The prime Minister has given MPs the opportunity to vote on extending the Article 50 process.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW:
As I intimated she would in this morning's video, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has caved in to demands to extend Brexit, by offering MPs a vote on whether or not to tell government to seek an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period from the EU.
In her statement to the House of Commons on the progress of her Withdrawal Agreement talks, the PM said that:
Firstly a meaningful vote will be held by MPs on or before Tuesday the 12th March
"if the Government has not won a Meaningful Vote by Tuesday 12 March then it will …. table a motion to be voted on by Wednesday the 13th of March at the latest, asking this House if it supports leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a framework for a future relationship on the 29th of March."
"So," she said, "the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on the 29th of March, if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome."
So, if the house rejects her deal on the 12th of March and also rejects leaving with no deal on the 13th of March, then a further motion will be put before the house on the 14th of March for a vote on whether or not to apply to the EU to extend the Article 50 process for what Mrs May calls a 'short limited' time.
And if the House votes to extend, then the government will seek to agree that with the European Union, then put in place legislation to change the exit date in the Withdrawal Act to reflect the change in date.
In that given scenario, MPs will obviously now vote May's deal down on the 12th, vote that we can't leave without a deal on the 13th and then vote to extend Article 50 on the 14th.
A brain surgeon is not required to work all that out!
But one assumes that her motion will be amendable.
In that case, will there be amendments tabled to increase the period of extension to the two or three years to mirror what the Eurocrats have said they want?
Will amendments be tabled to permanently rule out a WTO Brexit?
Will an amendment be put forward for the whole Brexit process to be revoked if certain criteria are met?
Now, the interesting thing here is that, as I explained in my video from yesterday afternoon talking about the Yvette Cooper Bill, any motion such as this that interferes with the Royal Prerogative of treaty making, should get Royal Consent first.
Now that would have possibly put an obstacle in the way of Yvette Cooper's Bill, but now that it is government policy then that Royal Consent is a given.
So, what Theresa May has done, is effectively take Yvette Cooper's Private Member's Bill and made it into government policy, so removing any obstacle the government could have used to block it!
Now, Theresa May also said in her statement that she does not want to see Article 50 extended, but with this proposed motion of hers she's done her level best to now ensure it is extended – as long as the EU27 Council members also agree to an extension that is.
And if they don't, what then? Actually, under EU law we would leave under WTO terms at 11pm on the 29th March whatever UK law said – unless Article 50 was revoked unilaterally by the UK government as provided for in a recent ECJ (European Court of Justice) ruling.
Now Theresa May said this afternoon that she would not revoke Article 50 – but what if parliament used her own motion and amended it to force her to do just that?
I said in a few videos last year, that we could well end up in this position; where the House of Commons was left to make a decision at the last moment between Leaving the EU on WTO terms or fully revoking the Article 50 letter and thus remaining as EU members permanently.
We may well be witnessing the trail of legal instruments via motions and amendments being lined up like dominoes for that exact outcome, to lead ultimately to an Act of Parliament to reverse Brexit completely.
So, please let us all know what you think by leaving a comment below.
Thank you for watching.