By Philomena Murray

There is a song by the Melbourne band Little Heroes, called One Perfect Day, from back in 1982 (though it still attracts a cult following). In it, the lead singer asks his ex-girlfriend in England: tell me, is it still raining there in England, and did the government fall last night?

Well, it is still raining. And there is still talk of the government of Theresa May falling. We just observed a week of three parliamentary votes on Brexit, where the government was defeated in two of them.

In another extraordinary day yesterday, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, invoked the “Erskine May” parliamentary rules of procedure. That means that an amendment “which is the same, in substance” as an issue that has already been voted on cannot be proposed again in parliament. The speaker said that a new proposal must be “not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. Unless there are significant changes to the substance of the government’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement, it cannot be sent back to the House for a third “meaningful” vote.

So, what might happen now, with nine days to go until the UK is supposed to leave the EU?

The UK could still leave without an agreement

If there is no parliamentary support for the Withdrawal Agreement, that does not mean the UK does not leave. The UK will leave on 29 March unless the UK government requests an extension to Article 50, which was activated by Theresa May two years ago on 29 March 2017. The Article says, among other things:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

If the UK leaves in a little over a week, it will no longer be in the EU and will no longer be party to hundreds of international treaties and thousands of pieces of legislation.

Proroguing the parliament is an option

What are the options in order to avoid crashing out this way? Could the British government somehow get the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament on a third attempt?

One step that Theresa May might be contemplating is taking the extraordinary measure of “proroguing” the parliament. Proroguing effectively means terminating the current session, without actually dissolving it, and having parliament reconvene in a new session. The government would then have the option – if the temporary suspension of the parliament goes smoothly – to re-send the Withdrawal Agreement for a meaningful vote to a newly-convened parliament.

This may not occur in time for the looming exit deadline, and May is unlikely to attempt to present the deal for a third time, unless the Speaker changes his position. So, May could be obliged to yet again set out for Brussels and some EU national capitals to shore up support for an extension of Article 50.

So far, no request to extend Article 50 
 
The EU has not yet received a formal request for an extension of Article 50, even though the House of Commons voted last week for such an extension and May has now indicated she will request one. Nathalie Loiseau, the French Minister for the EU, said, “No such request has been made”.

Perhaps giving a sense of the frustration in some EU capitals about the negotiations, Loiseau revealed she has called her cat Brexit because it is indecisive, as it “meows loudly to be let out each morning, but then refuses to go outside when she opens the door”.

The EU would no doubt request that an extension be fully justified – and there is little European appetite to reopen negotiations with Britain. The EU has been preparing for Brexit for some time.

It is conceivable that Theresa May could seek to justify a request that Article 50 be extended well beyond the 30 June 2019 date currently under discussion in the UK. But there are major problems with this, as the UK would need to take part in the European Parliament elections to take place in May this year. It could also be obliged to contribute to the new EU budget round, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework.

The Brexit saga continues 
​​​​​​​ 
Of course, the idea of voting more than once on a Brexit deal in Parliament raises again the call for a second referendum on EU membership by the people – a people’s vote.

Alternatively, the UK could remain in the EU and revoke Article 50. A recent court ruling that this does not require the consent of the other 27 EU states has emboldened those who are campaigning for a new referendum – although it is far from clear what questions would appear on the ballot paper.

The possibility of Theresa May resigning is never far from the minds of her detractors – whether the European Research Group in her own party, or the Labour party leadership under Jeremy Corbyn.

Meanwhile, the UK Trade Secretary Liam Fox has announced a trade deal that has just been initialled with Iceland and Norway. He stated that this was in addition to the agreement signed with Liechtenstein. At least Norway and Iceland are larger than Liechtenstein, a country of fewer than 38,000 people – famous for being the world’s largest exporter of false teeth.

These new trading partners are considerably smaller than the EU Single Market of over 500 million that the UK currently belongs to. They will certainly not fill the huge void left by Brexit.

Yet again, Theresa May’s government is no doubt hoping for just One Perfect Day, but it is not looking likely at the moment.

(Philomena Murray is Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-days-and-counting-what-options-does-the-uk-have-before-the-brexit-deadline-113910">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Philomena Murray There is a song by the Melbourne band Little Heroes, called One Perfect Day, from back in 1982 (though it still attracts a cult following). In it, the lead singer asks his ex-girlfriend in England: tell me, is it still raining there in England, and did the government fall last night?

By Philomena Murray There is a song by the Melbourne band Little Heroes, called One Perfect Day, from back in 1982 (though it still attracts a cult following). In it, the lead singer asks his ex-girlfriend in England: tell me, is it still raining there in England, and did the government fall last night? Well, it is still raining. And there is still talk of the government of Theresa May falling. We just observed a week of three parliamentary votes on Brexit, where the government was defeated in two of them. In another extraordinary day yesterday, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, invoked the “Erskine May” parliamentary rules of procedure. That means that an amendment “which is the same, in substance” as an issue that has already been voted on cannot be proposed again in parliament. The speaker said that a new proposal must be “not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. Unless there are significant changes to the substance of the government’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement, it cannot be sent back to the House for a third “meaningful” vote. So, what might happen now, with nine days to go until the UK is supposed to leave the EU? The UK could still leave without an agreement If there is no parliamentary support for the Withdrawal Agreement, that does not mean the UK does not leave. The UK will leave on 29 March unless the UK government requests an extension to Article 50, which was activated by Theresa May two years ago on 29 March 2017. The Article says, among other things: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. If the UK leaves in a little over a week, it will no longer be in the EU and will no longer be party to hundreds of international treaties and thousands of pieces of legislation. Proroguing the parliament is an option What are the options in order to avoid crashing out this way? Could the British government somehow get the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament on a third attempt? One step that Theresa May might be contemplating is taking the extraordinary measure of “proroguing” the parliament. Proroguing effectively means terminating the current session, without actually dissolving it, and having parliament reconvene in a new session. The government would then have the option – if the temporary suspension of the parliament goes smoothly – to re-send the Withdrawal Agreement for a meaningful vote to a newly-convened parliament. This may not occur in time for the looming exit deadline, and May is unlikely to attempt to present the deal for a third time, unless the Speaker changes his position. So, May could be obliged to yet again set out for Brussels and some EU national capitals to shore up support for an extension of Article 50. So far, no request to extend Article 50 The EU has not yet received a formal request for an extension of Article 50, even though the House of Commons voted last week for such an extension and May has now indicated she will request one. Nathalie Loiseau, the French Minister for the EU, said, “No such request has been made”. Perhaps giving a sense of the frustration in some EU capitals about the negotiations, Loiseau revealed she has called her cat Brexit because it is indecisive, as it “meows loudly to be let out each morning, but then refuses to go outside when she opens the door”. The EU would no doubt request that an extension be fully justified – and there is little European appetite to reopen negotiations with Britain. The EU has been preparing for Brexit for some time. It is conceivable that Theresa May could seek to justify a request that Article 50 be extended well beyond the 30 June 2019 date currently under discussion in the UK. But there are major problems with this, as the UK would need to take part in the European Parliament elections to take place in May this year. It could also be obliged to contribute to the new EU budget round, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework. The Brexit saga continues Of course, the idea of voting more than once on a Brexit deal in Parliament raises again the call for a second referendum on EU membership by the people – a people’s vote. Alternatively, the UK could remain in the EU and revoke Article 50. A recent court ruling that this does not require the consent of the other 27 EU states has emboldened those who are campaigning for a new referendum – although it is far from clear what questions would appear on the ballot paper. The possibility of Theresa May resigning is never far from the minds of her detractors – whether the European Research Group in her own party, or the Labour party leadership under Jeremy Corbyn. Meanwhile, the UK Trade Secretary Liam Fox has announced a trade deal that has just been initialled with Iceland and Norway. He stated that this was in addition to the agreement signed with Liechtenstein. At least Norway and Iceland are larger than Liechtenstein, a country of fewer than 38,000 people – famous for being the world’s largest exporter of false teeth. These new trading partners are considerably smaller than the EU Single Market of over 500 million that the UK currently belongs to. They will certainly not fill the huge void left by Brexit. Yet again, Theresa May’s government is no doubt hoping for just One Perfect Day, but it is not looking likely at the moment. (Philomena Murray is Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

