Theresa May tells MPs she’s still seeking backstop changes
‘Opposing no-deal is not enough to stop it.’
By CHARLIE
COOPER 2/12/19, 2:17 PM CET
Updated 2/13/19, 7:13 AM CET
LONDON — Theresa May is still seeking "legally binding
changes" to the Irish backstop and these "can be achieved by
reopening the Withdrawal Agreement," she told MPs.
Despite the EU's firm rejection of any changes to the
legally binding draft agreement, as communicated to May during meetings in
Brussels last week, the U.K. prime minister said talks are "at a crucial
stage."
In a House of Commons statement that divulged no new
information about her plan for avoiding a no-deal Brexit, May said she would
press on with her plan to secure changes to the backstop, a legal guarantee for
avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
However, she did not repeat her assertion of two weeks ago
that legal changes to the backstop “will involve reopening the Withdrawal
Agreement.” Instead May only said this was the “obvious way” to secure them,
while her spokesman said it is “likely” that reopening the text would be
required. The shift in language came after Leader of the House of Commons and
committed Brexiteer Andrea Leadsom told BBC Radio 4 that the government need
not be “purist” about how it secures the changes it is seeking on the backstop.
The incremental shift in position, however, will do little
to renew confidence among the U.K.’s increasingly agitated business community
that May will soon name a date for a second attempt at ratifying her Brexit
deal. MPs will have an opportunity to add amendments to a government motion on
Brexit this week, with votes on Thursday.
This had been seen as an opportunity for the House of
Commons to force the government’s hand by making time for legislation that
could delay Brexit. However, May has pledged a fresh Brexit motion — allowing
another round of amendments — on February 27; a move which has taken the heat
out of Thursday’s parliamentary encounter, with many MPs expected to hold back
amendments until the end of the month.
In the meantime, May will continue to pursue changes to her
deal that could secure a majority in the House of Commons, delaying a point of
decision despite warnings from business that uncertainty and the cost of
no-deal planning are beginning to weigh heavily.
“She understands absolutely the need for certainty. She had
wanted to have secured a deal already but that hasn’t been possible because
parliament hasn’t voted for it,” May’s spokesman said.
May also discussed strengthening employment and
environmental rights in the U.K. to keep pace with and even exceed those
introduced by the EU, and pledged that parliament would have a greater say in
the negotiations on the future relationship with the bloc.
Members of the House of Commons Brexit committee have been
contacted by Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay for their views on this, she
said.
May also revealed that, should a Brexit deal not be passed
in time to meet a legal requirement for 21 days’ parliamentary scrutiny of
international treaties (enshrined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance
[CRAG] Act), the government intends to legislate — in the Withdrawal Agreement
Bill that must follow a vote in favor of May’s deal — to ensure that in this instance
the CRAG rules do not apply.
Urging MPs to get behind her deal, May said that
"opposing no-deal is not enough to stop it." She confirmed that MPs
would hold non-binding votes on Thursday on any amendments to a government
Brexit motion, and have another opportunity to do so on February 27 if she has
not put forward a revised Brexit deal for a meaningful vote by that date.
The prime minister repeated her rejection of Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn's proposal for a permanent customs union with the EU, as a quid
pro quo for his party's support of her deal.
Responding, Corbyn accused May of "playing for
time."
"She's ... playing with people's jobs, our economic
security, and the future of our industry," he said.
Would the British PM really drive the UK over the cliff
edge? Even her closest political friends don’t know.
By TOM
MCTAGUE 2/11/19, 11:31 AM
CET Updated 2/13/19, 8:08 AM CET
British Prime Minister Theresa May | WPA pool photo by
Clodagh Kilcoyne via Getty Images
LONDON — It’s Friday, March 22, a week from Brexit, and
Britain is hurtling toward the cliff edge.
Theresa May has arrived back in No. 10 Downing Street after
a last, desperate attempt to avert disaster ended in acrimonious failure at the
European Council summit in Brussels.
EU leaders have called a crisis session to prepare an
emergency package of support for Ireland. Donald Tusk, the Council president,
has launched another angry attack on the U.K., while insisting there is still
time to postpone Brexit.
The markets are in turmoil, protests outside the U.K.
parliament are turning nasty and Buckingham Palace is on the phone demanding to
know what is happening.
Inside her study in No. 10, May sits alone, a glass of
Penderyn whisky untouched on her desk. She knows she cannot delay the decision
any longer: hunker down for no-deal or accept defeat and return to Brussels
requesting a delay?
Her choice: the economic catastrophe of no-deal or the
national — and personal — humiliation of a last-minute climbdown to ask
Brussels for a Brexit delay.
