So What Was Friday?!

Yes I'm talking about Brexit again. I always seem to be talking about Brexit.

I'm seriously considering giving it an operational designation. I just can't think of one that isn't offensive to people with genuine learning disabilities.

On Friday (29/3/19) the British Parliament voted on another binding government motion. It has been widely reported that this was a third vote on the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

That is untrue. Like the premature claims that Brexit had been delayed. Or that Parliament had seized control of the Brexit process through the Indicative Votes process.

Although in people's defence, on this occasion it is extremely hard to explain what the government was asking Parliament to vote on.

On March 22nd (22/3/19) the European Union Council (EUCO) offered Britain an extension to Article 50 delaying Brexit until April 12th (12/4/19).

Britain was also offered an extension to Article 50 delaying Brexit until May 22nd (22/5/19).

This so-called technical extension was intended to allow the British Parliament time to pass a host of Statutory Instruments needed to give full effect to the Withdrawal Agreement. As such it was dependent on the British Parliament adopting the Withdrawal Agreement by March 29th (29/3/19).

The problem with this is that the British government had already tried to put the Withdrawal Agreement to a Parliamentary vote on March 18th (18/3/19).

John Bercow, the Speaker of the lower house of Parliament, the Commons, ruled that defeated motions and amendments cannot be reintroduced with the same Parliamentary session. Blocking the vote.

This was actually a shrewd move on the government's part.

In blocking a third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement Speaker Bercow also blocked fresh votes on all defeated motions and amendments. This includes motions giving Parliament control of the Brexit process and motions calling for a second referendum on Brexit.

It did though present the problem of the Withdrawal Agreement being reintroduced. A condition of Britain accepting EUCO's offer to extend Article 50 delaying Brexit until May 22nd (22/5/19).

In making the offer EUCO moved to get around this.

Back on March 11th (11/3/19) British Prime Minister Theresa May met with the EU's Brexit negotiators.

They provided her with a letter providing reassurance that the Withdrawal Agreement's Backstop Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland was not intended as the basis of a future relationship between Britain and the EU. As such it would not be permanent.

This letter simply restated the legally binding guarantees already in in Paragraph 5 (p.5) of the Preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement and in Article 1(4) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. As such EUCO had no problem including that letter within the Withdrawal Agreement at the summit on March 22nd (22/3/19).

Although it is only small, and arguably meaningless, the inclusion of that letter within the Withdrawal Agreement is a substantive change. Passing Speaker Bercow's test, allowing Parliament to vote again on the Withdrawal Agreement.

The Withdrawal Agreement also became the condition for extending Article 50 until May 22nd (22/5/19).

By default it would be the Statutory Instrument needed to accept the offer of the extension. Even if you were to use a separate Statutory Instrument to accept the extension offer that extension offer still represents a substantive change to the Withdrawal Agreement.

In order to pass Speaker Bercow's test you wouldn't need to make the Withdrawal Agreement the Statutory Instrument required to accept the offer of extending Article 50 to April 12th (12/4/19). It would just be sensible politics to do so.

Despite all the assistance from the EU the British government somehow still conspired to screw this all up.

Firstly they decided not to use the Withdrawal Agreement as the Statutory Instrument needed to extend Article 50 until May 22nd (22/5/19). Instead they introduced a separate Statutory Instrument to extend Brexit to April 12th (12/4/19) and to May 22nd (22/5/19).

In itself that Statutory Instrument is a bit shaky, legally speaking.

Technically it means that Britain will leave the EU on April 12th (12/4/1/19). Britain will then leave the EU for a second time on May 22nd (22/5/19). A contradiction which could well invalidate the document.

The British government then failed to notice that the inclusion of the March 11th (11/3/19) letter constituted a substantive change to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Instead the British government tried concocting a bizarre scheme to create a substantive change to the Withdrawal Agreement. In order to pass Speaker Bercow's test and allow Parliament to vote on it.

The substantive change the government decided upon was the separate the Withdrawal Agreement from the Political Declaration.

