There was another contradictory vote by British MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening, 22 October.
Without taking a direct position on the substance of the new agreement for an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union as negotiated between Boris Johnson’s government and the EU, they agreed in a first floor vote on the draft agreement, indicating that they could approve this text.
With this first vote (329 in favour, 299 against), the British government won a small but not insignificant victory in that it can be considered as implicit support for the new withdrawal agreement. Boris Johnson asserted that this vote meant that the House of Commons, “has, for the first time, come together and embraced a deal”.
But in the aftermath, MPs rejected the timetable recommended by the British government, which would have required finalising legislative work on the withdrawal agreement in the next 3 days (322 against, 308 in favour).
In practice, this means that it seems difficult - if not impossible - to meet the deadline of 31 October. Mr Johnson seems to be forced to consider extending the negotiating deadlines with the Twenty-Seven. He has repeatedly threatened to call parliamentary elections if this occurs.
The country will withdraw “one way or another from the EU with this deal to which the House has just given its assent”, Johnson said.
According to the European Commission, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, will continue his consultations with his counterparts on the extension request sent by the British government at the end of last week. He will recommend the European leaders accept the UK request for an extension via a written procedure.
Wait-and-see attitude in the European Parliament
In any case, there was a wait-and-see attitude throughout the day in Strasbourg in the corridors of the European Parliament.
The only certainty issued by Parliament on 22 October was that no ratification vote can be taken until a ratification has been definitively recorded in Westminster.
This is clear to groups such as Renew Europe and the French members of Renaissance, who believe that the European Parliament “cannot give its opinion before and certainly not in place of the British; it is they who must tell us whether [there will be] ratification or not, this decision being exclusively a matter for the British Parliament”, according to Nathalie Loiseau.
This is despite pressure to the contrary, as reported by several elected officials on Tuesday: pressure is reported to have come from President David Sassoli for European Parliament to advance its ratification work.
MEPs do not want to rush their work
During the debate on the outcome of the last EU summit, MEPs said they were ready to take responsibility by looking at the agreement allowing for an orderly Brexit as soon as the British Parliament has ratified it. But they do not intend to increase their pace just to avoid an accidental exit from the United Kingdom in a week’s time.
Describing the agreement as a “good compromise”, EPP Group Chairman Manfred Weber of Germany said that the European Parliament’s ratification vote should not take place this week. It is “useless to accelerate”, he said. Both the chairwoman of the S&D group, Iratxe García Pérez of Spain, and the chairman of the Renew Europe group, Romanian Dacian Cioloș, stressed that the European Parliament will only act when the decision of the British Parliament is known. “It is not up to the European Parliament to rush. It will probably not happen this week”, the Romanian liberal confirmed.
The same is true of the Greens/EFA Group Co-President, Belgian Philippe Lamberts, who also considered the possibility that British MPs would refuse to ratify the agreement. So, one of the two agreements - the one negotiated by Theresa May’s previous government or the one now on the table - should be submitted to the British people by way of a “referendum”, he said. This is the position defended by Martin Schirdewan of Germany on behalf of the GUE/NGL group, who believes that any extension of the deadlines after 1 November granted by the European Council should allow the population to decide.
Among British MEPs, Geoffrey van Orden (ECR) welcomed the “goodwill” and “flexibility” shown by the Twenty-Seven to reach a new agreement on an orderly Brexit. “Let’s let Brexit happen without further delay”, he hoped. Among the Labour faction, Richard Corbett denounced Johnson’s attempt to forcefully ratify a revised 600-page agreement that has not been subject to any impact assessment. “This is a bad agreement for the United Kingdom, it’s a bad agreement for the EU!”, he denounced, convinced that the majority of the British public is in favour of a new referendum to thwart Brexit, “a project of the neoliberal right”.
If the British Parliament does not ratify the agreement, the European Council will have to take a position on the British Government’s request for an extension of the deadline. Contrary to what the latter claims, the granting of a third deadline extension is likely, since, according to European Council President Donald Tusk, “a no-deal Brexit will never be our decision”. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic with Mathieu Bion)