Rumours are floating around the bubble that May and Corbyn are on the verge of agreeing a Brexit deal and are only waiting until after the local elections to make this public. While it’s best not to put too much faith in this sort of thing, it does make sense of recent events: Number 10 saying they are expecting the talks with Labour to end the middle of next week, which sounds a lot like May’s sort of literalism, while Corbyn had to spend a reasonable amount of political capital to get the commitment to only consider putting another referendum on the table if that could be considered considerable in the right set of circumstances, once every other possibility had been exhausted including evacuating the entire island of Britain, and only then be considered to be considered as a possibility to be put on the table, passed by Labour’s NEC.
Now, Number 10 could obviously just be buying time for lack of anything better to do, and I’ve said many times before that Corbyn will avoid another EU referendum at all costs for his own personal reasons. Still, you have to take the rumours, look at what Corbyn and May have said and/or done this week and conclude the shoe does fits.
The only deal that is possible between the two main parties is that the Tories agree to sign up to a permanent customs union with the EU, with a few other bits and bobs Labour will want added on. The permanent state of the customs union is the big May red line erased if this happens. Neither Corbyn nor May want a second referendum, so that’s out.
If this comes to pass, I think it could actually be the end of both major parties, for real this time, only because of their massive size it will take years to play out. May will have agreed to something that almost no one in the Conservative party wants: the Brexiteers don’t want a customs union since they feel they need to be out of everything EU related and want the ability to set their own tariffs; the Remainers don’t really want to go from being a full-fledged member of the EU to becoming Turkey. So, it’s worth thinking about how many Tory MPs would vote for such a compromise. Even if the numbers are there because of Labour, hard feelings will rage for decades.
On the Labour side, Corbyn can get away with kicking Remainers around endlessly with semantics on Brexit – but doing a deal with the Tories to leave the EU would be the Labour leadership stepping into a whole new world of betrayal. One, they will have worked with the Conservatives to deliver Brexit. It will be clear that it could not have happened without Labour votes. Labour will then be responsible for anything that happens to Brexit from there on in the electorate’s mind, even if the Tories screw Labour over and tear up most of what was agreed once they have a new leader and we’re out of the EU. Second, a lot of young Labour supporters cling to this idea that Corbyn is really a Remainer, deep down, and that he is playing some kind of long game. If he teams up with the Tories to deliver Brexit, that illusion is shattered for all but the most religiously intoxicated to the Corbyn cult. And make no mistake about it: if the deal gets through on Labour votes, that is what will be the story, now and for the rest of time. Neither the right of centre nor the left will ever let us forget.
All of this makes me think there’s no way Labour will actually agree to something with the Tories next week. Then again, who knows. If it happens, I think it kills the Labour Party, at least eventually. Slow death, but death nonetheless.
Martin says
It would be so hilarious.
It is not simply a matter of a single vote, there is a lot of parliamentary business to enable implementation of a deal. De facto there would have to be a Con-Lab coalition.
I am sceptical of A Customs Union; how can there be A Customs Union that is anyway different to The Customs Union? Besides, I cannot see any EU agreement to forget about the ‘backstop’ for Northern Ireland, it is already in the phase 1 agreement. There also has to be alignment of standards, which is not covered by the Customs Union. Then there is free movement: Ireland will not agree to be a gatekeeper for the UK.
Supposing there were a Con-Lab pact next week, this would have to be followed up with an emergency EU Council meeting. There is hardly time and certainly no time for serious negotiations.
Nor are there any guarantees that all agreements would not be ripped up by a successor to May and by disagreements on the Labour side.
It will not happen, though the thought of Corbyn and May disappearing into a political black hole is quite entertaining.
Paul W says
“Ireland will not agree to be a gatekeeper for the UK.”
Actually, Ireland already is the gatekeeper for the UK (and vice versa) under the Common Travel Area agreement. Unless, of course, either government decided to tear up the CTA which would then require controls on North-South (and East-West) cross-border movement of people as well as goods.
Martin says
That is for people from outside the EU. You correctly point out that rejecting free movement of people tears up CTA and thus the Good Friday Agreement.
M says
You correctly point out that rejecting free movement of people tears up CTA
You can have free movement of people within the CTA without EU nationals having the automatic right to live and work in the UK, so no it doesn’t.
and thus the Good Friday Agreement.
Even if free movement of people with in the CTA did end, please explain which page of the Good Friday Agreement it would contravene. As far as I can tell the Good Friday Agreement doesn’t mention the CTA or free movement.
M says
Surely Corbyn’s entire purpose in engaging in these negotiations is to try to get Theresa may to agree to something that will split the Conservative party, and May would have to be an idiot to fall for it (MB this does not guarantee she won’t)?
Paul W says
M –
Possibly. But I think both main parties have very good reason for getting Brexit out of the TV headlines and off the front pages of the newspapers and buried in the back pages as quickly as possible – the Brexit issue badly divides both parties.
If the Times report of 2 May 2019 is correct, then an outline of a Brexit deal is visible based on Mrs May’s Deal plus a temporary customs union (at least until 2022) covering goods and (possibly) services. Let’s call it Common Market 2.0 or Chequers Redux. Implicit in this political deal is that the Labour party will drop any suggestion of a second referendum.
The likelihood is that such a deal would be supported by a majority of MPs, roughly two-thirds of Conservative MPs and a similar proportion of Labour ones. This unholy alliance would be quite enough to by-pass oppostion from ERGist MPs on the Conservative benches and from People’s Voters on the Labour benches (as well as from a motley crew of centrist, unionist and nationalist MPs).
M says
Mrs May’s Deal plus a temporary customs union
That’s just the Malthouse Compromise, isn’t it? The exact same deal but without the permanent backstop. Making the customs union (ie the backstop) temporary rather than permanent would satisfy that, and we know it would have a majority because it already got one, but it’s already been ruled out by the government and by the EU so it’s a no-goer.
Paul W says
M –
I’ve yet to hear a convincing explanation as to how any arrangement – customs union, backstop, international treaty – can be made ‘permanent’ under the British constitutional set up. Indeed, Mrs May herself alluded to this in her article for yesterday’s Mail on Sunday (05.05.19):
“The key point is, the ultimate decision-maker in everything we do is Parliament. So future parliaments, with a different party balance, will be able to decide whether they want a closer or more distant relationship with the EU.”
M says
I’ve yet to hear a convincing explanation as to how any arrangement – customs union, backstop, international treaty – can be made ‘permanent’ under the British constitutional set up
It seems strange to me but I’m willing to take the Attorney General’s word for it.
Certainly giving the difficulty we are having extricating ourself from something with an explicit exit clause, I wouldn’t want us to get trapped in something that while it may not technically be permanent, is nevertheless too much trouble to ever actually get ourselves out of.