What options does the UK have before the Brexit deadline?

Prime Minister Theresa May asked sceptical EU leaders on Wednesday to delay Brexit until June 30 as Britain's political crisis deepened just nine days before the scheduled departure date.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/pound-slides-after-uk-requests-brexit-delay-204577">pound plunged on currency markets after the announcement</a>, as the European Commission advised EU leaders that a shorter delay to May 23 or a much longer one until at least the end of 2019 would be preferable.

Exactly 1,000 days on from Britain's seismic 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, a divorce deal negotiated with the EU by May is blocked in parliament and uncertainty grips the country.

May told a stormy session of parliament that she had written to EU President Donald Tusk "informing him that the UK seeks an extension... to June 30".

She was confronted with a barrage of criticism from Brexit hardliners who wanted her to stick to the March 29 departure date and pro-EU lawmakers who want a long delay that could allow for an overhaul of the strategy.

Faced with the potentially catastrophic impact of Britain leaving its biggest trading partner after 46 years with no agreement in place on March 29, May said she would try one last time to pass her deal through parliament.

If she fails a third time, May said parliament would have to decide what happened next -- but hinted that her own future was on the line.

"As prime minister, I am not prepared to delay Brexit any further than June 30," she said.

Delaying any longer would require Britain to hold European Parliament elections at the end of May, which she said would be "unacceptable".

May will travel to Brussels on Thursday for an EU summit where she will put her request in person to the other 27 EU leaders, who must unanimously approve any delay.

But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said it was unlikely they would reach a decision without a clear signal from London on what MPs want, suggesting another meeting might be needed next week.

The commission, the EU's executive arm, said the June 30 date carried "serious legal and political risks".

Spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said Juncker in a phone-call on Wednesday "warned" May against proposing an extension date that was after European elections.

'End of the road'

After almost two years of talks, May and the EU struck a divorce agreement late last year, but MPs have overwhelmingly rejected it twice.

Her original plan to hold a third vote this week was dramatically blocked by Commons speaker John Bercow, who said May could not keep bringing the deal back to MPs without changes.

European leaders are now demanding Britain tells them clearly what it wants.

"As long as we don't know what Britain could say yes to, no decision can be taken on our side either," Juncker told German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk.

He said the deal agreed was the final offer, warning: "Nothing more can be done, we've reached the end of the road.&nbsp;

"If other scenarios are being discussed, we'd need a new road."

Juncker said May needed to present Brussels with an agreement approved by parliament as well as "a clear timetable".

Given that this was unlikely before the summit's start on Thursday, "we will probably need to meet again next week".

The pound fell sharply on the news losing about half a pence in the space of 10 minutes after May announced the delay, bringing its loss for the day to around one per cent

'National humiliation'

Brexit-backing British newspapers echoed the general sense of frustration.

The Daily Mail's editorial read: "1,000 days of incompetence, betrayal and now national humiliation... how did victory turn to this?"

In the House of Commons, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn blamed the prime minister's "incompetence, failure and intransigence", saying she refused to accept her deal had failed.

May had previously warned MPs to expect a lengthy Brexit delay if her deal did not pass before this week's EU meeting.

But she opted for a short option after Brexit-backing ministers reportedly said they would not accept a long extension.

This is despite her own deputy, David Lidington, warning that a request for a short delay would likely be rejected by the EU, and could increase the chance of a "no deal".

"When will she develop a backbone and stand up to those who would take this nation to disaster?" Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Pete Wishart asked.

Prime Minister Theresa May asked sceptical EU leaders on Wednesday to delay Brexit until June 30 as Britain's political crisis deepened just nine days before the scheduled departure date.

Prime Minister Theresa May asked sceptical EU leaders on Wednesday to delay Brexit until June 30 as Britain's political crisis deepened just nine days before the scheduled departure date. The pound plunged on currency markets after the announcement, as the European Commission advised EU leaders that a shorter delay to May 23 or a much longer one until at least the end of 2019 would be preferable. Exactly 1,000 days on from Britain's seismic 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, a divorce deal negotiated with the EU by May is blocked in parliament and uncertainty grips the country. May told a stormy session of parliament that she had written to EU President Donald Tusk "informing him that the UK seeks an extension... to June 30". She was confronted with a barrage of criticism from Brexit hardliners who wanted her to stick to the March 29 departure date and pro-EU lawmakers who want a long delay that could allow for an overhaul of the strategy. Faced with the potentially catastrophic impact of Britain leaving its biggest trading partner after 46 years with no agreement in place on March 29, May said she would try one last time to pass her deal through parliament. If she fails a third time, May said parliament would have to decide what happened next -- but hinted that her own future was on the line. "As prime minister, I am not prepared to delay Brexit any further than June 30," she said. Delaying any longer would require Britain to hold European Parliament elections at the end of May, which she said would be "unacceptable". May will travel to Brussels on Thursday for an EU summit where she will put her request in person to the other 27 EU leaders, who must unanimously approve any delay. But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said it was unlikely they would reach a decision without a clear signal from London on what MPs want, suggesting another meeting might be needed next week. The commission, the EU's executive arm, said the June 30 date carried "serious legal and political risks". Spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said Juncker in a phone-call on Wednesday "warned" May against proposing an extension date that was after European elections. 'End of the road' After almost two years of talks, May and the EU struck a divorce agreement late last year, but MPs have overwhelmingly rejected it twice. Her original plan to hold a third vote this week was dramatically blocked by Commons speaker John Bercow, who said May could not keep bringing the deal back to MPs without changes. European leaders are now demanding Britain tells them clearly what it wants. "As long as we don't know what Britain could say yes to, no decision can be taken on our side either," Juncker told German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. He said the deal agreed was the final offer, warning: "Nothing more can be done, we've reached the end of the road. "If other scenarios are being discussed, we'd need a new road." Juncker said May needed to present Brussels with an agreement approved by parliament as well as "a clear timetable". Given that this was unlikely before the summit's start on Thursday, "we will probably need to meet again next week". The pound fell sharply on the news losing about half a pence in the space of 10 minutes after May announced the delay, bringing its loss for the day to around one per cent 'National humiliation' Brexit-backing British newspapers echoed the general sense of frustration. The Daily Mail's editorial read: "1,000 days of incompetence, betrayal and now national humiliation... how did victory turn to this?" In the House of Commons, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn blamed the prime minister's "incompetence, failure and intransigence", saying she refused to accept her deal had failed. May had previously warned MPs to expect a lengthy Brexit delay if her deal did not pass before this week's EU meeting. But she opted for a short option after Brexit-backing ministers reportedly said they would not accept a long extension. This is despite her own deputy, David Lidington, warning that a request for a short delay would likely be rejected by the EU, and could increase the chance of a "no deal". "When will she develop a backbone and stand up to those who would take this nation to disaster?" Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Pete Wishart asked.

