A no-deal Brexit remains highly likely

financial times (UK) ^ | 3/24/2019 | wolfgang munchau

[Mount Athos]

Forecasting Brexit is still the same old mug’s game it always was. But the probability of a no-deal Brexit has risen dramatically since last week’s summit of European leaders.

That scenario can be avoided, for now, if Theresa May were to be ousted as prime minister. The EU would always accept a request for a further delay in such a situation. But it would still insist Britain organise European Parliament elections on May 23 — the UK cannot be allowed to undermine the legitimacy of the European Parliament while it is negotiating its way out. And a new leader would face the same problems in finding a way out of the current impasse. The EU will not renegotiate Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement.

If Mrs May manages to hang on in Downing Street for the next two weeks, she could force an exit without a deal if this is what she wants. Contrary to rumours and misunderstandings, the UK parliament has not taken no-deal off the table. Even though the date of departure has now been pushed from May 29 to April 12, no-deal Brexit remains the legal default. It would require legislation to overturn this fundamental problem.

This is why the failure of the cross-party amendments brought by senior backbenchers, including Dominic Grieve, a former attorney-general, and Yvette Cooper, a former Labour cabinet minister, mattered. They would have given the House of Commons control over the agenda in time to legislate.

MPs will attempt a similar power grab this week but remember: the European Council only deals with prime ministers, not backbench committees. A customs union with the EU is the most promising among the alternatives to Mrs May’s deal. It would only require modest changes to the political declaration — a few sentences deleted, a few sentences added. It can be done in a weekend. But there is a significant risk of the no-Brexit option finding a majority. Advocates for another referendum do not have a majority either. But they could be a blocking minority. If second referendum supporters refuse to accept a customs union as a compromise, all bets are off. So no-deal Brexit remains a plausible outcome. Even if Mrs May does not immediately endorse a no-deal exit, she could choose a limited compromise and revert to that default if the gambit fails.

What about the argument that a no-deal is unlikely because nobody wants it? For starters, we do not really know what Mrs May wants. I distrust reports that try to infer her wishes from comments gleaned from people around her: they do not know her mind either.

It is also hard to make judgments from revealed preferences. Apart from a repeatedly stated will to “deliver Brexit”, Mrs May has been inconsistent. Also remember that history is full of examples of unwanted catastrophes due to be diverted at the last minute — the first world war among them.

We can say for sure that the EU does not want a hard Brexit. But perhaps the more important insight is that EU leaders do not wish to be held responsible. In offering a short delay, they have accomplished this task. No one — not even I — would blame them for a messy Brexit.

But do not misjudge their patience. Angela Merkel is concerned about the campaign for the upcoming EU parliament elections being hijacked by Brexit. The German chancellor can live with no-deal on April 12 but not later. EU leaders agreed a very good compromise last week. I do not think they are going to extend any further unless Mrs May is replaced, or the UK agrees to hold elections or a referendum.

After all, how do accidents happen? Think of it in terms of ranking preferences. A no-deal Brexit may not be the first choice of the EU or the UK government but nor is it the worst outcome for either. For the EU, the worst outcome is being held hostage by Brexit. For Mrs May, it is what she sees as the failure to deliver Brexit.

Here, for example, is one scenario where nobody wants a no-deal Brexit but it happens nonetheless. This is not my forecast, merely one possibility that I find at least as plausible as any other.

Mrs May offers to resign after the UK leaves the EU, and survives the latest cabinet coup. She agrees to drop one of her red lines — her opposition to a customs union. But she maintains her opposition to freedom of movement, a second referendum and participation in EU parliament elections.

Second referendum supporters, their spines stiffened by Saturday’s march in London, are digging in and are refusing to compromise. This would square with my own observation that some of its core supporters hate the idea of a compromise more than they hate a no-deal Brexit. No option, including a customs union, achieves majority backing in the House of Commons. The prime minister goes back to the EU without a plan. And the EU27 refuses to grant a longer delay.

Voila. You have your hard Brexit.

[dp0622]

EU leaders agreed a very good compromise last week...

The rest of the article is just as slanted.

[Mount Athos]

What do you mean?

The EU leaders did not compromise at all in the substance of the deal, the one that the UK parliament rejected twice.
Only the deadline date. Or am I wrong?

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Brits should get out with no deal at the end of March...get with POTUS, Trump, negotiate their own trade deal and let the EU come apart as the other EU members leave the EU and join with Great Britain and the USA, Canada & Mexico!!!

[FLT-bird]

I think most in the UK (or nearly most and likely soon to be most) are ready to just end the agony. Just leave and be done with it.

Once they are out, the UK will be free to make trade deals with everybody and that includes the EU. There will certainly be some butt-hurt from Yurps for a while and they desperately do not want the UK to immediately flourish lest other captive nations inside the EU storm the exits, but ultimately the UK is a valuable market and they will want to do business. That will be especially so once the layoffs at German auto manufacturers start after their UK sales take a big hit.

[nickedknack]

Hard Brexit crash out with no deal is the UK’s best option — leave all EU baggage behind.

[MrEdd]

Well reading that pathetic drivel was a waste of time.

