Clement Leroy argues that there is no way out the current deadlock in Westminster without attaching a vote of confidence to the approval of the deal. In a healthy democracy, the rejection of the main Government’s policy should be a reason for resignation and the threat of new elections and implosion of the Conservative party could be enough to discipline the Tory dissenters.
As the Prime Minister returns to Brussels with what she called a “new mandate” to obtain changes on the Irish backstop, EU leaders despair about the current deadlock in the British Parliament. For the EU, nothing has fundamentally changed as the alternative arrangements have already been explored during the last two years and the backstop has actually been put in place to respond to the fact that none of these arrangements would prevent a hard-border.
More importantly, as in December, it is not clear what concession would actually enable a deal to pass in the Commons. The arithmetic looks grim with the historic defeat of 230. Above all, one cannot underestimate the EU’s officials understanding of current British politics: all of them would have seen that when a member of the ERG asked if voting for the Brady amendment would tie him to vote in favour of the Deal at the next meaningful vote, the Prime Minister replied “no”. The EU leaders do not want to trust the most ardent defenders of Brexit, and rightly so. Many of them have made clear that their preferred option would be no-deal, which they can best obtain by a last minute vote against the only deal on the table.
So what could the EU do not to appear as a rigid and intransigent partner, fuelling even more anti-EU rhetoric, and at the same time break the impasse in Westminster?
Doris cleaner to the chattering classes
A new UCL European Institute series of cartoons by Ros Asquith featuring Doris, a cleaning lady that witnesses the divides of a society shaken by Brexit. This series will be composed of a monthly cartoon shedding light on a particular issue around the British society and Brexit from July 2018 till the departure of the UK from the EU in March 2019.
Like every peace settlement, the Good Friday Agreement is a compromise document, the result of a long and difficult bargaining process that should be properly understood. UCL’s Kristin Bakke and Kit Rickard call politicians to consider the mechanics of this model of peace agreement and the fears and hopes it embeds.
Perhaps not a “cracking read”, to use the words of former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, but the Good Friday Agreement has been a pillar for the peace in Northern Ireland since 1998.
Understanding the Good Friday Agreement is central to Brexit negotiations, a peaceful future in Northern Ireland and UK-Ireland relations. The first steps to understanding any document must be based on thorough reading. The success and support for the Good Friday Agreement deserves this, and not necessarily “over the holidays”. In such negotiations and uncertain times, equally important as reading the agreement is considering what people in Northern Ireland think about this agreement.
Sadly, Raab’s comments illustrate that neither a careful reading nor consideration of local perceptions is present in current debates.
In this blog, Professor Slavo Radosevic argues that both camps of the Brexit debate should rebalance their arguments to include both moral sentiments and economics interests. A new compromise could only be built by recognising the need for complementarity between those two.
One of several puzzling things about Brexit is that it suggests that self-interest or economic incentives as an argument for staying in the EU do not work. Most external observers see Brexit as a self-harm case. This reasoning is based on the underlying assumption that people care only about their material gain. On the other hand, the more rational an argument Remainers put forward, the more they get dismissed by the supporters of Brexit, whose responses range from attempts to couch Brexit in rational terms, talking about ‘great opportunities out there‘, to the less rational (according to the maximising self-interest assumption) stating of their wish to ‘just get out’, irrespective of cost. With time, this has led to a situation where rational discourse is rejected with more anger and disgust.
So, how do we explain a situation where appeals to material self-interest does not seem to work?
After the historic defeat on the meaningful vote, the political crisis has reached a new peak in the UK. We have asked 10 of our experts to share their views on the current state of Brexit and their best predictions on what could happen next: Dr Uta Staiger (UCL European Institute), Prof. Ronan McCrea (UCL Laws), Dr Tim Beasley-Murray (UCL SSEES), Dr Kirsty Hughes (UCL European Institute Advisory Board), Prof. Albert Bressand (UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources), Prof. Philippe Marliere (UCL SELCS), Dr Thomas Gift (UCL Political Science), Dame Nicola Brewer (UCL Vice-Provost International), Dr. Nick Wright (UCL Political Science) and Dr. Francois Guesnet (UCL Hebrew & Jewish Studies).