European Union leaders warn 'serious risks' as Theresa May seeks Brexit delay until June 30

By Simon Usherwood

A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship.

There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic.

The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London.

This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders.

Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies.

All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen&nbsp;as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down.

When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement.

Stalemate

So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found.

If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union.

This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament.

And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line.

(Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-could-the-eu-really-be-convinced-to-budge-on-the-backstop-111515">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;

By Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

By Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits. The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship. There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic. The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London. This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders. Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies. All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down. When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement. Stalemate So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found. If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union. This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament. And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line. (Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Brexit: Could the EU really be convinced to budge on the backstop?

By Kenneth Armstrong

In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading. Rather than unveiling a Plan B, she set out Plan May with some procedural bells and whistles.

Number 10 followed her statement by saying there will not be another meaningful vote on Brexit until February.

Significantly, the prime minister has refused to take a no-deal Brexit off the agenda. Following parliament’s decisive vote not to approve the texts of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU back in November, a no-deal Brexit is now the default position unless something else changes.

Three things could change. First, with the March 29 deadline looming without a Brexit deal, parliament could decide to shift the goalposts by requiring the government to seek an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period. This procedural device was originally proposed in a private member’s bill promoted by Conservative MP Nick Boles, but it is likely to be superseded by an alternative proposal from Labour MP Yvette Cooper in which a refusal by parliament to approve the texts agreed between the UK and the EU would lead to a request to extend the negotiation period.

In terms of Article 50, the UK can make such a request, but it still needs the unanimous consent of the EU27. Assuming that consent was given, it would simply delay a no-deal Brexit. Something would have to happen during this extension to change the parliamentary arithmetic to produce a majority to back a deal. The most obvious way of doing that would be if a general election was held, forcing the political parties to lay out their visions of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Former Conservative leader William Hague has been talking up the possibility of an early election. The risk, however, would be that a divided nation produced a hung parliament with no better consensus on what is in the national interest.

A different possibility would be to make revocation of the Article 50 withdrawal notification the new default. This wouldn’t just take a no-deal Brexit off the table. Any failure by parliament to approve a deal would mean that parliament instructed the government to bring the withdrawal process to an end. Following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union in December, this is a real alternative. The problem is that this goes further than changing the default on Brexit; it reverses Brexit itself. It is hard to see how this could occur without another referendum. And, as the prime minister made clear in her statement, she believes that no majority exists in the House of Commons for another referendum.

But even if a referendum were to take place following parliament’s failure to approve a deal, the referendum would be a straight choice between remaining in the EU and a no-deal Brexit. So even in this scenario, a no-deal Brexit could still occur.

The third option is to focus on substance. Here the prime minister identified the Irish backstop, the future relationship, and protecting social, environmental and citizens rights as areas where the action might need to be taken. Leaving aside the issues of rights where the UK is in a position to take unilateral action, any “Plan B” would need to address the Irish Protocol contained in the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship set out in the political declaration. Changes to the Irish backstop means opening up a legal text which the EU has said it will not do. Almost all the negotiation time in 2018 was spent trying to resolve this issue.

But even in terms of the hard numbers, flipping the votes of the DUP and Brexiteers who objected to the backstop is unlikely to give the prime minister the majority she would need. She would still need a wider coalition to either accept the deal or at least abstain rather than voting against it. That’s why attention still needs to be paid to the future relationship.

What the prime minister has offered, however, is simply to involve parliament and voices outside of parliament more closely in shaping the UK’s position on the future relationship with the EU, with the important caveat that it is “government’s responsibility to negotiate” with the EU. In short, while parliament and the devolved administrations may expect to be better engaged, the government does not intend to hand control of Brexit over to MPs. It still appears to be Plan May.

(Kenneth Armstrong is Professor, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-brexit-plan-b-this-is-still-plan-may-110140">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Kenneth Armstrong In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading.