The Political Declaration is just a vague statement of intent of what future relationship will exist between Britain and the EU. In itself it has absolutely no legal force whatsoever.

The Withdrawal Agreement establishes a two year Transition Period during which the EU and Britain negotiate their future relationship. That can be extended for a further one year. Failing that the Backstop will be triggered as negotiations continue indefinitely.

On May 23rd (23/5/19) through to May 26th (26/5/19) EU Parliament elections will be held.

Once elected one of the new EU Parliament's first jobs will be electing a host of EU officials. These include Michel Barnier, the EU's Chief Brexit negotiator and John-Claude Juncker, head of the EU Commission.

Between now and 2021, the end of the first phase of the Transition Period, many EU nations will also undergo national elections. Potentially changing the make-up of their governments.

There are some of us who still cling onto this quaint idea that elected representatives have to abide by the result of public votes.

So it is impossible for the EU to prejudice the outcome of those elections by binding future governments to a negotiating position on Brexit.

As a result no-one on the EU's side considers the Political Declaration to be a legally binding part of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU is actually legally prohibited from treating the Political Declaration as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The British Parliament however has decided to combine the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration as a single, legally binding document. As such Britain cannot adopt the Withdrawal Agreement without also adopting the Political Declaration.

This has simply been another blocking tactic by British Remoaner MP's. It allows them to confuse the process in the eyes of voters. In the hope that everyone will just give up.

For example it allows them to say they're opposing the Withdrawal Agreement because it doesn't guarantee something like workers rights in Britain's future relationship with the EU. That's not the point of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Opposition to this so-called; "Blindfold Brexit" completely fails to understand the negotiation process and the Withdrawal Agreement's role within that process.

The purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement is to establish the Transition Period and start negotiations over Britain's future relationship with the EU. Negotiations which cover a wide range of topics. Including workers rights.

Britain might be the only party to the Brexit negotiations which treats the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration as two parts of the same legally binding document. However that still means that under British law they are two parts of the same legally binding documents.

So by separating the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration the British government did pass Speaker Bercow's test of allowing the vote to be brought. However, at the same time, it also prevented Parliament from adopting the Withdrawal Agreement.

Even Speaker Bercow commented that it is his job to rule only on points of Parliamentary procedure. It is the job of the Courts to rule on points of law. Essentially saying that he had to allow the vote even though it was clearly illegal.

With Parliament being unable to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement on Friday (29/3/19) they were instead being asked to vote on a promise to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement at some point in the future. In order to accept the EU's offer of extending Article 50 until May 22nd (22/3/19).

So technically this was not a third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement. It was a vote on a promise to hold a third vote.

I think the correct legal term for this motion is; "ClusterF*ck."

It simply causes immense confusion by posing more questions than it answers.

The obvious first question is whether the EU would accept a promise to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement at some point in the future as meeting their condition to extend Article 50 until May 22nd (22/5/19)? I'm inclined to think they would not.

If the EU did accept it the next question is whether the promise binds the British Parliament to adopting the Withdrawal Agreement in the future? Again I'm inclined to think it does not.

If the British Parliament then failed to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement would that then invalidate the extension of Article 50 until May 22nd (22/5/19)?

Creating a potential situation on May 21st (21/5/19) where Britain finds it actually left the EU on April 12th (12/4/19). Invalidating all legal, business, political and social actives taking place between April 12th (12/4/19) and May 22nd (22/5/19).

If you think the Brexit process has been complicated up to now you wait until it's been tied up in international Courts for decades.

So although Speaker Bercow did not have the power to stop it Friday's (29/3/19) motion should never have been brought before Parliament. No MP should ever have felt able to vote for it.

That's nothing to do with Brexit. That's simply because it was absolute legal garbage.

In future it's likely to be taught in universities as an example of how not to do government legislation.

Yet 286 British MP's voted for it anyway.


16:25 on 1/4/19 (UK date).