Stumbling toward a Brexit Disappointment

British Prime Minister Theresa May gets into a vehicle as she faces a vote on Brexit, in London, England, March 13, 2019. (Henry Nicholls/Reuters)

In January 2019, less than three months until Brexit day, the House of Commons voted to reject Theresa May’s deal with the European Union by a crushing majority. On Tuesday, with less than three weeks until Brexit, the House of Commons did the same again to an amended version of this deal. The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has warned Britain that there will be “no third chance.” Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29, with or without a withdrawal agreement.

Britain’s attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, inadvertently damned May’s deal this week when he revealed that “the legal risks remain unchanged.” The deal would not have allowed Britain to get out of the backstop (a customs union preventing a hard border in Ireland) after formally leaving the European Union. This arrangement would render post-Brexit Britain subject to the jurisdiction of the European Union indefinitely. Such an arrangement flies in the face of the sovereignty Britons voted for in 2016. In rejecting this deal by 391 to 242, parliament has escaped a trap. However, it faces several more.

Technically no deal is still the legal default although parliament voted against that as well on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday, parliament will vote on whether or not to extend Article 50, the law stating that Britain will leave the EU on March 29. A delay will likely pass.

Although extending Article 50 would be no small task. In addition to passing the statutory requirements for British domestic law, Parliament would require the European Union’s blessing. This would take time to secure — something Britain is short on – and as Theresa May explained, the EU would want to know how a Brexit delay would serve its interests. On Tuesday she asked the Commons: “Does it [parliament] wish to revoke Article 50, does it wish to hold a second referendum, or does it want to leave with a deal but not this deal?”

The fact that the prime minister is entertaining such options — an even softer Brexit, or no Brexit at all — is an affront to her party, and the voters more broadly. Approximately 70 percent of Conservative constituencies voted to leave in the European Union referendum. A recent poll by the Economic and Social Research Council found that 76 percent of Conservative party members (i.e. ordinary members nationwide, as opposed to members of parliament) would prefer to leave with no deal than to remain in the EU.

Moreover, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union and both main political parties — Conservative and Labour — promised to honor this result. If Brexit is fumbled or sabotaged by the politicians voters will be justified in feeling an enraged sense of betrayal.

At this point, there aren’t many good options. We still favor cashiering May for a more committed and less politically compromised replacement, and support a no-deal exit over a delay that is only a way-station to ignoring or reversing the Brexit vote, which is what what much of the political establishment hopes for. One way or the other, Britain seems to be stumbling toward, at best, a Brexit not worthy of the name, and as painfully and chaotically as possible.

The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More