The creeping reality is dawning of what extending Article 50 means

 

To clear my head, I’ve done a round up of expert comment of where we are and what might be done, with 51 days to go to Brexit. Most of it implies or supports an extension of Article 50. But  the heavy squeeze on Mrs May  is on with a vengeance. The EU don’t look like granting it unless she drops  options they’ve already  rejected  And that excludes the options  in her Commons mandate.  So  this week, back empty handed from Brussels one more time – and then we’ll see.

Open Europe  

The UK and EU should agree that the backstop, if applied, would create a common customs territory, with Northern Ireland-specific regulatory arrangements. This would mean accepting the substantive provisions of the existing backstop.

 

Both sides should agree a binding roadmap for scoping, testing and implementing other alternative arrangements that meet the objectives of avoiding a hard border

The UK and EU should conclude a protocol with legally binding status which sets out that the backstop cannot be a permanent arrangement as a matter of EU law,

Both sides should commit to the working assumption that the temporary backstop should not be in place beyond 2029, unless there is joint agreement to extend. This would limit the duration of the backstop to 6-8 years, depending on whether an extended implementation period was sought. The backstop should be considered an “interim” arrangement

The UK and EU should agree in the Withdrawal Agreement that the UK will seek the approval of the Northern Ireland institutions before taking a decision in the Joint Committee on the functioning of the backstop. This is a clarification of how the UK side of the Joint Committee will work and so will not affect the balance of powers (which would require mutual agreement between the UK and EU sides). However, it would fulfil the condition of Paragraph 50 of the December 2017 Joint Report that “no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom” without the agreement of the Northern Ireland institutions.

These measures should not be viewed as mutually exclusive.

 

From the Institute for Government

With the Brexit action due to return to Westminster next week, Joe Owen looks at what might happen next.

Scenario 1: The Prime Minister asks MPs to vote on a deal and it gets approvedThis is the best-case scenario for the Government, but it’s beginning to look the least likely.

Scenario 2: The Prime Minister asks MPs to vote on a deal – it gets rejectedThe Prime Minister is far from certain to get a majority even in the unlikely event she does secure changes to the backstop by next week.

Scenario 3: The Prime Minister tells MPs her next steps – and MPs don’t get in the wayIf there’s no revised deal forthcoming and no dramatic change of heart among (almost all) Conservative backbenchers, the Prime Minister might decide that next week is not the right time for another ‘meaningful vote’ on her deal.

In that case, she will have to make a statement to Parliament on her next steps and table an amendable motion asking Parliament to ‘take note’. Then, on Valentine’s Day, MPs will have an opportunity to vote on amendments which are likely to focus on what happens next in the process, rather than alternatives to her deal.

But MPs are not being given much time to table amendments and collaborate on counter-proposals. There could be less than 24 hours between the Prime Minister’s statement and votes on amendments. The Prime Minister might hope that the rush will work in her favour and help her to get through unscathed, at which point what comes next will depend on what her statement says. But ultimately, if the Prime Minister wants to leave with a deal, she will need to pass a meaningful vote and get legislation through.

Scenario 4: The Prime Minister tells MP her next steps – and MPs take control

The Government committed to the vote next week, at least in part, to buy off MPs. Some of the Conservative backbenchers (and possibly some frontbenchers) contemplating voting against the Government last week in order to ‘stop no deal’ (or more accurately, delay it), were supposedly persuaded that there would be another chance to make their point. They just needed to give the Government a little more time.

After next week, however, just six of the 104 weeks in the Article 50 window will be left. Time is running out and MPs may feel next week is the time to make their move. There could be more attempts by backbenchers to wrestle control of Parliamentary time from the executive or the focus could turn, like it did with the Brady amendment, to trying to influence the Government’s position. So far MPs have largely avoided big votes on potential alternative options, but next week could be the week that changes – or the point at which MPs ask for a series of indicative votes. It looks almost certain that there will be amendments relating to the extension of Article 50 (which could of course be part of the Prime Minister’s plan anyway).

Regardless of what happens next week, the pressure for more time is likely to grow. In November, the UK Government told EU leaders it needed an extraordinary European Council before the end of the month, because without it there simply wouldn’t be enough time to ratify the deal. With less than 60 days now remaining, it’s not clear there is even a deal to be ratified.

Centre for European Reform

Can the UK extend the Brexit deadline? by Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska 6 February 2019

 

Policy Exchange

Is the backstop in breach of the GFA?. The Paul Bew/David Trimble case for judicial review, already covered by Slugger. “ Not a snowball’s  chance in hell,” asserts leading HR lawyer Chris McCrudden

QPol

Focusingon pragmatic politics and economics,Katy Hayward’s rejoinder is  a sturdy defence of the  EU post-Lisbon and makes big claims for EU subsidiarity.

Belfast Telegraph

A scathing verdict on Mrs May’s speech from Suzanne Breen, whose sharp question threw her into giving a incoherent reply that  drew criticism from the hardline Brexiteers – and may have sunk this phase of the renegotiation.

Rarely has there been so little confidence or enthusiasm shown in business circles for a Prime Minister.. Given the pressures on her, it is perhaps admirable that she is visiting for two days. But the question must be asked, why is she actually here?

Will anything fresh or constructive emerge from today’s meetings with our political leaders?