Comment

A delay to Article 50 could mean Britain never breaks free from the EU - and the Brexit dream dies

EU graphic

How many times has Theresa May said we will be leaving the EU on March 29 whatever happens? The Prime Minister has been asked in the Commons, at news conferences, in TV and radio studios by MPs, interviewers and voters to restate this one basic ambition and has emphatically and consistently repeated that there will be no delay to the Article 50 timetable. Only now there probably will be.

The Prime Minister will put her deal plus changes to the Irish backstop – assuming they have been conceded by then – back to the Commons on March 12. If it falls, MPs will vote the next day to take no deal off the table; and if that succeeds, another vote will be held on March 14 to extend Article 50.

I use Mrs May’s title advisedly since she evidently no longer possesses the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury. There is no escaping the fact that she was forced to make these commitments to forestall the threat of mass resignations and the prospect of a vote on Wednesday in favour of a cross-party Bill which would take control over Brexit away from the Government. She may have averted defeat on that; but the day of reckoning is coming.

Mrs May’s tactics all along have been to run down the clock to the point where the choices are stark: agree to my deal or face staying in the EU. If you are a Leave-supporting MP of whatever political stripe, this is the dilemma: do you continue opposing her deal and risk losing Brexit or hold your nose, vote for it and regroup afterwards to press for an arms-length, Canada-style relationship with the EU?

Britain's former Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson carries paperwork with the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group (ERG) logo on it as they leave from 10 Downing Street in central London on November 19, 2018. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images 
ERG members should accept that, despite their antipathy to the backstop, it is now unlikely to be ditched in its entirety Credit: TOLGA AKMEN /AFP

Those members of the European Research Group who have declared their hostility to any deal that contains the Irish backstop need to accept it is not going to be ditched. The best they will most probably get is a codicil to the Withdrawal Agreement promising that it will not be permanent, though without saying when it might end. Is that good enough? Perhaps it is if the alternative is to delay departure with all the uncertainties that will engender.

As Mrs May has said over and over (and over) again, a delay does not deliver a deal, just more delay. The cliff-edge will still be there in three months’ time. The reality is that, if Brexit is delayed, Brexit is finished. This is because MPs will never vote for no deal and Mrs May is promising that leaving on such terms will not now happen without their explicit approval, which means she will have to change the law since the date is enshrined in statute. At least if Parliament takes the decision away from her she can say she tried to deliver only to be thwarted by MPs.

She says it will be a temporary extension to Article 50; but what would that achieve? The idea that some deus ex machina will subsequently appear bearing a solution to the impasse is fanciful. Two months, six months, two years – it will make no difference because the fault-line is not over how we leave but whether we should leave at all.

Remainers have been buoyed by Labour’s move on a second referendum because they sense an opportunity to reverse the decision taken in the first. They may be right; they may be wrong. But another referendum would be appallingly divisive: simply deciding the question will cause massive ructions at Westminster.

Mrs May said any extension would be until the end of June at the latest, but to what purpose? Furthermore, why would EU leaders agree to prolong this torture for a few weeks if it leads nowhere in particular? What possible motivation would they have to permit a three-month extension when agreements already reached with the UK Government over the course of more than two years had twice been rejected?

They are more likely to insist on a longer hiatus, say 18 months, to give time to “formalise” the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Remember that Olly Robbins, the UK’s chief negotiator, was overheard in a Brussels bar stating that the options now were a deal on Mrs May’s terms or a very lengthy extension.

There is some logic to this because if a deal is agreed we will be in transition until the end of 2020, following every law and regulation, paying money in and still subject to the rulings of the EU court. This is important for business certainty so if agreement cannot be reached why not stay in the EU for that time?

But if we did remain for five years after the country voted to leave in the 2016 referendum, the arguments against a second referendum would be hard to gainsay. Such a lengthy delay would also run up against the next general election, though there may be one before that if we delay Brexit.

In any case, it is hard to see even Mrs May, the great survivor, staying on as Prime Minister if she is defeated once again and the March 29 deadline is missed. What would she say? I know I have failed twice but give me another crack at it for a few weeks and I’ll see what I can do? It would be like the master mason of a great cathedral staring at the rubble after its collapse asking permission to rebuild it. We would need a new architect.

Mrs May is trapped unless she can pull off the most unlikely political Houdini act in the next 14 days. Perhaps she will. Maybe she can exact concessions from the EU sufficient to persuade her most recalcitrant opponents to support the deal. But the timing is against her. The meaningful vote will be held before the next Brussels council on March 21 so the chances of last-minute summit brinkmanship will not exist. Instead, that meeting is likely to be dominated by a discussion on how long the extension will be.

All along the Prime Minister has insisted that there was no realistic alternative to her deal that would get through Parliament; but this has never been properly tested. At the beginning there might have been a majority for joining Efta and staying in the European Economic Area but Mrs May decided to go down a different route.

If it all goes wrong the Prime Minister can say that she tried her best to leave, secured an agreement with the EU in order to do so, was intent on meeting the March 29 deadline only to be beaten back by parliament; so don’t blame me. History might not be so kind.

License this content