Parliament may be planning a betrayal
Mrs May proposes to carry on promoting the same deal that has been emphatically rejected
If this impasse in Parliament continues then a general election might be hard to avoid
The Prime Minister opened her speech on the no-confidence motion by stating that a general election would not be in the national interest. It was, she said, an opportunistic attempt by Labour to capitalise on her catastrophic defeat the previous evening, when her Brexit deal was rejected by a majority of 230.
It is worth observing that in 2017 Theresa May thought that it was in the national interest to hold a snap election, itself arguably an opportunistic attempt to exploit Labour’s perceived weakness. That decision, and the failure to win a majority, is the reason why she is in her current predicament.
But that does not mean an election is wrong. If Parliament cannot decide how to proceed then going to the country is traditionally the failsafe mechanism of democracy. Furthermore, the Conservatives do themselves a disservice to fear an election. As Jeremy Corbyn’s hapless Commons performance yesterday confirmed, he is unsuited to be prime minister and the electorate knows that, as the polls testify.
For now, however, the Government goes on. As expected, the Commons voted last night against triggering an election; but, beyond party tribalism, there was little sense that anyone has confidence in Mrs May’s ability to find a way to resolve this imbroglio.
The Prime Minister has lost more than her Brexit policy; she has lost control of events. Executive authority is being ceded to Parliament. She is required by the vote last week – enabled by Speaker Bercow’s procedural ruling – to return on Monday with a plan. But does she have one? Judging by her speech to MPS yesterday, Mrs May proposes to carry on promoting the same deal that has been emphatically rejected.
For those who want to see the UK leave on March 29 without a deal, this approach is welcome, since that remains the default position that guarantees Brexit. But this is clearly not the wish of Parliament, nor is it the policy of the Government. Even Michael Gove, one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, invoked Game of Thrones rhetoric in describing the impact of rejecting Mrs May’s deal: winter is coming, he said.
But the principal opponent of leaving without a deal, as he has been all along, is Philip Hammond, the Chancellor. As the transcript of his discussion with business leaders that we publish today makes clear, he is prepared to say what Mrs May so far has been unwilling to say – that a no-deal exit will be thwarted and a delay to the UK’S departure from the EU is likely.
Indeed, given the Government’s woeful failure to prepare for no deal, an extension to Article 50 looks inevitable. Dozens of legislative measures would be needed which cannot get through Parliament in the time left.
One reason there have been inadequate preparations is that the Treasury refused for months to countenance such an outcome and only pledged more money reluctantly and belatedly. In his conference call with business leaders on Tuesday, Mr Hammond said the Government would seek to build a consensus in Parliament, adding: “There is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal.” Moreover, he said the Government would not put up any “obstacles” to a plan championed by Nick Boles, a former minister, whereby the Commons liaison committee would oversee attempts to find a way out of the political morass.
Mr Hammond said the Boles proposal was the “ultimate backstop” against no deal, indicating that the Treasury’s main objective is to assuage concerns of business rather than address the wishes of the general public.
If proof were needed that Mrs May’s authority has gone, then here it is. She remains opposed to delaying Article 50, even if she has hedged her language somewhat since her humiliation on Tuesday night. But there is no such equivocation from her Chancellor. He is reconciled to a strategy that effectively hands over control of the key domestic policy of modern times to MPS. As he told business leaders: “It will be the parliamentary arithmetic that determines what happens, not a decision by the Government.”
After two and a half years, Plan B is to let Parliament take over. At least it is a plan; but is Parliament capable of delivering on the referendum result, or is this the start of a great betrayal of that vote?
While some seek to block Brexit, an alternative proposal gaining support at Westminster is to hold another referendum. But this would be resented by millions of voters, who would legitimately question the point of going to the polls if the verdict is not acted upon. In any case, there is unlikely to be a majority in Parliament for this or, possibly, for anything else.
If this impasse continues then a general election might be hard to avoid.