The most remarkable fact of British politics today is that
no one knows which way the prime minister would jump in this scenario: Not her
Cabinet, her closest advisers nor her lifelong friends in parliament.
The woman who runs Britain in its gravest hour of crisis
since 1945 remains almost uniquely unknown for a prime minister.
After six years as home secretary and three as prime
minister, her seemingly impenetrable exterior remains intact, shielding from
view whatever lies beneath: the core motivations, ambitions and fears of a
leader whose choices will define the U.K. for decades to come.
In interviews with MPs, Cabinet ministers and the most
senior government officials who know her best, none were able to say which way
the prime minister would jump. Her choice: the economic catastrophe of no-deal
or the national — and personal — humiliation of a last-minute climbdown to ask
Brussels for a Brexit delay.
British Prime Minister Theresa May leaves after attending a
Sunday church service on February 3, 2019 in Maidenhead, England | Jack
Taylor/Getty Images
“The only person she will have spoken to about that is
Philip [her husband],” said one MP who has known her for decades.
In Westminster, Brussels, Dublin and Berlin, the question is
the same: "She wouldn’t ... would she?"
She wouldn’t
Around the Cabinet table, there is a nervy assumption May
would always back away from no-deal in the end, by applying for a delay to
Britain’s exit.
Revoking Article 50 is a non-starter, most of her colleagues
assume. Any attempt to unilaterally withdraw the U.K.’s notice of its intention
to leave the EU would be fiercely opposed by the Cabinet, given that the
European Court of Justice ruling in December means such a move would be deemed
all-but irreversible.
British government is Cabinet government — the prime
minister is merely the first among equals. Without the support of a Cabinet, a
prime minister cannot survive.
The obstacle to revoking Article 50, however, is legal as
much as political. Even revocation with Cabinet support does not change the
law, as set down by the EU (Withdrawal) Act, under which EU law ceases to apply
in the U.K. from 11 p.m. on March 29. To remain in the EU but not abide by its
law would cause a crisis of its own. In other words, May alone cannot stop
Brexit — only parliament can.
The Cabinet, though, can authorize the PM to ask for a
delay. Few believe they would not. And the assumption is that in such dire
circumstances, the EU27 would unanimously agree such a request. Under the terms
of the EU (Withdrawal) Act, the government can amend exit day to delay Brexit
without primary legislation.
At the heart of the argument is the claim that May is first
and foremost a patriot consumed by her duty to protect national security and
the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
“All of the Cabinet, bar, perhaps, Penny [Mordaunt, the
international development secretary] or maybe Andrea [Leadsom, leader of the
Commons], accept that no-deal is a disaster,” one Cabinet minister who agreed
to speak to POLITICO on condition of anonymity said. “They say with complete
confidence she will never do it, but very few of them are prepared to actually
say it [themselves].”
In EU capitals, the same assumption reigns.
At one high-level dinner of diplomats and journalists, one
ambassador for an EU27 country declared: “The only thing I know for certain is
that no-deal can’t happen.”
May’s former chief of staff Nick Timothy, one of the few
people who has ever genuinely gotten close to the prime minister, declared in a
recent Daily Telegraph column that May does not have it in her to go for
no-deal.
“After many years of knowing the Prime Minister, I do not
believe that she would willingly take Britain out of the EU without a deal,” he
wrote.
At the heart of the argument is the claim that May is first
and foremost a patriot consumed by her duty to protect national security and
the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer speaks with the
media outside the Houses of Parliament on December 5, 2018 in London, England.
Starmer worked closely with May when she was home secretary | Dan Kitwood/Getty
Images
Labour’s Keir Starmer, who worked closely with May as
director of public prosecutions when she was home secretary, has publicly
insisted the PM takes her national security considerations too seriously to
actively pursue a no-deal Brexit, which would leave Britain’s security services
outside key intelligence networks.
Tory first
Not everyone is so sure.
On January 21, the Evening Standard, the newspaper edited by
former Chancellor George Osborne, published an editorial declaring May would go
for no-deal to protect the Tory Party.
“Mrs May will never be the Prime Minister who forms a
parliamentary majority at the expense of her party,” the editorial declared.
“She will always, when the chips are down, put short-term Conservative unity
first above what the national situation demands.”
“That’s the story of her career as a Tory super-activist and
the sad story of her premiership,” it concluded.
The attack was brutal, but those who know the prime minister
acknowledge it is not without substance.
To understand May, one must understand her relationship with
the Conservative Party — a relationship unlike that of any other Tory MP.
"She will always, when the chips are down, put
short-term Conservative unity first above what the national situation
demands." — The Evening Standard
“For most of us, the Conservative Party is a means to an
end,” explained the Cabinet minister. “Theresa is different. She has an
attitude to the Conservative Party which is more in common with a lot of Labour
MPs. For them, it is something closer to love, to family. For us, you have
family and nation, the Conservative Party is just a vehicle. If it’s not
working, you change it.”
