Saturday , March 23 2019
Home / Mish's Global Economic / Non-Meaningful: UK’s Surprisingly Close Vote to Reject No-Deal Brexit

Non-Meaningful: UK’s Surprisingly Close Vote to Reject No-Deal Brexit

Summary:
I expected a vote to prohibit a no-deal Brexit would win by a landslide. It didn't, and no-deal is still the default. MPs have voted by 312 to 308 to reject leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. It is not a legally-binding decision - and it does not rule out the UK leaving the EU. But it means MPs could now get a vote on delaying Brexit. That vote would take place on Thursday, and if it is passed - and the EU agrees to it - the UK will not leave the EU as planned on 29 March. MPs voted by 374 to 164 to reject a plan to delay the UK's departure from the EU until 22 May, 2019 so that there can be a "managed no-deal" Brexit. It was known as the Malthouse Compromise - after Kit Malthouse, the government minister who devised it. Not Legally Binding The vote, as I have mentioned

Topics:
Mike Shedlock considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Mike Shedlock writes Illinois’ Demographic Collapse: Get Out As Soon As You Can

Mike Shedlock writes Two-Week Can-Kicking Extension to April 12 if No Deal, May 22 With Deal

Mike Shedlock writes T-8 and Counting: EU Agrees to Extend Article 50 to May 22, Possibly April 11

Mike Shedlock writes Where Defense Spending Dollars Go: Top Ten States

I expected a vote to prohibit a no-deal Brexit would win by a landslide. It didn't, and no-deal is still the default.

MPs have voted by 312 to 308 to reject leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. It is not a legally-binding decision - and it does not rule out the UK leaving the EU. But it means MPs could now get a vote on delaying Brexit. That vote would take place on Thursday, and if it is passed - and the EU agrees to it - the UK will not leave the EU as planned on 29 March.

MPs voted by 374 to 164 to reject a plan to delay the UK's departure from the EU until 22 May, 2019 so that there can be a "managed no-deal" Brexit. It was known as the Malthouse Compromise - after Kit Malthouse, the government minister who devised it.

Not Legally Binding

The vote, as I have mentioned numerous times, is not legally binding.

Moreover, the closeness of the vote suggests there could be a different vote the next time it is tabled.

On the whole, I suspect the no-deal odds just rose although the currency markets reacted the other way.

Consequences

Here is the key passage from Theresa May’s statement responding to the two defeats tonight.

"The motion we will table [tomorrow] will set out the fundamental choice facing this house.

If the house finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, it would allow the government to seek a short limited technical extension to article 50 to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU.

But let me be clear, such a short technical extension is only likely to be on offer if we have a deal in place.

Therefore, the house has to understand and accept that, if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days, and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, then it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50. Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European parliament elections in May 2019.

I do not think that would be the right outcome.

But the house needs to face up to the consequences of the decisions it has taken."

Minimum Requirements

Those are minimum requirements from the point of view of the UK only. The EU would have to agree to them.

Before that, the UK parliament would have to agree to a plan the EU would accept.

However, there still appear to be far too many factions to make that likely.

Point of Law

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the lead Tory Brexiter, asked the Commons speaker, John Bercow, to confirm that a motion of the house does not override statute law.

Bercow confirmed that is the case. Legally, today's vote is not binding. It is a request.

EU Commission Responds

Again, that's just what I said, and have said all along.

The UK now has 16 days to agree to something. And it has to be something the EU will accept.

Remainer Feuding

May Votes Against Her Own Proposal

Appearances Deceive

Most believe May's deal is dead. That's not the case.

If it appears a new motion would come close to gathering a majority, I would expect Theresa May to re-table a vote on her deal. Vs an option of Remain, it would likely win Tory backing, DUP backing, and some from Labour.

There no majority for remain and no majority for a Norway-style customs union. The customs union is the official policy of Labour. Tories would not go along, DUP would not go along, and even some in the Labour party would not go along.

Moreover, Norway already ruled out UK membership in the EFTA. Thus, Norway would be dead even if it did pass the UK parliament.

A Norway-Plus option that granted the UK trading rights while allowing the UK to void EU freedom of movement clauses is theoretically possible, but it would require UK parliamentary approval, EU approval, and it would have to be a separate agreement or Norway would reject it.

Default Setup

Today's bottom line suggests the odds of no-deal just rose despite the vote for the simple reason today's votes are not legally binding and various UK factions keep hoping for options that cannot fly.

The odds are slim that the UK votes to remain, May resigns, the UK votes for another referendum (to which the EU would have to agree to wait), or that the UK agrees to any action that is not rejected by either the EU or Norway.

My default setup remains:

There will be one more vote at the end of March for Theresa May's deal. It will either pass or it won't. There is no majority for anything else.

Today's vote was not meaningful, except perhaps that it made no-deal more likely.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Mike Shedlock
Mike Shedlock (Mish) is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management (http://www.sitkapacific.com/). Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *