Some thoughts on Brexit

Here we go.

The UK has been negotiating with the EU for two and a half years, nearly 18 of those on the WA alone, on the way the UK is to leave the EU. AKA, Brexit.

The question is, of course, is how.

For better or worse, the country, when offered the chance by David Cameron, voted to leave the EU. No other details, but the referendum was sold on things only getting better, being better off and having better trade deals with the EU and other countries that we had as a member state.

That that was impossible is her nor there.

But, the real question should be, who owns Brexit?

Ultimately, Parliament does, because thanks to Gina Miller, they got to vote on A50 notification, and could have amended the bill to include all the provisos and clauses needed to meet whatever criteria they decided. The House of Lords did, but through procedural chicanery and sheer cowardice, they allowed the bill to pass, like the electorate did with the referendum, by giving May a blank cheque on how to deliver Brexit.

She then did all she could to keep all details secret, failed to reach out to other parties, and if given the chance would have failed to give Parliament a MV on what was agreed.

What I mean by this can best be explained by the EU's methods; the EU27 giving Michael Barnier terms of reference, their red lines. And then getting regular updates and changing the terms as and when needed. The EU27 was then able to have a united front, despite being 27 different countries, a huge triumph, and keeping that for the whole of the Brexit process.

Parliament has hardly been informed of all but the most basic details of the Brexit negotiations and preparations. And only stepped in when the die was cast. hat Parliamant gave ownership of Brexit to May and her Government was their fault, and is why we are here. But the failure is also May's, as she tried to railroad a dreadful WA through the House, having not consulted with the broad spectrum of parties and interests, just those of the ERG and the DUP.

So we got an extreme Brexit.

So, Parliament gave Brexit to May to execute, and she tasked a start up department, DExEU under Minister DD to carry it out. He agreed to the sequencing of the WA on the very first morning of talks with the EU, capitulating on what he said was the row of the summer, into a something agreed before the first cup of coffee got cold.

But as it seems he was given free reign to do so, he agreed. And so the three issues of the WA were set in stone, as was the sufficient progress needed at certain points before talks could continue.

Which brings us to the December joint statement where the backstop was first agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed by DD.

Agreed by May.

Agreed by the Cabinet, including Johnson, Grayling, etc.

Agreed by the DUP too.

Did none of them realise what they had agreed to? Or that by agreeing to it then, meant trying to reopen it later, hoping the EU would agree? If so they miscalculated badly.

The EU said that the last 6 months of the A50 period was for ratification. By the EU27, the EU Parliament and by the UK to its constitutional requirements.

The WA took longer to agree, but the three Brexit ministers, DD, Raab and the new guy all helped negotiate. That both DD and Raab both conducted negotiations, concluded them, then resigned in protest shows their poor qualities as ministers and MPs. The ran away for the very things they had agreed on.

They failed to take ownership. As did May. As did Parliament.

And they also failed to write their own conclusions regarding the December statement, happy that they could go on fudging things forever. The EU thought otherwise, and published the legal text. No fudge. No can kicking.

But that is what the backstop is, to operate when all other things fail.

So, any plan to change any part of the backstop stops it being a backstop, and something the EU, unless it is very stupid, which it isn't, will reject.

As they have.

Has May been more open with Parliament, honest about the "plan", the costs, the risks, progress and got cross-party agreement, then the WA might have passed. But she chose to be a tin pot iron lady, so failed. She failed even to carry half her own party. She might do better tonight, but then again.

The new amendment, the so-called Malthouse Plan, has been endorsed by the DUP, some Brexiteers, but will be 100% unacceptable to the EU, and have said so again this morning, indicating it thinks the UK is now gone beyond mad.

Parliament has to take ownership of Brexit, and decide where it wants to go. There are just three choices open: no deal, the WA or no Brexit.

If there can be no agreement, there would have to be an election or a 2nd (3rd) referendum, but one or the other might not clarify things. And both need an extension of the A50, the referendum nearly a year's extension, and the UK would have to request it, and the EU might reject the request. Time is short. There isn't enough time to pass the legislation needed for any Brexit, including no deal. There is no time for preparation for any Brexit in the country either, and a large proportion of the country is telling itself there is no need to worry. Let alone panic.