By Kenneth Armstrong In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading. Rather than unveiling a Plan B, she set out Plan May with some procedural bells and whistles. Number 10 followed her statement by saying there will not be another meaningful vote on Brexit until February. Significantly, the prime minister has refused to take a no-deal Brexit off the agenda. Following parliament’s decisive vote not to approve the texts of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU back in November, a no-deal Brexit is now the default position unless something else changes. Three things could change. First, with the March 29 deadline looming without a Brexit deal, parliament could decide to shift the goalposts by requiring the government to seek an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period. This procedural device was originally proposed in a private member’s bill promoted by Conservative MP Nick Boles, but it is likely to be superseded by an alternative proposal from Labour MP Yvette Cooper in which a refusal by parliament to approve the texts agreed between the UK and the EU would lead to a request to extend the negotiation period. In terms of Article 50, the UK can make such a request, but it still needs the unanimous consent of the EU27. Assuming that consent was given, it would simply delay a no-deal Brexit. Something would have to happen during this extension to change the parliamentary arithmetic to produce a majority to back a deal. The most obvious way of doing that would be if a general election was held, forcing the political parties to lay out their visions of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Former Conservative leader William Hague has been talking up the possibility of an early election. The risk, however, would be that a divided nation produced a hung parliament with no better consensus on what is in the national interest. A different possibility would be to make revocation of the Article 50 withdrawal notification the new default. This wouldn’t just take a no-deal Brexit off the table. Any failure by parliament to approve a deal would mean that parliament instructed the government to bring the withdrawal process to an end. Following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union in December, this is a real alternative. The problem is that this goes further than changing the default on Brexit; it reverses Brexit itself. It is hard to see how this could occur without another referendum. And, as the prime minister made clear in her statement, she believes that no majority exists in the House of Commons for another referendum. But even if a referendum were to take place following parliament’s failure to approve a deal, the referendum would be a straight choice between remaining in the EU and a no-deal Brexit. So even in this scenario, a no-deal Brexit could still occur. The third option is to focus on substance. Here the prime minister identified the Irish backstop, the future relationship, and protecting social, environmental and citizens rights as areas where the action might need to be taken. Leaving aside the issues of rights where the UK is in a position to take unilateral action, any “Plan B” would need to address the Irish Protocol contained in the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship set out in the political declaration. Changes to the Irish backstop means opening up a legal text which the EU has said it will not do. Almost all the negotiation time in 2018 was spent trying to resolve this issue. But even in terms of the hard numbers, flipping the votes of the DUP and Brexiteers who objected to the backstop is unlikely to give the prime minister the majority she would need. She would still need a wider coalition to either accept the deal or at least abstain rather than voting against it. That’s why attention still needs to be paid to the future relationship. What the prime minister has offered, however, is simply to involve parliament and voices outside of parliament more closely in shaping the UK’s position on the future relationship with the EU, with the important caveat that it is “government’s responsibility to negotiate” with the EU. In short, while parliament and the devolved administrations may expect to be better engaged, the government does not intend to hand control of Brexit over to MPs. It still appears to be Plan May. (Kenneth Armstrong is Professor, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There’s no Brexit Plan B – this is still Plan May

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. May’s plan for an amicable divorce from the European Union (EU) was overwhelmingly rejected by the British Parliament, giving her government one of the worst defeats in British political history. This plan, which was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on March 29, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal was rejected by 432 to 202 votes. This was a plan which was almost two years in the making with May putting her career on the line. But it was clear that she failed in convincing Parliament that it was the best option for the nation.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn quickly came back with a no-confidence vote against May’s government, arguing that May’s “zombie” administration had lost the right to govern. But this time May got back her support base from the rebel Tories and the DUP, winning the vote by a margin of 19. May has responded by underscoring her commitment to “continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union”.

But the road forward remains as complicated as ever for May and for Britain. After her victory in the no-confidence vote, May had called on MPs to “put self-interest aside” and “act in the national interest”, acknowledging that it “will not be an easy task”. Consensus certainly will not be easy to come by as the British polity remains at its most polarised today. May now has to present a new EU withdrawal plan to Parliament by January 21 ahead of a vote by MPs eight days later. And political confabulations have started in right earnest though without any real sense of direction.

Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is moving ahead with contingency planning. European Commission has underlined that it is “taking this very seriously now as the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is becoming more possible”. French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has said a no-deal Brexit looks “less and less unlikely” while German Economy Minister Peter Altmeier has warned “everyone in Europe would lose” from the UK leaving without an agreement. Ireland, which has the closest links to the UK of all the EU States, is now solely focused on measures covering key sectors such as health, communications, education, finance, employment and justice.

British economy’s health will be one of the most significant casualties of the present crisis. The International Monetary Fund has made it clear that Brexit without a deal is the “most significant near-term risk to the UK economy”. And in a public letter, more than 170 leading business figures have called for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to back another referendum on withdrawal from the European Union “to stop us crashing out of the EU with no deal at all”.

The open political divide in the UK is causing a sense of bewilderment all around. On the one hand, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to negotiate with May unless a no-deal Brexit is ruled out, on the other Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis has ruled out discussion on staying in a customs union. Even within May’s Cabinet, there are contending voices and May’s ability to shape a consensus is gravely in doubt. While the Conservatives showed unity over the confidence vote, with all 314 members backing the Prime Minister, the divisions within the party over the way forward with Brexit remain as strong as ever. May has given no indication so far that she will be willing to budge on her “red lines”, thereby ruling out Labour’s demand for a customs union with the EU as there is a fear that such a compromise would lead to further departures from the Cabinet.

In more ways than one, Brexit has been a failed attempt by the Tories to put an end to the internecine warfare within the Party on the issue of the EU. May’s predecessor David Cameron thought that he could end this by winning a referendum on the EU. Instead, he lost and in the process pushed Britain into uncharted waters. For May, the tension between the Parliament as a whole and the Eurosceptics within her own party has been too much to enable her to navigate her way out of this crisis. There is a hardcore group within the Tories for whom a hard Brexit is more important than continuing in the government. And it is this group that will shape May’s future and in more ways than one, the future of Britain. An exercise which was supposed to be an absolute manifestation of a democratic mandate now has become hostage to a few Tory MPs who are hell bent on shaping the trajectory of British political relations with the rest of Europe.

Whatever the outcome of this process, the Britain which will emerge out of this political churn will be one quite distinct in its political complexion than the one we are used to.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-brexit-a-messy-separation-2709878">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. May’s plan for an amicable divorce from the European Union (EU) was overwhelmingly rejected by the British Parliament, giving her government one of the worst defeats in British political history. This plan, which was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on March 29, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal was rejected by 432 to 202 votes. This was a plan which was almost two years in the making with May putting her career on the line. But it was clear that she failed in convincing Parliament that it was the best option for the nation. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn quickly came back with a no-confidence vote against May’s government, arguing that May’s “zombie” administration had lost the right to govern. But this time May got back her support base from the rebel Tories and the DUP, winning the vote by a margin of 19. May has responded by underscoring her commitment to “continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union”. But the road forward remains as complicated as ever for May and for Britain. After her victory in the no-confidence vote, May had called on MPs to “put self-interest aside” and “act in the national interest”, acknowledging that it “will not be an easy task”. Consensus certainly will not be easy to come by as the British polity remains at its most polarised today. May now has to present a new EU withdrawal plan to Parliament by January 21 ahead of a vote by MPs eight days later. And political confabulations have started in right earnest though without any real sense of direction. Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is moving ahead with contingency planning. European Commission has underlined that it is “taking this very seriously now as the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is becoming more possible”. French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has said a no-deal Brexit looks “less and less unlikely” while German Economy Minister Peter Altmeier has warned “everyone in Europe would lose” from the UK leaving without an agreement. Ireland, which has the closest links to the UK of all the EU States, is now solely focused on measures covering key sectors such as health, communications, education, finance, employment and justice. British economy’s health will be one of the most significant casualties of the present crisis. The International Monetary Fund has made it clear that Brexit without a deal is the “most significant near-term risk to the UK economy”. And in a public letter, more than 170 leading business figures have called for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to back another referendum on withdrawal from the European Union “to stop us crashing out of the EU with no deal at all”. The open political divide in the UK is causing a sense of bewilderment all around. On the one hand, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to negotiate with May unless a no-deal Brexit is ruled out, on the other Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis has ruled out discussion on staying in a customs union. Even within May’s Cabinet, there are contending voices and May’s ability to shape a consensus is gravely in doubt. While the Conservatives showed unity over the confidence vote, with all 314 members backing the Prime Minister, the divisions within the party over the way forward with Brexit remain as strong as ever. May has given no indication so far that she will be willing to budge on her “red lines”, thereby ruling out Labour’s demand for a customs union with the EU as there is a fear that such a compromise would lead to further departures from the Cabinet. In more ways than one, Brexit has been a failed attempt by the Tories to put an end to the internecine warfare within the Party on the issue of the EU. May’s predecessor David Cameron thought that he could end this by winning a referendum on the EU. Instead, he lost and in the process pushed Britain into uncharted waters. For May, the tension between the Parliament as a whole and the Eurosceptics within her own party has been too much to enable her to navigate her way out of this crisis. There is a hardcore group within the Tories for whom a hard Brexit is more important than continuing in the government. And it is this group that will shape May’s future and in more ways than one, the future of Britain. An exercise which was supposed to be an absolute manifestation of a democratic mandate now has become hostage to a few Tory MPs who are hell bent on shaping the trajectory of British political relations with the rest of Europe. Whatever the outcome of this process, the Britain which will emerge out of this political churn will be one quite distinct in its political complexion than the one we are used to. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit: A messy separation

Labour opposition party <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-parliament-votes-down-pm-mays-eu-brexit-deal-by-230-votes-190586">Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion</a> of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa&nbsp;May has suffered a "catastrophic&nbsp;defeat"&nbsp;who will now face a vote of "no confidence". The vote is due to take place today.

On Tuesday, British Parliament had voted against <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-europe-reacted-to-brexit-deal-defeat-190587">Theresa May's government on the</a> Brexit deal with a &nbsp;432 to 202 margin after heated debates over weeks.

Amid the political row, European Union leader Donald Tusk urged British leaders to rethink their Brexit strategy after parliament rejected the planned withdrawal agreement.

"If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?" Tusk tweeted.

Tusk said European Union member states will remain united in their stance on Brexit, Tusk's spokesman said.

"We regret the outcome of the vote and urge the UK government to clarify its intentions with respect to its next steps as soon as possible," the spokesman said, adding, "the EU27 will remain united... and will seek to reduce the damage caused by Brexit."

The Irish government waded into the Brexit debacle informing that it would intensify preparations for a no-deal Brexit after British MPs overwhelming voted to reject the deal.

"Regrettably, the outcome of tonight's vote increases the risk of a disorderly Brexit. Consequently, the government will continue to intensify preparations for such an outcome," Dublin said in a statement.

Reacting to the development, German vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz said the defeat of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal in Parliament was a "bitter day for Europe".

"This is a bitter day for Europe. We are well prepared -- but a hard Brexit would be the least attractive choice, for the EU and GB (Great Britain)," Scholz said.

The European Union has set March 29th as the date for Britain to exit the EU with some British lawmakers fearing a "no deal" Brexit would hit the nation's economy and lead to recession and consquent flight of jobs.&nbsp;

Labour opposition party Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa May has suffered a "catastrophic defeat" who will now face a vote of "no confidence".

Labour opposition party Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa May has suffered a "catastrophic defeat" who will now face a vote of "no confidence". The vote is due to take place today. On Tuesday, British Parliament had voted against Theresa May's government on the Brexit deal with a 432 to 202 margin after heated debates over weeks. Amid the political row, European Union leader Donald Tusk urged British leaders to rethink their Brexit strategy after parliament rejected the planned withdrawal agreement. "If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?" Tusk tweeted. Tusk said European Union member states will remain united in their stance on Brexit, Tusk's spokesman said. "We regret the outcome of the vote and urge the UK government to clarify its intentions with respect to its next steps as soon as possible," the spokesman said, adding, "the EU27 will remain united... and will seek to reduce the damage caused by Brexit." The Irish government waded into the Brexit debacle informing that it would intensify preparations for a no-deal Brexit after British MPs overwhelming voted to reject the deal. "Regrettably, the outcome of tonight's vote increases the risk of a disorderly Brexit. Consequently, the government will continue to intensify preparations for such an outcome," Dublin said in a statement. Reacting to the development, German vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz said the defeat of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal in Parliament was a "bitter day for Europe". "This is a bitter day for Europe. We are well prepared -- but a hard Brexit would be the least attractive choice, for the EU and GB (Great Britain)," Scholz said. The European Union has set March 29th as the date for Britain to exit the EU with some British lawmakers fearing a "no deal" Brexit would hit the nation's economy and lead to recession and consquent flight of jobs.

After Brexit defeat in Parliament, PM Theresa May's government to face no confidence vote today

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey

Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU. The deal had backing from business leaders because of the certainty it brought and the fact that it kept the UK in the free trade area for goods.

But the prime minister’s decision on December 10 to call off the vote means investors – like everyone else – were left with little idea of what will happen next. Interestingly, the internal Conservative party challenge to Theresa May’s leadership that took place this week has had little impact on the financial markets – probably because the challenge does not change the fundamental uncertainty that surrounds the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Market turbulence, no matter how unpleasant, is both to be expected and to be somewhat welcomed, as it provides an unbiased verdict on political events.

The impact of Brexit on financial markets began in earnest in June 2016 when the British public voted to leave the EU. Given that many opinion polls suggested the Remain campaign would win, this came as a big shock to markets. The day after the referendum, June 24, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985, marking the pound down 10% against the US dollar and 7% against the euro. The FTSE 100 index lost nearly £85 billion and had fallen more than 500 points, while the FTSE 250 was down nearly 14%.

The impact of the vote was not just contained in the UK. The euro was down almost 4% against the US dollar on June 24, and the French and German markets both fell by more than 10% upon opening. The Chinese yuan also fell dramatically, as did markets in the US, Canada and Brazil.

This sudden fall in equity and currency markets was mostly down to the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the vote. Financial markets traditionally react negatively to uncertainty as investors aim to hedge the risk of the outcome and invest in so called “safe-haven” assets such as gold. Uncertainty here should not be confused with risk – risk can be quantified and its magnitude fed into pricing and value models, but this is not the case with uncertainty.

This was seen after the Brexit vote itself when the price of gold increased quite considerably. Financial markets and sterling have both recovered somewhat from June 2016, with sterling rising whenever some positive news or certainty over future relations has come to the fore.

Endless uncertainty? 
 
If the Brexit deal had gone ahead and been passed by MPs, this would have brought certainty over what the future looks like. Sterling would have stabilised and increased in value. But it would not necessarily have meant an increase for the FTSE 100.