Not for May.
The prime minister lost both her parents young, has no
brothers or sisters and few — if any — close friends outside the party. She met
her husband at a Conservative Party ball at Oxford in 1980, where they were
introduced by the former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The party her
family.
“It goes back to childhood,” explains the Cabinet minister,
who has remained publicly loyal to her leadership since she took over in 2016,
but believes her flirtation with no-deal is dangerous. “It’s what she does at
weekends. She doesn’t really have anything else. It’s one of the reasons she’s
popular with the voluntary party.”
The Cabinet minister said this attitude was encapsulated in
her parting shot at Osborne when she sacked him. She told him to spend some
time getting to know the party.
A second MP who knows May well agrees that the relationship
is more intense than with almost any other Conservative MP. “I’m not conscious
that she has a big network of friends outside the Conservative Party,” the MP
said.
For this reason, May is especially conflicted about the
impending crisis. “She feels she owes the Conservative Party a duty as well as
the country,” the MP said.
British Prime Minister Theresa May and husband Philip May
attend a service marking the centenary of WW1 armistice at Westminster Abbey on
November 11, 2018 in London, England | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Her husband, Philip, is similarly inclined, according to
some in the party.
Andrew Gimson, the associate editor of activist site
Conservative Home, has written that Philip May’s “instinct” will always be to
preserve Tory unity. It came after reports that May’s chief of staff Gavin
Barwell blamed Philip for scuppering attempts to find a consensus deal with
Labour.
Some say they believe Philip could again nudge her toward a
tough stance. An Oxford friend told Gimson: “Philip is politically combative
and not terribly subtle. At certain points he will say, ‘You fight them
darling.'"
Together, the fear of a government led by Labour's Jeremy
Corbyn is worse than the fear of no-deal. “Her view is that if we split the
Conservative Party, you risk Corbyn getting in,” the Cabinet colleague said.
“There’s a failure of imagination, that somehow the worst won’t happen [in a
no-deal].”
Delay
There is also the threat that a no-deal Brexit would pose to
the union of four nations that make up the U.K.
“No deal means the rapid break up of the U.K.,” one senior
government official said. “[Scotland's First Minister Nicola] Sturgeon will
organize a unilateral independence referendum and there will be calls for a
border poll in Northern Ireland.”
And then there is May's own future.
“It would be wrong to suggest she does not adore being prime
minister,” according to Rosa Prince, her biographer. “[It is] a position she
craved for many years and, more importantly, thinks she deserves. Every
evidence indicates she believes, quite simply, that she is the best person for
the job.”
In May’s mind then, both no-deal and no Brexit risk a split
in the Conservative Party, a Corbyn government to wreck the country and the end
of her premiership. The only sensible decision: to delay.
In May’s mind then, both no-deal and no Brexit risk a split
in the Conservative Party, a Corbyn government to wreck the country and the end
of her premiership.
Faced with such a choice, the only sensible decision is to
delay.
“She would do literally everything she could to stop that
[choice] happening,” said one friend. “Ultimately, though, it’s not in her gift
to choose party over country. Parliament will move for her if she
doesn’t."
The friend added: “She has to do everything she can to give
the party the chance to bring about its own version of Brexit."
One of her closest parliamentary allies predicted that May
would "push as hard and long as possible" to achieve a deal that her
party and her parliamentary allies the Democratic Unionist Party can support.
"She will use every last minute of time before she has
to make that choice," the ally said, adding that in the end, she may
refuse to make it until it's too late to stop no-deal from happening.
"She will delay and delay — she may not make that
choice and go for no deal. I don’t think even she knows.”
Chief negotiator Olly Robbins was overheard in a Brussels
bar, discussing strategy
Heather Stewart and Peter Walker
Tue 12 Feb 2019 21.21 GMT Last modified on Wed 13 Feb 2019
01.00 GMT
Theresa May’s high-stakes Brexit strategy may have been
accidentally revealed after her chief negotiator Olly Robbins was overheard in
a Brussels bar saying MPs will be given a last-minute choice between her deal
and a lengthy delay.
The prime minister has repeatedly insisted that the
government intends to leave the EU as planned on 29 March, and urged MPs to
“hold our nerve”, while she tries to renegotiate changes to the Irish backstop.
“So our work continues,” she told MPs on Tuesday. “Having
secured an agreement with the European Union for further talks, we now need
some time to complete that process. The talks are at a crucial stage. We now
all need to hold our nerve to get the changes this house requires and deliver
Brexit on time.”
