Stephen Bush on Westminster's four Brexit factions
Stephen Bush of the New Statesman had a good piece yesterday on the four factions, three of them cross-party, supporting four different outcomes for Brexit.
(I'm not counting those who want another referendum or another election - these are process methods which people are putting forward, or pretending to put forward, as a means of getting to their preferred outcome. Some of these are pretty much belied by their actions.)
Realistically there are only four options now, and the four factions who support them are
1) The ERG and anyone else who actually wants a "No Deal" Brexit.
3) Those who want to cancel or delay Brexit
4) Supporters of some form of EEA or "Norway" option
The first is that not many MPs see "Norway plus" as their first choice even though many would see it as a fall back if their first choice falls. Logically most Leave supporters and a good many Remain supporters ought to prefer the May deal to EEA membership - the charge of "Brexit in name only" which leave supporters have thrown at the May deal is far more true of this option, especially if it is intended to be a permanent solution and not a staging post to a Canada - style trade deal in the longer term as was proposed under Flexcit.
The second problem is that "Norway plus" would need to be agreed both the EU and with Norway, and time to do so is running out.
When MPs in the previous parliament voted by about two-to-one to trigger Article 50 in early 2017, they should have been aware that when the government of the day reached a draft agreement with Brussels we would be in this situation - agree it or we get a No-Deal Brexit.
I suspect that many of them had not anticipated the situation in which the House of Commons has splintered into four factions, none of them commanding a majority, while opinions hardened greatly in each of those creating a serious danger of "No Deal" happening by default not because it has support but because there was no majority for anything else.
I don't think those who support what they call a "WTO Brexit" (e.g. No Deal) have thought through how unmanageable British politics may become if an outcome which only about one in ten MPs want is inflicted on the country by default because nobody quite managed to assemble a majority in the House of Commons for any of several competing alternative options all of which had much more support.
You can read Stephen's article in full here.
(I'm not counting those who want another referendum or another election - these are process methods which people are putting forward, or pretending to put forward, as a means of getting to their preferred outcome. Some of these are pretty much belied by their actions.)
Realistically there are only four options now, and the four factions who support them are
1) The ERG and anyone else who actually wants a "No Deal" Brexit.
- appears to be the smallest of the four factions in the House of Commons although I have strongly suspected since his failure to move a real "no confidence" motion that this may be the secretly preferred outcome which which Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle actually want as long as they are not blamed for it. Despite their lack of numbers this group have a huge advantage because Article 50 makes their objective the default option - it stipulates that unless an alternative course of action can get agreement from both parliament and the EU by 29th March, these guys win by default. It could very well happen.
- (including those who are hoping against that they can get it improved and those who don't like it but privately think that it is the least worst option.)
3) Those who want to cancel or delay Brexit
- "Paranoids have enemies too" and the Brexiteers are probably right that there is a significant faction in parliament and the establishment who have always been determined to stop Brexit. I do not believe that a majority of MPs will or should dare defy the electorate by openly voting to halt the entire Brexit process. But if that appeared to be the only way to stop a "no deal" Brexit I might be wrong.
4) Supporters of some form of EEA or "Norway" option
- There are some MPs in both the Conservative and Labour parties who want to see a "soft Brexit" which would probably involve amending the "political declaration" to work towards Britain joining the European Economic Area. That would mean a close economic relationship which, formally involves leaving the EU and would keep the UK outside “ever closer union” and also reclaims a small degree of political sovereignty.
The first is that not many MPs see "Norway plus" as their first choice even though many would see it as a fall back if their first choice falls. Logically most Leave supporters and a good many Remain supporters ought to prefer the May deal to EEA membership - the charge of "Brexit in name only" which leave supporters have thrown at the May deal is far more true of this option, especially if it is intended to be a permanent solution and not a staging post to a Canada - style trade deal in the longer term as was proposed under Flexcit.
The second problem is that "Norway plus" would need to be agreed both the EU and with Norway, and time to do so is running out.
When MPs in the previous parliament voted by about two-to-one to trigger Article 50 in early 2017, they should have been aware that when the government of the day reached a draft agreement with Brussels we would be in this situation - agree it or we get a No-Deal Brexit.
I suspect that many of them had not anticipated the situation in which the House of Commons has splintered into four factions, none of them commanding a majority, while opinions hardened greatly in each of those creating a serious danger of "No Deal" happening by default not because it has support but because there was no majority for anything else.
I don't think those who support what they call a "WTO Brexit" (e.g. No Deal) have thought through how unmanageable British politics may become if an outcome which only about one in ten MPs want is inflicted on the country by default because nobody quite managed to assemble a majority in the House of Commons for any of several competing alternative options all of which had much more support.
You can read Stephen's article in full here.
Comments