LONDON -MPs defying the will of the voters in the three-year-old referendum, will mount an audacious bid to legislate against a no-deal Brexit on Wednesday, by rushing an emergency bill through parliament to force Theresa May to request a delay to leaving the EU.
A cross-party group opposed to a ‘no-deal Brexit’ will bring forward a bill requiring the prime minister to put forward a proposal to extend article 50 to ensure the UK cannot leave the bloc with no deal by default.
The effort is being led by Yvette Cooper, a senior Labour MP, and Sir Oliver Letwin, a Tory former minister, who want to get their one-line bill through the House of Commons in just one day on Wednesday.
Brexiters, for the part, point out that all of this is obfuscation and tantamount to a form of gas-lighting on a mass scale. Brexiters argue that the whole charade is turning logic on its head: they point out that a ‘no-deal Brexit’ does not prevent sovereign Britain into entering into a future deal with the EU at any point in the future. Technically, it does not even prevent Britain from entering into the EU again in the future along any lines.
The three years of stalling has only seen a Britain – which to-date remains in the EU – show worse metrics over-all. The triple-crisis facing Britain, sovereignty, poverty, unemployment is only worsened by signs that the political class is out of touch.
Brexiters also point out that state and corporate controlled legacy media outlets, like the Guardian, the BBC, are barely read by every-day British subjects, and that every-day people are more likely to get their information from better-trusted ‘alternative’ sources, mostly on the internet. This may be due to the misdirection and bizarre framing that mainstream media, and how that line is reflected in parliamentarian debates and dramas, is entirely on a different page than how the every-day people see the subject.
Eleven days before the moment when Britain could “exit” of the European Union without settled relations, the deputies of the House of Commons again failed to agree on the form of Brexit (agreement on London’s withdrawal from the EU), which would suit most of them. The day before, British parliamentarians rejected all four options for further actions proposed by the deputies themselves: neither closer integration with the EU than the government proposed by Theresa May, nor the idea of a second referendum received a majority, reports BBC on April 2.
The most compromising of the four proposals – on a customs union with the EU – did not have enough for a relative majority by four votes. 273 deputies voted for it, 276 against. There are 639 deputies in the House of Commons.
1. Customs Union with the European Union (273 “for”, 276 “against”). The proposal to consolidate at the legislative level the customs union with Europe in any version of Brexit. Does not solve the problems of a divorce agreement, as it concerns not the actual rupture of relations within the union, but future relations that the EU does not intend to discuss until Britain leaves it.
2. Single market (261 – 282). This option meant maintaining membership in the single European market and customs union, that is, maintaining the closest economic ties with the EU. Again, it concerns not a divorce, but a future relationship between London and Brussels. This option is extremely disliked by local supporters of “pure Brexit”, because it does not cancel the freedom of movement of EU citizens, retains payments to the EU treasury and forces Britain to follow the rules, in the establishment of which it does not participate. It is a ‘Fakexit’.
3. The second referendum (280 – 292). In this variant of the resolution on the second referendum, it was proposed to prohibit the ratification in the parliament of any agreement on withdrawal from the EU until it is approved at another referendum. It is noteworthy that in this project its authors did not mention the possibility of canceling Brexit on the plebiscite they proposed.
4. Rejection of Brexit without an agreement (191 – 292). If the withdrawal agreement is not approved for the Brexit day, and the EU refuses to give a new respite, the UK government will have to ask the consent of the parliament to withdraw without an agreement, and if it does not receive it, it will withdraw the application for leaving the EU. This indeed violates the point and effect of the first and binding referendum in the first place.
Now the British government may, for the fourth time, attempt to submit to the House of Commons a draft draft agreement on withdrawal, which was composed by Theresa May and Brussels cabinets, thrice rejected by it .
After announcing the results of the vote, Steven Barkley, the minister for exit from the European Union , announced that the cabinet would meet on Tuesday morning and decide what to do next.
The leader of the opposition Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn, in his speech on the results of the vote, suggested on April 3rd that he once again will try to find a compromise.
“I recall that the agreement of the Prime Minister was rejected three times by a large majority. One of today’s options was rejected with a very small margin difference. Since the prime minister is given three attempts, I propose that the parliament be given a chance to once again discuss the options that were offered to us today, ” said Corbyn.
Immediately after yesterday’s vote, another deputy pointedly left the Conservative Party.
“I did everything to find a compromise, to bring our country out of the European Union, while maintaining our economic power. I lost. Lost mainly because my party refuses to compromise. Therefore, I am very sorry, but I can no longer remain a deputy from this party, ”said Nick Bowles , a deputy from 2010 and co-author of a proposal to maintain British membership in the single market, in a trembling voice of excitement .
Earlier, three deputies from the Conservative Party who were of the supporters faction for remaining in the European Union along with eight “Labor splitters”, formed an “independent group” in parliament and intend to form a separate party.
The leaders of the EU countries will gather on April 10th at an emergency summit to decide what to do with Britain. To this day, London should provide the EU with a convincing plan for further action. Otherwise, the EU threatens not to give Britain a new reprieve, and on April 12th, the country could “fall out” from the European Union without settled relations – “tough Brexit”.
The British press all weekend and last Monday was full of “leaks” that Premier May may announce early elections in the coming days. They would become an alternative to the mild versions of Brexit, and to the second referendum, proposals that were consistently opposed by the current head of government.
What is becoming increasingly evident is that the entire referendum process was an ill-conceived stunt to prop-up the specter or illusion that Britain is a democracy, and the government at the time, who organized a referendum believing that ‘remain’ votes would win, was called on their bluff.
A second referendum vote, regardless of its outcome, would result in more stalling and buying time, say Brexiters. The actual existing political and social crisis affecting Britain has, in the eyes of Brexiters, remained unchanged. For three years, they say in social media, government failed to arrive at a method for leaving the EU, and follow the results of the referendum. Another referendum would, in the eyes of Brexiters, at best be another move that could see another three, four, or five years go by without an actual deal to leave the EU. At worst, it would be connected to a massive propaganda campaign and vote manipulation, to overturn the results of the first referendum.