But Robbins, the most senior civil servant involved in the
Brexit process, was overheard by a reporter from ITV, holding a late-night
conversation in which he appeared to suggest she would wait until March – and
then give MPs the choice between backing her, or accepting a long extension to
article 50.
According to the broadcaster, Robbins said the government
had “got to make them believe that the week beginning end of March ...
extension is possible, but if they don’t vote for the deal then the extension is
a long one.”
The tactic appears to be aimed squarely at members of the
backbench Tory European Research Group (ERG), who may fear Brexit could
ultimately be cancelled altogether, if MPs accept a delay.
“The issue is whether Brussels is clear on the terms of
extension,” Robbins was overheard saying. “In the end they will probably just
give us an extension.”
On the backstop, Robbins appeared to confirm that the
government’s initial plan was for the backstop, which effectively keeps the UK
in a customs union, to form a temporary “bridge” to the long-term trading
relationship.
“The big clash all along is the ‘safety net’,” Robbins said.
“We agreed a bridge but it came out as a ‘safety net’.”
Former Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU)
minister Steve Baker played down the leak, saying “as a consummate civil
servant, Mr Robbins is likely to be appalled by this story. Officials advise.
Ministers decide. What matters ultimately is the policy of the prime minister
and the cabinet.”
But another senior Brexiter said “the trouble with Mr
Robbins is that he is a draughts player in a chess world”.
Robbins’ revealing remarks are likely to embolden those
ministers who are increasingly anxious about the threat of a no-deal Brexit.
Several are privately signalling they are prepared to
consider resigning in a fortnight’s time to ensure the success of cross-party
efforts to force May’s hand, rather than allow her to continue gambling on a
last-minute change of heart by Brexiter rebels.
A government spokesman said “we don’t propose to comment on
alleged remarks from a private conversation. The government’s focus is on
securing the improvements parliament needs to pass a deal so we leave the EU on
29 March”.
But Robbins’ overheard comments chimed with remarks from the
leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, who refused to deny on Tuesday
morning that the Commons could be denied a “meaningful vote”, until after the
next scheduled European council meeting, which is due to be held on 21 March.
“The prime minister is seeking to bring back the meaningful
vote just as soon as possible,” Leadsom told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “So
it is a negotiation. It’s not possible to predict the future.”
However, if she seeks to delay until March, May is likely to
face a fierce backlash from MPs, including some junior ministers, who believe
every day of uncertainty increases the risks to jobs and businesses.
One senior backbencher said there was “a palpable sense that
the longer this drags on, the more the prime minister has to have a specific
proposal that can win over the ERG, which seems unlikely, or cross-party
support for a deal. If not, she’ll face mass resignations and another
leadership crisis”.
Another senior Conservative said: “It’s an utter tragedy
that no-deal is still on the table. Cowards in the cabinet sit there updating
Instagram, pretending everything is okay while we go through this bullshit
parade. They’re lying to the British public and history will damn them
forever.”
Jeremy Corbyn accused May of playing for time and having no
plan. “Our country is facing the biggest crisis in a generation, and yet this
prime minister continues to recklessly run down the clock,” he said. But May,
in turn, blamed Labour for increasing uncertainty by failing to support her
deal.
Robbins’ reported comments emerged after May cleared the way
for a nerve-shredding, last-minute vote for her deal, by announcing that the
government would seek to exclude the Brexit deal from the usual 21-day process
under which parliament approves international treaties.
MPs are due to vote on Thursday on a government motion,
reaffirming their conditional acceptance of May’s deal, if she secures changes
to the controversial backstop.
When the Valentine’s Day vote was first mooted, it was
regarded as a fresh opportunity for MPs to rule out no deal.
But a cross-party group of MPs led by Labour’s Yvette
Cooper, has opted not to table an amendment seeking to force the government to
extend article 50, believing Conservative backbenchers are willing to give the
prime minister another fortnight to continue negotiations in Brussels.
Instead they published a revised bill, backed by senior
Conservatives Caroline Spelman and Oliver Letwin, aimed at preventing no deal –
and promised to table an amendment on 27 February, forcing the government to
make time to pass it.
“This bill creates a parliamentary safeguard to prevent us
drifting into no deal by accident, and to prevent those crucial decisions being
left until the final fortnight. The risks to jobs, the NHS and security from no
deal are too great for us to stand back and let the government drift,” Cooper
said.
The new amendment is likely to be the vehicle for
Conservative MPs keen to prevent the prime minister from running down the clock
and increasing the risk of an “accidental” no-deal Brexit.
Labour has tabled its own amendment to Thursday’s vote,
putting in black and white her pledge to hold another amendable vote by 27
February, if she has not secured support for her deal by then.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário