Because the problem is Parliament. We have a deal, it has been voted down four times. Johnson has a clear strategy for Brexit, that is being stymied too.
I think what is unclear to you is the fact that we are leaving the EU. That question is closed. The point of the GE (and Johnson's strategy) is to ensure that we leave with a deal (it is very possible that the EU rejects any extension).
Johnson voted _against_ the withdrawal agreement twice, and then for it once. If Parliament is the problem, Johnson has been part of that problem. I'm also not sure what his clear strategy is. The current deal would involve going with a deal he has voted against twice and that his Leader of the House of Commons has recently described as "dreadful", and he has shown no indication that he is going to bring it back. The EU has accused him of "pretending to negotiate"[1], so I'm unclear where a new deal would come from.
Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, I believe it has only been voted on three times.
The DUP are against it. Britain will only leave with a deal if Parliament vote for it (They voted down Theresa May's deal three times). What happens if they don't vote for it is the Boris Johnson will, by law, be forced to ask for an extension. He must accept whatever extension the EU propose. However, it's likely to get more 'interesting' than that.
I've found these flow diagrams very helpful with understanding the process, but it hasn't been updated in a week: https://jonworth.eu/brexit-what-next/
Because the ERG ("European Research Group", including MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg) pushed a UK ammendment to include the March 29th leaving date into UK law, MPs will need to revoke that to make it possible to retract Article 50. It is unclear whether the current pariament breakdown would support removing that ammendment.
The key question is how blocking a no deal Brexit will be implemented, given the rejection of the withdrawal agreement (not a deal!) and the reluctance of the EU to extend the Article 50 period without something different such as a general election or people's vote. There is also the upcoming European Parliament elections in 3 months which -- if the UK stays past that point -- the UK would need to participate in if Article 50 was extended past that point.
A general election is also problematic as it will likely result in another hung parlaiment or slim majority and we will be back where we are. This is especially the case given that Scotland is overwhelmingly SNP, and may gain seats over the Conservatives/Tories.
While a people's vote may be a potential way out of the deadlock, the government (and maybe the majority of parliament) are against it. Even if there is a majority for it, there isn't a majority for what to ask in the new vote. There are MPs that don't want remain on the vote, and there are others that don't want no deal on the vote.
What BoJo was trying to do was get no deal Brexit through a back door. Before an election the prime minister of the UK needs to request an extension to the deadline to allow the election to take place and a new party to take control and deal with the exit (or not) from the EU.
Brexit was sorted out ages ago. No deal. Johnson has wanted that from the start of his Preimership, doesn't need to deal and can try and blame the EU for when things go wrong.
In less than five weeks, the UK and EU must decide whether to extend beyond the end of this year the post-Brexit transition period that grants Britain continued frictionless trade with the bloc. Boris Johnson has been adamant that he will not seek to prolong it. This may still be a tactic. Yet with the July 1 deadline for agreeing an extension almost upon us there is no sign of progress towards a permanent new trade deal. This week’s publication of proposed UK texts, and the response, show both sides are still haggling in the bazaar. There is disingenuousness and unreality in the two partners’ depictions of their respective positions.
Even before the pandemic, the goal for a new trade deal by the year-end seemed ambitious. But there is a more pressing reason for the prime minister to slow the rush to completion. The UK’s stated plan will see significant new regulatory burdens placed upon British exporters and importers. The decision not to enter a customs union and refusal to sign up to legally enforceable common standards will place new costs on UK businesses, just when many are already fighting for survival because of coronavirus. Michael Gove, the cabinet office minister, has said that deal or no, firms will need to hire up to 50,000 new customs agents to manage the extra paperwork.
Arguing in favour of an extension is not an attempt to thwart Brexit. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has already happened. The British public has spoken twice on the issue, in the 2016 in-out referendum and then in the decisive victory it handed to Mr Johnson in the 2019 election. The prime minister has a mandate to deliver in the way his government decides — but not to take steps that would compound the economic damage caused by the pandemic.
Mr Johnson argues that deadlines focus the mind, though this does not mean the deal struck will be any better for the UK. The fundamental power imbalance in the talks remains.
The government has spun a myth around the last months of negotiations prior to exit in which Mr Johnson faced down Brussels. As his constant wriggling to avoid meeting his treaty obligations with regard to Northern Ireland shows, this is not the case. In truth, the prime minister agreed to weaken the integrity of the UK to secure a deal.
The immediate issue for the UK, however, is the extra cost to business and the continued uncertainty. Some Brexit hardliners argue the added costs will be lost in the wider economic malaise caused by Covid-19. This is not a serious argument. For firms struggling to rebuild, any new cost could be one too many.
Delay does carry some costs. Britain would have to make further contributions to the EU budget and be bound for longer by its rules. Extending talks with Brussels might also slow trade deals with others. But this is a price worth paying for a little longer.
A delay need not undermine the UK negotiating position nor arm those who still wish Brexit was not happening. This government has time to complete the job. But with the chancellor Rishi Sunak predicting a “severe recession” the economy must come first. The new rules will hit business and exports. Civil service resources are being diverted to no-deal planning when there are more pressing issues.
