In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished
historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the
“will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long
term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the
Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if
accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be
reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three
months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a
Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. The 117 votes recorded against
her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her
proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its
accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely
on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House
of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
No comments:
Post a Comment