independent country while 37% do not think it will happen.
More than 2,000 people took part in the poll conducted for Progress Scotland by Survation between 15th and 21st of March 2019, and is particularly focussed on the views on people who are open-minded or undecided on Scottish independence.
https://www.progressscotland.org/research/63-majority-believe-scotland-will-become-independent
Guardian Australia
Verified account @GuardianAus
26s27 seconds ago
Furious Tory MPs tell May: we’ll block snap Brexit election
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/30/furious-tory-mps-tell-theresa-may-they-will-block-snap-election?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1553983863
Very much in favour of Scottish Independence.
But can’t understand why, after escaping 300+ years of tyranny under rule from London, they’d sign up for further tyranny under rule from Brussels/Berlin.
As far as i can see, there are exactly two and only two possibilities on what can happen on Apr 12:
1) UK exits without a deal (“No deal”)
2) A long extension is sought and granted – the EU have said it will be of a 12-month timeframe nothing shorter
Accepting that May’s deal is dead (praise be), there seems to be some school of thought that indicative votes on Monday or the calling of a general election somehow changes the above two options. I just cant see how either does so… all they do is inform the basis for which the long extension is sought (eg time to negotiate a customs union deal, and/or hold another referendum, and/or hold an intervening General Election).
Monday is more than enough time to waste on indicative votes that actually dont mean anything until after the extension is granted (especially if a new parliament is formed post an election)?
Before April 10, only one priority remains (if one is not a no dealer) – to provide any minimally sufficient basis for a long extension and getting the PM of the day to request/obtain it.
I dont know if Theresa May can be forced to do it if she doesnt want to (as PM or even as a caretaker PM following a successful no confidence vote) – perhaps legislatively but that has to be formulated and pass both commons and lords bloody quickly.
Getting Theresa May to want to request the extension is not helped by forcing some kind of indicative majority customs union model that she simply will never support – in fact gives her motivation to not do it and just proceed with no deal? Its surely better just to agree that she should request the extension because all agree that a general election is necessary? On Tuesday, parliament is better off working with May to get a two-thirds majority to call a general election (this would need all opposing parties and about 100 Tories – and its doubtful that the DUP or TIG would vote in favour, which means something like 40% of the Tory party has to want to do it also – which might baulk seriously if May herself wants to lead the party into said election).
One alternative is to pass some legislation that forces May to request a long extension… even that is somewhat risky because she could just point blank refuse to do so. Contempt of parliament yes, solves the actual problem by April 12 no.
That then only leaves no-confidencing her and very quickly installing a PM purely for the purpose of obtaining the long extension. This could be a one-month PM that does this and then calls an election, or could be a longer “unity” PM that does this and manages the process for some longer chunk of the long extension period. I think Jeremy Corbyn can only be the former, not the latter.
There are enough Tory anti no deal votes to support a maj no confidence vote in the face of a no deal alternative. Again, i wouldnt be leaving any decisive/definitive action past mid-next week… all this talk of an accidental no deal brexit has legs if the commons is not very clearly organised in its action – which so far it has been anything but.
Is this roadmap missing some other way of proceeding that i havent thought of?
If an independent Scotland adopts the pound sterling as its currency, then the nominally independent Scottish Government would be a mere currency user – a user of another nation’s currency – which means that it would be subject to solvency risk. In order to remain solvent, there would be occasions when the Scottish Government would have to implement fiscal austerity and increase the unemployment rate in order to protect its solvency. Such a Scottish Government would be independent in name only. It would not be able to guarantee full employment via a Job Guarantee that pays a fair minimum wage to anyone who wants a job. It would have limited fiscal policy flexibility.
If an independent Scotland issues its own currency, allows that currency to float in foreign exchange markets, and uses a Job Guarantee as an automatic stabilizer to maintain full employment with stable prices at all times, then the government would be genuinely independent. It would be able to keep unemployment at 1 or 2 percent at all times (this would comprise wait unemployment and frictional unemployment). The government would have no solvency risk. The constraints on the government’s spending would be real resource availability and inflation risk.
It is much much better to allow the currency to float and keep unemployment constant at 1 or 2 percent than to be a mere currency user that must allow the unemployment rate to float in order to maintain the government’s solvency. Unemployment inflicts devastating ills on society. Unemployment is economically wasteful and it is cruel. Exchange rate movements, on the other hand, need not be a problem. Australia, for example, has had a floating currency since 1983. Since 1983 Australia’s exchange rate with regard to the USD has varied significantly in both directions without inflicting significant economic or social damage on Australians.