The need now, as Mr Johnson has told cabinet colleagues since his election victory, is to show maturity and stop fighting old battles. Though many fear the consequences of Brexit, there are no longer Remainers and Leavers. There is only a British economy facing a dire recession. The government needs to give it a break.
You may have missed this but at one point Johnson was actively touting the notion of proroguing parliament indefinitely so that it could not meet and reject a plan to Brexit without any trade deal in place.
And then 48 hours later, as if by magic, that plan (which would have required the Queen to publicly assent to an overtly-political variation of current norms) suddenly vanished without trace or comment.
Obviously if we choose to remain, the negotiated deal wouldn't be needed.
That's just an issue with the current wording.
I'm not in favour of an open ended renegotiate option, we've had that, its a bit of a mess, but if parliament wants to put forward an actionable, achievable plan then I would be happy to vote on that.
The policy itself doesn't matter. The entire point is that your government has elected a prime minister that is in disagreement with almost the entire parliament which does not want the withdrawal agreement you are talking about. So the only options remaining are delaying brexit again (wouldn't surprise me if they keep delaying it until 2025+) or a hard brexit which makes relations with the US just as likely as relations with the EU.
At this point a no deal Brexit looks substantially different from the possible-Brexit that was voted upon. Shouldn't there be a new referendum of basically a new question of a no deal Brexit vs Remain? I know very little of British politics, is there some other dynamic at work that pushes to what seems like a strongly economically destructive no deal Brexit?
Wow, Brexit negotiations really aren't going well, huh? This seems like the most obvious 'hey, look over here!' I've seen so far from an elected official.
Theres a vote tomorrow on whether to reject a no deal brexit, the the consensus is that will pass, with the PM presumably asking for an extension, so no deal still isn't a given.
This deal is going to fail because of the pro-brexit contingent of the conservative party. The DUP are against and it looks like the ERG are likely to follow suit once it becomes clear exactly what is agreed. So whilst you're right that they'll face a GE at some point, the people responsible for stopping the deal to leave the EU are likely going to be campaigning for a deal to leave the EU (and then continuing to vote against it if they get elected).
He needs a new deal first (this parliament has rejected existing deal, like, 3 times already). His main negotiation tactics (and what May failed to do and was repeatedly criticised for) is to present a viable alternative, a credible No-Deal Brexit option. That can serve as a BATNA in any future negotiations with the EU. Proroguing the parliament might have to do with preventing them to stop BATNA, but it's unlikely to make them not vote for a good new deal.
Well there seems to be a majority of MPs against no deal, theres a vote on that tomorrow. So that would mean May going back to the EU to ask for an extension. That would seem most likely to be until May, before the EU elections. I can't see that being more than a temporary date though. Any other option has to take more time than 2 ish months.
They've had 3 years, but not to act in the current (very different) circumstances than were present for that 3 year period. Most of that time was spent in the actual substantive negotiations, but those fell apart in their ability to gain parliamentary support, precisely because Theresa May held her cards too close to her vest and away from parliamentary scrutiny & input, and that gave rise to the time crunch here.
Regardless of whether they could have acted sooner, Johnson's move was to prevent them from acting now when faced with a new administration and new course of action that had every appearance of going against both the will of parliament and (though less legally relevant) the will of the people in that most do not support crashing out without a deal.
You can't claim they had 3 years to act on the current situation when the current situation just arose in the form of a new PM that was attempting to side step any parliamentary review or legislation over his course of action.
Finally, they actually did act this past spring to vote that no deal wasn't an acceptable outcome. It was part of a series of non-binding votes that established governmental norms should have meant that it would be honored. When, after Johnson became PM, it was clear that it would not be honored, parliament quickly acted in the short time before being proroqued to actually enact in law the requirement to ask the EU for an extension in the face of no-deal. So, not only is 3 years not what they had to address the current situation, to they extent that they could address the current situation, they did so. Their desire to do more was prohibited by Johnson's (now illegal) actions.
The big problem here is that no-deal Brexit is much worse than the status quo. We're basically threatening to inflict job losses on ourselves in the hopes that the job losses on the other side of the channel will drive negotiations.
No one knows what Brexit actually is though. It's either not happening, kicking the can down the road till the UK manages to square the circle w.r.t. Northern Ireland [0] (i.e. the current deal), or crashing out with no deal causing days long waits at the ports of entry as inspections take place.
How do you price in all those disparate outcomes into the same price?
[0] UKs own requirements for Brexit are mutually exclusive 1) No customs union, 2) No Northern Ireland border, and 3) No border inside the UK. These three can't exist in the same deal. The only real way to properly Brexit would be to cut Northern Ireland lose or risk reigniting the Troubles by violating the Good Friday Agreement.
I think what is unclear to you is the fact that we are leaving the EU. That question is closed. The point of the GE (and Johnson's strategy) is to ensure that we leave with a deal (it is very possible that the EU rejects any extension).
reply