[Mount Athos]

OK, what do you think then? Where is it wrong

[dp0622]

This article said the EU did compromise. Quite a bit.

That’s a lie.

But you just stated that so a mix up in communications is all :)

[Mount Athos]

“This article said the EU did compromise. Quite a bit.

That’s a lie.”

Wait what? Where does it say that I seriously don’t see it. I am pretty tired though

[dp0622]

We can say for sure that the EU does not want a hard Brexit. But perhaps the more important insight is that EU leaders do not wish to be held responsible. In offering a short delay, they have accomplished this task. No one — not even I — would blame them for a messy Brexit.

But do not misjudge their patience...

Maybe I read into that too harshly.

But the write seems a little too thankful for no reason towards the EU.

[BenLurkin]

The UK remains something of an economic leader. Let’s see what happens which the UK starts negotiating unilateral trade arrangements with nations on the continent.

Perhaps they will start competing with each other to get good deals.

[poinq]

A no-deal Brexit is the best deal. England will have a better deal if they negotiate as a separate country. They can first negotiate with other countries like the US. Right now they can only negotiate with The EU. And the EU will need England more than the other way around. The markets have already priced in a no deal Brexit. So go with it. There is very little down side.

[MrEdd]

What about the argument that a no-deal is unlikely because nobody wants it? For starters, we do not really know what Mrs May wants.

If nobody wanted it, it would never have been enacted, yet this tripe repeatedly holds that up as an underlying assumption.

But here is the biggest one:
the UK cannot be allowed to undermine the legitimacy of the European Parliament while it is negotiating its way out.the UK cannot be allowed to undermine the legitimacy of the European Parliament while it is negotiating its way out.

This same voluntary trade organization that now wants to form an army, and mentioned one of the purposes would be to hold member nations in the fold? The parliament of that organization?

The European Union wasn't sold to its member nations as a superstate with authority superseding its members in all matters including immigration from the Islamic world.

No, it is utterly impossible for the United Kingdom to "undermine the legitimacy" of the European Union. None remains to be undermined.

As I said, this is drivel.

[central_va]

All Brexit means is the UK gets to set its own tariff schedules and control immigration WIN - WIN for them. People act like tariffs are a bad thing. Trade between the UK and the EU will go on post Brexit. There will be no embargos. LOL! Just a change in duty rates and you need a visa to stay in the UK past 90 days( I think that is the time allowed). This is normal and not bad at all. This is just normalizing relations between countries in my opinion.

Only the USA is stupid enough to be on the losing side of world wild mercantilism. Thanks Free Traitors™.

[Mount Athos]

Oh now I see what you mean.

Yeah, I think the opposite of that paragraph also.
The EU’s initial (and current) negotiating position was absurdly tough, that surely make hard brexit more likely to my mind. It seems like they said “we give you nothing and you have no choice”.

I don’t really have a good grasp on the subject overall though, but I’m interested to learn and hear what others think

[tennmountainman]

The fact that May had to go beg the corrupt EU for an extension
should tell us who pulls the strings in the U.K.

It is sad to see the PM of the U.K. have to beg the EU for anything.

Get out now.

[nathanbedford]

She agrees to drop one of her red lines — her opposition to a customs union. But she maintains her opposition to freedom of movement, a second referendum and participation in EU parliament elections.

If Great Britain or Teresa May have any respect for the voice of the people they can accede to neither one of the red lines. To submit to the customs union is to deny national sovereignty the right to negotiate trade, a fundamental indicia of sovereignty. The fact that Teresa May attempted to deal the way this sovereign right in disguise was exposed and rejected by Parliament and therefore has contributed much to putting her, her party and her nation in this dilemma.

To accede to freedom of movement is to deny the most fundamental component of sovereignty, the ability to control borders and to determine who shall occupy the land. Moreover, the original referendum was won, most observers agree, because Chancellor Merkel opened the floodgates to Muslim economic refugees who, under the terms of freedom of movement, could ultimately be inflicted on Britain.

To renege on either of these "red lines" would be a betrayal of centuries of British history. There was just enough of England left to know it.

[rx]

I consider it poetic that those who conspired and plotted with other 5Eyes regarding Trump’s demise over the past three years will likely take it in the teeth shortly, in Trump’s figurative place.

As representative for that group, May gets to flee under a similar hounding regarding her competency for her flawed and and evil-intentioned, anti-Brexit-constituent deal proposals.

With Purim as the analog, Trump gets to see victory over enemies that plotted his demise.

Adm. Rogers, playing Mordecai, overhears the plot against the king, Ahasuerus and discloses it, gaining both favor (from the White House) and disdain (from the Deep State).

Haman (Mueller) is appointed and has tremendous power. Trump learns of Mueller’s evil dealings and wants an end to his treachery. But Mueller’s SC-ness cannot be undone (lest the king Obstruct Justice—laws are like that).

Huber and the DOJ IG are encouraged to bring indictments, which happen to be near at hand and in tremendous supply. Hundreds of erstwhile attackers “find justice,” greatly reducing the numbers of those who conspired against the king.

Seeing Scripture repeated is evidence of G-d’s faithfulness and unchanging story.

[1066AD]

Out means OUT.