There is usually a negative correlation between markets and their own currency, since a fall in sterling generates higher revenues from UK firms that sell their goods abroad. Therefore the reaction of the stock market may be quite different to that of sterling in the long run. But in the short term, a deal would bring certainty and therefore we would expect an initial appreciation of sterling and possible rise in the FTSE 100 as investors have more confidence in the UK market.

As it is, there are a number of scenarios that could play out: 
1. A vote on a revised deal 
2. No deal 
3. A second referendum 
4. A no confidence vote 
5. General election

Any of these five outcomes brings huge uncertainty – not to mention the uncertainty over which of these paths will be taken – that could go on for weeks. Therefore we would expect sterling to depreciate considerably and an initial sell off in the FTSE100.

Investors are moving their assets from UK stocks to safer assets, such as gold, government bonds and to other currencies such as the Japanese yen and Australian dollar that may actually benefit from the ongoing uncertainty in the UK. There was suggestion that some MPs would have voted for May’s Brexit deal just to avoid the potentially huge negative impact of a no deal on financial markets, even if they were not entirely happy with the deal.

Many investors may have already hedged their portfolio so that whatever the outcome is, they will be unaffected. Nevertheless, Brexit – and the uncertainty that surrounds it – will continue to have a dramatic effect on the financial markets of the UK, Europe and beyond. Investors with skin in the game will take a cold hard look at the chaotic state of UK politics and deliver their unsentimental judgement.

(Andrew Urquhart is Associate Professor, Henley Business School, University of Reading; Brian Lucey is 
Professor, Trinity College Dublin) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-brexit-is-causing-turmoil-for-the-pound-and-other-markets-108577"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU.

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU. The deal had backing from business leaders because of the certainty it brought and the fact that it kept the UK in the free trade area for goods. But the prime minister’s decision on December 10 to call off the vote means investors – like everyone else – were left with little idea of what will happen next. Interestingly, the internal Conservative party challenge to Theresa May’s leadership that took place this week has had little impact on the financial markets – probably because the challenge does not change the fundamental uncertainty that surrounds the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Market turbulence, no matter how unpleasant, is both to be expected and to be somewhat welcomed, as it provides an unbiased verdict on political events. The impact of Brexit on financial markets began in earnest in June 2016 when the British public voted to leave the EU. Given that many opinion polls suggested the Remain campaign would win, this came as a big shock to markets. The day after the referendum, June 24, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985, marking the pound down 10% against the US dollar and 7% against the euro. The FTSE 100 index lost nearly £85 billion and had fallen more than 500 points, while the FTSE 250 was down nearly 14%. The impact of the vote was not just contained in the UK. The euro was down almost 4% against the US dollar on June 24, and the French and German markets both fell by more than 10% upon opening. The Chinese yuan also fell dramatically, as did markets in the US, Canada and Brazil. This sudden fall in equity and currency markets was mostly down to the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the vote. Financial markets traditionally react negatively to uncertainty as investors aim to hedge the risk of the outcome and invest in so called “safe-haven” assets such as gold. Uncertainty here should not be confused with risk – risk can be quantified and its magnitude fed into pricing and value models, but this is not the case with uncertainty. This was seen after the Brexit vote itself when the price of gold increased quite considerably. Financial markets and sterling have both recovered somewhat from June 2016, with sterling rising whenever some positive news or certainty over future relations has come to the fore. Endless uncertainty? If the Brexit deal had gone ahead and been passed by MPs, this would have brought certainty over what the future looks like. Sterling would have stabilised and increased in value. But it would not necessarily have meant an increase for the FTSE 100. There is usually a negative correlation between markets and their own currency, since a fall in sterling generates higher revenues from UK firms that sell their goods abroad. Therefore the reaction of the stock market may be quite different to that of sterling in the long run. But in the short term, a deal would bring certainty and therefore we would expect an initial appreciation of sterling and possible rise in the FTSE 100 as investors have more confidence in the UK market. As it is, there are a number of scenarios that could play out: 1. A vote on a revised deal 2. No deal 3. A second referendum 4. A no confidence vote 5. General election Any of these five outcomes brings huge uncertainty – not to mention the uncertainty over which of these paths will be taken – that could go on for weeks. Therefore we would expect sterling to depreciate considerably and an initial sell off in the FTSE100. Investors are moving their assets from UK stocks to safer assets, such as gold, government bonds and to other currencies such as the Japanese yen and Australian dollar that may actually benefit from the ongoing uncertainty in the UK. There was suggestion that some MPs would have voted for May’s Brexit deal just to avoid the potentially huge negative impact of a no deal on financial markets, even if they were not entirely happy with the deal. Many investors may have already hedged their portfolio so that whatever the outcome is, they will be unaffected. Nevertheless, Brexit – and the uncertainty that surrounds it – will continue to have a dramatic effect on the financial markets of the UK, Europe and beyond. Investors with skin in the game will take a cold hard look at the chaotic state of UK politics and deliver their unsentimental judgement. (Andrew Urquhart is Associate Professor, Henley Business School, University of Reading; Brian Lucey is Professor, Trinity College Dublin) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why Brexit is causing turmoil for the pound and other markets

By Louise Thompson&nbsp;

A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit.

What does the amendment passed by parliament say?

Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this.

Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan.

Who is behind the amendment?

This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament.

Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”.

The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own.

Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial?

MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal.

This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not.

It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297.

Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table.

On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story.

Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote?

The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B.

What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote?

At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a &nbsp;motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches.

(Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-what-does-the-latest-parliamentary-upset-mean-for-theresa-may-109591">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15.

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit. What does the amendment passed by parliament say? Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this. Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan. Who is behind the amendment? This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament. Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”. The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own. Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial? MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal. This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not. It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297. Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table. On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story. Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote? The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B. What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote? At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches. (Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: What does the latest parliamentary upset mean for Theresa May?

By John Bruton

It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory.

This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union.

The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border.

Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs.

That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland.

Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule).

So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions.

The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making.

The two allegiances in Ireland

The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster.

One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity.

For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too.

British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it.

The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland.

Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country.

The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all.

(John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/what-is-irish-backstop-european-union-brexit-deal-no-deal-world-news-today-29083/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit. Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory. This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union. The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border. Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs. That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland. Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule). So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions. The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making. The two allegiances in Ireland The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster. One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity. For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too. British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland. Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country. The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all. (John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: Why is there an Irish backstop?

European Union leaders met Sunday to approve a historic Brexit deal, with one declaring Britain's withdrawal a "tragedy", but holding out hope of close future ties.

Arriving for a special summit in Brussels, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the bloc's executive arm, said it was a "sad day".

"To see a country like Great Britain... leave the EU is not a moment of joy nor of celebration, it's a sad moment and it's a tragedy," he said.

Michel Barnier, the former French foreign minister who negotiated the deal on behalf of the bloc, added: "We will remain allies, partners and friends."

