After all the build up, excitement, and anticipation that 'Super Saturday' would finally end the first stage of the Brexit process with a vote to pass a withdrawal agreement, it once again ended in disappointment. The government pulled yesterdays planned vote on the Prime Ministers renegotiated deal after an amendment was passed which would force the government to ask for an extension to the current Brexit date if the withdrawal deal was to be passed. The amendment, put forward by former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin, forced the government to seek an extension to ensure no deal would not happen 'by accident' if all the relevant legislation to the Prime Ministers deal had not be completed by the current Brexit date. Some key questions arise from this amendment, which passed with a majority of 16. Why did the government vote against it ? And what was true intention of its supporters in the voting lobby's of the House of Commons.
Boris Johnson seemingly had managed to secure just about enough votes to get his Brexit deal through, and yet decided to pull a vote on it after the Letwin Amendment was passed yesterday afternoon. Despite this, he is due to bring his deal before the house early next week. So what was the point of delaying a vote on the deal? Fundamentally, in reality the amendment doesn’t change much for the government. The Prime Minister will still seek to get his deal passed, and accompanying legislation, in time for an October 31st departure. The decision to pull the vote is likely part of a wider strategy in preparation for an election in the coming months. Johnson has consistently emphasised that the UK would be leaving by October 31st, and supporting an amendment that would force him to ask the EU for an extension in the event of a passed Brexit deal contradicts much of what he has said since he took office. Nonetheless, Johnson was never going to bin off his hard-worked deal with the EU, and it will be re-introduced next week despite the fact he has been forced this weekend to send a request for an extension which is still being considered by the European Union. But why did a Parliament which would never allow a no deal to happen, feel the need to put forward and pass an amendment which would prevent a vote on the Prime Minister’s new deal?
Though the intention of Letwin’s amendment was to prevent the UK falling out with no deal by accident, for the government, and many leavers, it was simply Parliament using another mechanism in its power to delay Brexit. You only needed to hear the cheers from those who had took part in the Peoples Vote march outside Parliament to see there is some truth to that. Though the government has threatened no deal throughout the last few months, as Rory Stewart pointed out in the Tory leadership contest, it was never a particularly credible option with a Parliament which opposed no-deal. Yet, Parlimentarians still felt the need to force the Prime Minister to seek an extension, which, were the deal to be passed, shouldn’t be necessary. Ultimately, many in Parliament are aware of the massive boost to Boris Johnson’s chances at the next general election if he managed to get the UK to leave by October 31st, and think that much of the electorate will warm to a politician, for once fulfilling, is promise. But the passing of this amendment, and as a result, the more likely chance of yet another Brexit delay may come back to bite Parliament.
By managing to achieve a deal that look markedly different to Theresa May’s, whether in reality it is or not, the Prime Minister has managed to put himself in a position where he ultimately cannot lose. If he does manage to take the UK out of the EU by October 31st, a post Brexit election in December or early next year, will surely benefit him as he has successfully implemented the ‘will of the people’ from over three years ago. Meanwhile, if the Brexit date is further delayed until January, during the inevitable interim election, he will be able to re-emphasise to the people that he has done everything in his power to fulfil his promise, but that Parliament has once again frustrated Brexit. This ‘People v Parliament’ rhetoric has been his strategy since taking office, and the fact that he managed to gain a re-negotiated deal which was blocked by Parliament, only strengthens his argument if it were to be blocked in Parliament. A majority at a next election if Brexit is not delivered by the end of the month, which he was on course for even before delivering a re-negotiated deal, would represent a spectacular own goal for this current Parliament. With a majority, the Prime Minister, with a more credible threat of no deal, may be tempted to go back to the EU to try and gain more concessions. If he wants to stick by his current deal, he will be able to utilise a new majority in Parliament during free trade negotiations with the threat of ending the transition period with no trade deal and therefore trading on WTO terms. The current Parliament rejected first Theresa May’s softer Brexit deal, and now Johnson’s harder one. They may end up with a majority Tory government that can force through any deal or trade agreement (or lack thereof) they like as a result.
There are whispers around Westminster that many who opposed May’s deal earlier this year may now be wishing they could reverse time and support it since it represented a far closer partnership with the EU than Johnson's vision might. Saturday was supposed to be a turning point in the Brexit saga, where MPs ultimately would have to make a decision between deal, no deal, or no Brexit. Yet instead, once again they voted for more delay. Eventually that choice will have to be made by Parliament. The consequences of the last few days for the next election however, may be significant.
Commentaires