Unemployment = a massive problem
Currency depreciation = a much more manageable problem than unemployment, or not necessarily a problem at all
You have to accept that if you advocate that an independent Scotland be a mere currency user you are assuming that unemployment is a smaller economic and social problem than currency depreciation. The facts are not on your side when you make this assumption.
Yes Northern Ireland had a great opportunity to become a really important dual EU / UK free trade zone, in a way that I think would have made the reunification of Ireland almost a non-issue, they way they’ve gone about it hopefully there will be a reunified Ireland in my lifetime.
I notice that no female PBers are involved Brexit discussion although a female is leader of Berxit process in UK.
IMO, none of the parties in this melodrama wants to cooperate with each other and find a compromise solution even after EU has warned UK it wont back down because
a) they are looking for political advantage for themselves rather than solution for the people
b) they are hoping for something to happen at 11 hour and 59th minute so they will be extricated from this mess. That is the reason why May wants her deal to be put to vote for fourth time.
I am really enjoying this fiasco.
https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-best-case-brexit-scenario-could-still-happen-it-probably-won-t-20190330-p5195f.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fthe-best-case-brexit-scenario-could-still-happen-it-probably-won-t-20190330-p5195f.html
Nicholas@11:12am
North Ireland, Scotland and England can have relationship like EU to start with and then devolve into 3 separate countries after sometime.
This is hilarious. A unity government with Labour is suggested by senior Tory MPs
https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10956594?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2019-03-31%2Fbrexit-unity-government-floated-by-conservative-mp%2F10956594
WeWantPaul
Hmm. Sounds interesting. How does that work? If you have a link to a discussion I’d enjoy reading it.
Two new UK polls out today, one fairly boring, the other interesting.
Boring one: Tories and Labour tied at 35% each, a one point drop for the Tories since last week, with Labour steady.
Interesting one: Labour leads Tories 41-36, a five-point gain for Labour and a seven-point drop for the Tories since late Feb, after the TIG defections. Here’s the report in The Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6868745/Jeremy-Corbyn-PM-calls-election-shock-poll-reveals-Labour-five-point-lead.html
And here’s the poll graphic
https://c-8oqtgrjgwu46x24kx2efcknaocknx2eeqx2ewm.g00.dailymail.co.uk/g00/3_c-8yyy.fcknaockn.eq.wm_/c-8OQTGRJGWU46x24jvvrux3ax2fx2fk.fcknaockn.eq.wmx2f3ux2f4231x2f25x2f53x2f22x2f33889490-8080967-Lgtgoa_Eqtdap_yqwnf_dg_rqkugf_qp_vjg_vjtgujqnf_qh_Fqypkpi_Uvtggv-c-76_3775114549629.lrix3fk32e.octmx3dkocig_$/$/$/$/$/$/$
This poll will make Tory MPs feel even worse about an early election. They may feel that they need to deliver Brexit to regain support from Leave voters.
The boring poll was taken March 29-29, the interesting one March 28-30.
Damn, the poll graphic doesn’t end in .jpg or other pic extension, so it didn’t come up.
41% say May should resign immediately, 23% after her deal is passed, just 22% not at all.
No-deal opposed 45-36, customs union supported 36-29, revoking article 50 supported 41-40 (surprises me!), 2nd referendum supported 40-38.
Adrian Beaumont @ #46 Sunday, March 31st, 2019 – 1:09 pm
Interesting. How does that compare with last week’s indicative votes? as I recall a referendum failed narrowly, but the various customs unions (Norway etc) had low interest.
No deal is the only option, not some Clayton’s Brexit orchestrated by Remainers.
This is what happens when you let right wing extremists and self-promoters like Farage, Rees Mogg and Johnson dictate terms to otherwise somewhat sane parties like the Conservatives.
A singularly unintelligent comment from Boerwar. None of the three named would qualify as ‘right wing extremists’. Farage consistently pushed back against ‘right wing extremists’ taking over Ukip and resigned when he eventually failed in that endeavour (and then started a new party). Rees Mogg is far from being an extremist; he is quite obviously an arch conservative. Not sure how to label Johnson (perhaps as an opportunist) but he again is not an ‘extremist’.
I don’t know why people think that throwing scare labels at politicians somehow comprises intelligent political commentary.