On and On and On. Another Brexit deadline but this one should prove decisive

It feels like the mother of all broken records. Another lengthy Prime Ministerial statement in the House of Commons. Another new deadline. Another neutral motion. Another set of amendments. Another series of votes. Another wail of anguish from those who have UK businesses to operate.
The calendar and the clock mean, however, that the dates of 12-14 March should be different. Theresa May, faced with the credible threat of mass ministerial resignations if she did not shift stance, has committed herself to a second meaningful vote on the latest version of her deal on 12 March. If that falls, then MPs will vote on whether they are content to proceed with leaving the European Union without a deal the day afterwards. If they reject that option (which it is as near to certain as anything in this extraordinary saga) then on 14 March they will have the opportunity to endorse the only remaining course available to them, namely backing a short extension of Article 50.
So, the real choice is – as it has been for weeks – between backing May 2.0 or deferring departure. The internal politics of the Conservative Party will, once more, be what settles the matter in the end.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party has engaged in a movement of its own towards a second referendum. This has been a spectacularly cynical switch in multiple respects and largely confirms that the new Independent Group were right to jump ship before being taken hostage.
Mr Corbyn has sought to limit the extent to which he can be blamed for Brexit within the Labour Party but has done so in the full knowledge that (a) his change has been made too late to be decisive, (b) that enough Labour MPs remain opposed to a further vote to sink it without trace when the final moment comes, and (c) that by raising the profile of a second referendum he is highly likely to drive the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Conservative MPs into supporting whatever new May plan emerges. All of which serves his own purpose which is that Brexit will occur but be owned by the Conservatives.
Are we any the wiser after this latest dry run at a parliamentary settlement than the last one? Yes.
The prospects of a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement being approved are rising
On the surface, the bargaining between the UK and the EU over the past month has achieved almost nothing. That impression is misleading. It would be more accurate to assert that both sides have had a pretty solid idea where they would probably end up in terms of a Withdrawal Agreement 2.0, but that each has appreciated that more time would have to pass before their compromise would be more acceptable to Mrs May’s internal opponents on this issue.
The ‘fix’ involves a combination of a codicil, or a supplement, to the Withdrawal Agreement and new language in the Political Declaration to the effect that the United Kingdom would not be held indefinitely in the Irish backstop against its will and that new technological solutions to the Irish border would form the first stage of the ‘end state’ negotiations, which would start as soon as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed. This in turn would allow Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, to recalibrate his legal advice as to whether or not there was a risk of the UK remaining marooned within the backstop were it ever to be triggered.
It cannot be stressed how significant an actor Mr Cox has suddenly become in this drama. As a Brexit supporter at the referendum, a distinguished barrister and a highly effective public orator, he has become the new ‘first domino’ which needs to fall to pave the path to parliamentary approval of a revised Withdrawal Agreement.
He has spent most of the last month out of sight conducting his own dialogue with Brussels which is, with respect to them, of considerably more consequence than the ‘official’ discussions being conducted by either Olly Robbins, Mrs May’s senior civil servant adviser on Brexit, or Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary.
If Mr Cox announces that he has found a formula which satisfies him as legally sound then that does not guarantee that either the DUP or the ERG will fall in to line but it makes the chances of that happening much higher. In anticipation that he might need to ‘pivot’ soon in his own positioning, Jacob Rees-Mogg yesterday softened his tone considerably to argue that it was not necessary for the backstop to be abandoned entirely if it could be neutralised. This shift is less the result of intellectual contemplation than a raw fear of Article 50 being extended.
If a ‘Cox codicil’ can be constructed that the Attorney General will swear over holy bones has legal standing then the prospect of the rebranded Withdrawal Agreement being approved, probably on 12 March, probably hits 65%, possibly higher.
The final bargain would be a strange one. It would retain a backstop in the legal section that everyone concerned insists in the political declaration that they do not want to see come into force, and which did not have either a formal time limit or a unilateral exit clause, but which, despite this, was deemed not to be a permanent imposition either. Even by the standards of the EU this would be a strange creature. Do not be surprised if it is seen.
Whether a short delay to Article 50 can be avoided now (no more than three months) is another matter entirely. Even if the Agreement carries the day on 12 March then there is at least a 65% chance that a ‘technical’ extension of some duration will be needed before matters are settled.
The chances of a no-deal Brexit have probably fallen to around 2% (or lower)
Despite endless media speculation and periodic political commentary that a no-deal Brexit was a viable option, even the most plausible outcome, it has never been anywhere close to that status. The number of serious figures in the Conservative Party who would refuse to touch it has always been far too high for it to come to pass except by a grotesque accident.
The Cabinet revolt that compelled Mrs May to concede that the House of Commons would decide on whether it wanted a no-deal via a vote on 13 March if the Withdrawal Agreement had not been endorsed confirms this. If we were to reach that moment (best estimate as of today a 33% chance), then the PM would have no choice but to hold a free vote on the motion (the alternative being massive resignation numbers) and a no-deal would be rejected by a margin even wider than the 230 vote defeat on the original version of the Withdrawal Agreement that Mrs May and her colleagues endured on 15 January.
In summary, the chances of a no-deal Brexit, which were probably about 5%-10% a fortnight ago, have tumbled further to something more akin to a 1%-3% range. Not that this should be an alibi for not engaging in the appropriate planning for it (as the BVCA has exhorted its members to do). If on boarding an airplane I were informed that there was a 2% chance that it would crash, then I would read the safety card and listen to the cabin crew demonstration more carefully. So please do that!
The chances of Mrs May being PM on 29 March 2020 have probably fallen to 2% (or lower)
In tandem with the downward shift (from an already low base) in the chances of a no-deal Brexit over the past two weeks, the percentage odds of Mrs May being the resident of 10 Downing Street a year after the date that Brexit is (currently) set to occur has slumped from slender to almost negligible. The events of the past few weeks have led previous loyal colleagues to a point of exasperation. What was seen as a character trait of admirable resilience is now viewed as a destructive stubbornness. The number of true loyalists for her around the Cabinet table has been reduced to a literal handful.
She now has a political life expectancy equivalent or lower than the sporting life expectancy of a Chelsea Football Club manager. Alas for her, a multi-million pound payoff is not part of the package. The other feature of the next two weeks will be the positioning of the candidates for the succession. It will be further proof, if it were needed, that politics is one blood sport that will never be abolished.
Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA