I spent much of Monday listening to BBC Parliament on television, and became astonished when the clock was ticking past a 10:30 pm (we're still on GMT, by the way) time give for the House of Commons to have documents agreed to be able to be scrutinised for the Tuesday (today) meaningful vote.
The House of Commons was full, for a statement that was not a statement until we had the Strasbourg statement. The MPs had nothing to see. The Speaker earlier had said that the House of Commons should be treated properly. MPs will make a huge decision based on less scrutiny than much minor matters. Yvette Couper MP complained the strongest.
So what rabbit came out of the hat? Two documents were agreed by the UK Government and the European Union. The first is a "joint legally binding instrument" on the withdrawal agreement. It is an add-on. It could be used to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop. However, it would go to an arbitration procedure, which is again joint and could still trap the UK in the backstop. This is why the Motion to be debated tomorrow states that there is a "reduced risk" of being held in the back stop.
What does this mean? Was it not always 'reduced' anyway in terms of intentions? How can the Democratic Unionist Party vote for something that retains the risk, that could still treat Northern Ireland separately from the UK? Only sheer political double-dealing could see it change its vote and say this revision of perspective on the same agreement is sufficient. If the DUP says no, so will the "headbangers" (Kenneth Clarke MP) of the European Research Group.
This is the crux of it. The second document is a wish document, a commitment of intention. The intention is in the UK and EU's future relationship in a commitment to replacing the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020. This is the best endeavours side, and if the EU doesn't have best endeavours then that dispute procedure starts, as in the first document. However, the example of these negotiations surely shows that with best endeavours we could well fall into the backstop. Of course we would come out of it eventually: this is the basis of why Kenneth Clarke will support the agreement.
Whilst we might accept that all those who supported the agreement last time will next time, e.g. Nicky Morgan, there is a possibility that some remainers will vote against afresh, because they see the opportunity of delay and of a different and softer agreement available. Nicky Morgan MP won't, because she has been part of a movement to keep the Tory Party together. Incidentally, along the Cabinet that met without Theresa May, being in Strasbourg, the line along the front bench did not include Amber Rudd. Just noted. I didn't see Kenneth Clarke either, in he packed House, because he was in the Newsnight studio.
Meanwhile there is the strange extra document that is a "unilateral declaration" a view that nothing prevents the UK leaving the backstop if discussions on a future relationship with the EU break down. This document must be pretty meaningless, as the result of this is arbitration.
Attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, will publish his legal advice on the changes to the deal before the vote. He is supposed to be independent, and yet he was involved in the negotiations. Nevertheless, the clue must be in the motion: that the changes "reduce" the chance of being stuck in the backstop.
And on this basis it would be a miracle if the whole agreement passes the meaningful vote. Plus the fact that many in Parliament tomorrow will have had little sleep. They will feel like they have been treated with contempt. It is not the way to get people on-side. Out of the hat came a dead rabbit.
No comments:
Post a Comment