The leaders of the 27 EU states will approve the agreement before being joined by British Prime Minister Theresa May in a highly symbolic moment.

Forged during 17 months of tough negotiations, the deal covers financial matters, citizens' rights, Northern Ireland and a transition phase, and sets out hopes for future security and trade ties.

But it is not the final stage, as the House of Commons in London must still approve the deal before Brexit day on March 29, 2019 -- and many MPs have warned they will not back it.

Until the agreement is approved, all sides are still planning for the potentially disastrous possibility that Britain ends its four-decade EU membership with no new arrangements in place.

Media reports in London on Sunday suggested some of May's own ministers were secretly working with EU diplomats on a "Plan B" in case parliament rejected the agreement next month.

But Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte warned as he arrived in Brussels that there was little point in going back to the negotiating table.

"Overall, I think this is the max that we can all do, both Theresa May and her government as well as the European Union," he said.

"No victors here today, nobody winning, we’re all losing -- but given that context, this (agreement) is acceptable."

'Reduce risks and losses'

European Council President Donald Tusk, who has always said he would prefer Britain not to leave, said on the eve of the summit that "no-one will have reasons to be happy" when Brexit happens.

But he said terms had been agreed that would "reduce the risks and losses", and recommended that EU leaders sign off on the deal.

Lithuania president Dalia Grybauskaite said as she arrived: "We will endorse the Brexit agreement, but there is nothing good for any side because it is withdrawal from the EU."

In London, eurosceptics in May's Conservative party and their Northern Irish allies warn they will not support the agreement, which they argue keeps Britain too close to the EU.

But in an open "letter to the nation" on Sunday, May said it delivered on the 2016 referendum vote to leave, and was a "deal for a brighter future".

Britain remains deeply divided over the decision, but the prime minister said that finally leaving could be "a moment of renewal and reconciliation".

"To do that we need to get on with Brexit now by getting behind this deal," she said.

Gibraltar tensions

The summit risked being derailed by a late objection to the deal by Spain over the British territory of Gibraltar.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez threatened to reject it unless his country kept a veto over future changes to EU ties with "The Rock", which borders Spain and which it has long claimed.

The impasse was resolved when Britain promised to continue bilateral talks with Madrid after Brexit -- although that itself caused further tensions.

Sanchez claimed that discussions would cover the "co-sovereignty" of Gibraltar, something residents overwhelmingly rejected in a 2002 referendum.

May, who arrived in Brussels on Saturday evening for final talks with Tusk and Juncker, was quick to correct her Spanish counterpart.

"The UK's position on the sovereignty of Gibraltar has not changed and will not change," she said.

In legal terms, Spain's disapproval would not have halted the divorce settlement.

Fishing rights

But it would have been an embarrassing split for EU leaders who have proved remarkably united in the painful negotiations.

British MPs are most concerned about an arrangement in the withdrawal agreement to keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and Ireland, which could see the province follow EU rules for years.

But there are also concerns in EU capitals about fishing rights and commercial rules Britain must follow to maintain access to the bloc's markets.

A diplomatic source said the minutes of Sunday's summit meeting of the 27 leaders would record those concerns.

European Union leaders met Sunday to approve a historic Brexit deal, with one declaring Britain's withdrawal a "tragedy", but holding out hope of close future ties.

European Union leaders met Sunday to approve a historic Brexit deal, with one declaring Britain's withdrawal a "tragedy", but holding out hope of close future ties. Arriving for a special summit in Brussels, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the bloc's executive arm, said it was a "sad day". "To see a country like Great Britain... leave the EU is not a moment of joy nor of celebration, it's a sad moment and it's a tragedy," he said. Michel Barnier, the former French foreign minister who negotiated the deal on behalf of the bloc, added: "We will remain allies, partners and friends." The leaders of the 27 EU states will approve the agreement before being joined by British Prime Minister Theresa May in a highly symbolic moment. Forged during 17 months of tough negotiations, the deal covers financial matters, citizens' rights, Northern Ireland and a transition phase, and sets out hopes for future security and trade ties. But it is not the final stage, as the House of Commons in London must still approve the deal before Brexit day on March 29, 2019 -- and many MPs have warned they will not back it. Until the agreement is approved, all sides are still planning for the potentially disastrous possibility that Britain ends its four-decade EU membership with no new arrangements in place. Media reports in London on Sunday suggested some of May's own ministers were secretly working with EU diplomats on a "Plan B" in case parliament rejected the agreement next month. But Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte warned as he arrived in Brussels that there was little point in going back to the negotiating table. "Overall, I think this is the max that we can all do, both Theresa May and her government as well as the European Union," he said. "No victors here today, nobody winning, we’re all losing -- but given that context, this (agreement) is acceptable." 'Reduce risks and losses' European Council President Donald Tusk, who has always said he would prefer Britain not to leave, said on the eve of the summit that "no-one will have reasons to be happy" when Brexit happens. But he said terms had been agreed that would "reduce the risks and losses", and recommended that EU leaders sign off on the deal. Lithuania president Dalia Grybauskaite said as she arrived: "We will endorse the Brexit agreement, but there is nothing good for any side because it is withdrawal from the EU." In London, eurosceptics in May's Conservative party and their Northern Irish allies warn they will not support the agreement, which they argue keeps Britain too close to the EU. But in an open "letter to the nation" on Sunday, May said it delivered on the 2016 referendum vote to leave, and was a "deal for a brighter future". Britain remains deeply divided over the decision, but the prime minister said that finally leaving could be "a moment of renewal and reconciliation". "To do that we need to get on with Brexit now by getting behind this deal," she said. Gibraltar tensions The summit risked being derailed by a late objection to the deal by Spain over the British territory of Gibraltar. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez threatened to reject it unless his country kept a veto over future changes to EU ties with "The Rock", which borders Spain and which it has long claimed. The impasse was resolved when Britain promised to continue bilateral talks with Madrid after Brexit -- although that itself caused further tensions. Sanchez claimed that discussions would cover the "co-sovereignty" of Gibraltar, something residents overwhelmingly rejected in a 2002 referendum. May, who arrived in Brussels on Saturday evening for final talks with Tusk and Juncker, was quick to correct her Spanish counterpart. "The UK's position on the sovereignty of Gibraltar has not changed and will not change," she said. In legal terms, Spain's disapproval would not have halted the divorce settlement. Fishing rights But it would have been an embarrassing split for EU leaders who have proved remarkably united in the painful negotiations. British MPs are most concerned about an arrangement in the withdrawal agreement to keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and Ireland, which could see the province follow EU rules for years. But there are also concerns in EU capitals about fishing rights and commercial rules Britain must follow to maintain access to the bloc's markets. A diplomatic source said the minutes of Sunday's summit meeting of the 27 leaders would record those concerns.

