Another step closer to the edge

After all the frantic attempts to cut a deal the British parliament finally got down to business by voting on the Withdrawal Agreement drawn up between the UK and EU back in November. And in line with expectations parliament rejected it, but the defeat by 432 votes to 202 – a margin of 230 – was rather more emphatic than many had supposed. This is the biggest defeat that any government has ever suffered on a parliamentary vote; the previous record was the 166 vote margin registered in 1924 (chart). This calls Theresa May’s survival into question and with a vote of no-confidence in the government tabled by the opposition, which will be discussed tomorrow, we are truly in constitutionally deep waters.

In terms of what it means, the margin of defeat for the Withdrawal Agreement was so wide that there is little point in the British government going back to Brussels to try and achieve any concessions. The EU’s view is that parliament rejected the deal so decisively that there is little it can do to improve things for the UK government. Second, the risk of a no-deal Brexit may have actually risen. One of the proposed amendments this evening was one which called for a rejection of the deal but which committed parliament to ensuring that the UK did not leave the EU without some form of safety net in place. This was not called to a vote, presumably because its backer (Jeremy Corbyn) saw a tactical advantage in not doing so. Consequently, the UK finds itself looking over the edge of the cliff with just 75 days until it legally leaves the EU. This position could yet be remedied but it does not feel like a comfortable place to be.

The motion of no-confidence in the government allows all MPs a chance to vote on whether they wish to see the current government remain in office. The outcome is decided on a simple majority: If the government loses the vote, Theresa May will be forced to resign and parliament has 14 days to form a new government which is acceptable to all MPs. If that does not happen, parliament is dissolved and new election must take place. The no-confidence motion will debated in parliament tomorrow with the vote taking place at 1900 GMT. The Democratic Unionist Party, which supports the minority Conservative government, has confirmed that it will vote for the government. Providing that all Conservatives also provide their support, Theresa May is likely to live to fight another day. But a Machiavellian interpretation would be that Tory MPs vote against the current government in order to oust Theresa May and install a candidate who is acceptable to the Tories and DUP, and win on a second vote.

You can see why that might be an attractive option. Theresa May is becoming a serial loser. In times past she would have resigned and many rightly ask whether she can deliver on Brexit. She cannot get her current deal across the line, despite it being the least-worst option in terms of leaving the EU whilst supporting the economy. But she is unable to propose an alternative. Nor has she been willing to countenance postponing or reversing Brexit.

The government now has no choice but to press for an extension of the Article 50 period. If the alternative is a no-deal Brexit, which will certainly worry the EU, this is almost certain to be granted. However, it is only likely to get an additional three months because the new European parliament, which will be elected in May and in which the UK will not be represented, must convene on 2 July. It is difficult to see how the Article 50 period can be extended beyond that for all sorts of constitutional reasons. But what will the UK do with the extra time granted to it?

There appear to be four realistic options: (i) negotiate a more acceptable agreement with the EU27; (ii) a hard Brexit; (iii) call a second EU referendum and (iv) unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notification, following the ECJ’s ruling last month. The option of a general election is not one which would resolve the Brexit conundrum and would only be a by-product of the current uncertainty, so I do not consider this as a solution.

Option (i) appears increasingly unlikely whilst (ii) is still unpalatable to most MPs (despite what happened tonight). Option (iv) would probably be seen as a betrayal of the democratic process: Even if the referendum in June 2016 was not legally binding, laws subsequently introduced give it much more force. This leaves option (iii) – a second EU referendum. There are many reasons why this is a bad idea: For one thing it will further deepen the many divisions which were laid bare by the June 2016 vote. But if parliament is unable to reach an agreement on how to deliver a Brexit without sending the economy over the cliff, it may have little choice. Parliament has had 30 months to come up with a decision on a question that the electorate was given four months to consider - and it has failed. It is clear that politicians cannot resolve the problem. Maybe it is time to throw it back to test the will of the people.