European Union leaders to sign off 'tragic' Brexit deal

British and EU negotiators have reached a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-deal-possible-in-next-24-48-hours-mays-deputy-says-177081">framework Brexit agreement</a> that will be examined by the UK cabinet at an emergency meeting Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May's office said.

"Cabinet will meet at 2:00 pm (1400 GMT) tomorrow (Wednesday) to consider the draft agreement the negotiating teams have reached in Brussels, and to decide on next steps," Downing Street said in a statement.

A European source said a technical agreement had been struck but still needed political approval both on the British and European sides.

Ireland's public broadcaster RTE cited two government sources saying a text crucially resolves the Irish border issue -- a key sticking point.

May's cabinet is splintered on Brexit, with some senior ministers opposed to provisions that could keep the UK closely tied to the European Union for years to come.

But cabinet approval could pave the way for a historic EU-UK summit in Brussels at the end of November that would finalise the agreement's text.

A final deal would then face other hurdles, the most notable one coming in the British parliament, where May's government's holds a razor-thin majority.

May would need strong support from her own Conservative Party, where dozens of eurosceptics have opposed the reported frameworks of the deal.

Her coalition partners from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) have also threatened to vote against the agreement if they find it splinters the province from the rest of Britain.

The news saw the British pound shoot up in value to 1.304 dollars from 1.285 on Tuesday at 2200 GMT.

Citing two sources, Ireland's RTE said the framework deal provides for a temporary solution aimed at keeping the Irish border open if London and Brussels fail to strike a new trade deal by the end of 2020.

This so-called "backstop" -- an issue the two sides have been unable to resolve for months -- would see the whole of the United Kingdom remain in a customs arrangement with the European Union.

It also provides for additional "deeper" provisions for Northern Ireland on customs and regulations, RTE said.

The report said the deal also provides for a review mechanism that Britain could use to try and leave the backstop arrangement, another key demand of eurosceptics in May's party.

Britain will formally split away from the other 27 EU nations on March 29, even if no final agreement clears all the hurdles both in the Britain and the EU.

The threat of a calamitous no-deal Brexit, in which no clear trade rules are set by March between the bloc and one of its largest economies, have weighed heavily on the negotiations.

May's government hopes that lawmakers in both chambers will rally around the deal once its text is set in stone, boosting investor confidence.

British and EU negotiators have reached a framework Brexit agreement that will be examined by the UK cabinet at an emergency meeting Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May's office said.

British and EU negotiators have reached a framework Brexit agreement that will be examined by the UK cabinet at an emergency meeting Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May's office said. "Cabinet will meet at 2:00 pm (1400 GMT) tomorrow (Wednesday) to consider the draft agreement the negotiating teams have reached in Brussels, and to decide on next steps," Downing Street said in a statement. A European source said a technical agreement had been struck but still needed political approval both on the British and European sides. Ireland's public broadcaster RTE cited two government sources saying a text crucially resolves the Irish border issue -- a key sticking point. May's cabinet is splintered on Brexit, with some senior ministers opposed to provisions that could keep the UK closely tied to the European Union for years to come. But cabinet approval could pave the way for a historic EU-UK summit in Brussels at the end of November that would finalise the agreement's text. A final deal would then face other hurdles, the most notable one coming in the British parliament, where May's government's holds a razor-thin majority. May would need strong support from her own Conservative Party, where dozens of eurosceptics have opposed the reported frameworks of the deal. Her coalition partners from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) have also threatened to vote against the agreement if they find it splinters the province from the rest of Britain. The news saw the British pound shoot up in value to 1.304 dollars from 1.285 on Tuesday at 2200 GMT. Citing two sources, Ireland's RTE said the framework deal provides for a temporary solution aimed at keeping the Irish border open if London and Brussels fail to strike a new trade deal by the end of 2020. This so-called "backstop" -- an issue the two sides have been unable to resolve for months -- would see the whole of the United Kingdom remain in a customs arrangement with the European Union. It also provides for additional "deeper" provisions for Northern Ireland on customs and regulations, RTE said. The report said the deal also provides for a review mechanism that Britain could use to try and leave the backstop arrangement, another key demand of eurosceptics in May's party. Britain will formally split away from the other 27 EU nations on March 29, even if no final agreement clears all the hurdles both in the Britain and the EU. The threat of a calamitous no-deal Brexit, in which no clear trade rules are set by March between the bloc and one of its largest economies, have weighed heavily on the negotiations. May's government hopes that lawmakers in both chambers will rally around the deal once its text is set in stone, boosting investor confidence.

UK says it has reached draft Brexit deal with EU

Britain and the European Union are near touching distance of a Brexit deal which could be clinched in the next 24 to 48 hours, Prime Minister Theresa May's de facto deputy said on Tuesday.

"We're not quite there yet," Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington told BBC radio. "We are almost within touching distance now. The PM has said it can't be a deal at any price."

Asked if he was saying it was possible there could be a deal in the next 24 or 48 hours, he said: "Still possible but not at all definite, I think pretty much sums it up. Cautiously optimistic."

While officials choreograph the biggest divorce deal in EU history, it remains unclear whether May can get a deal passed by parliament where opponents have warned she is betraying Brexit by signing up the United Kingdom to EU subjugation.

Sterling jumped half a percent to as high as US $1.2917 on Lidington's comments.

The EU wants to get agreement on a draft deal by the end of Wednesday at the latest if there is to be a summit this month to approve it. Some EU diplomats said they didn't have high hopes of a breakthrough this week.

The EU and the United Kingdom need an agreement to keep trade flowing between the world's biggest trading bloc and the fifth largest national economy.

But May has struggled to untangle nearly 46 years of membership without damaging trade or upsetting the lawmakers who will ultimately decide the fate of any deal she can secure.

'TEMPORARY AND NOT INDEFINITE'

With under five months until Britain leaves the EU, the so-called Northern Irish backstop is the main outstanding issue.

It is an insurance policy to avoid a return to controls on the border between the British province of Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland if a future trading relationship is not agreed in time.

Asked if the UK could be trapped in a backstop against its will, Lidington said: "The prime minister has said again and again, if the backstop were ever to be used - we don't want it to be used - ... it's clearly got to be something that would be temporary and not indefinite."

But the intricacies of any deal, hammered out in late night sessions at the European Commission's modernist Berlaymont building in Brussels, are unlikely to change the growing opposition to May.

By seeking to leave the EU while preserving the closest possible ties, May's compromise plan has upset Brexiteers, pro-Europeans, Scottish nationalists, the Northern Irish party that props up her government, and some of her own ministers.

Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said on Tuesday he was confident of progress in talks, though he gave no further details.

Lidington, who voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum, declined to say whether the proposed deal would make the United Kingdom wealthier or poorer, saying that the people had decided to leave the EU.

Asked whether Britain would have to start preparing in earnest for a "no-deal" Brexit if an agreement were not clinched by the end of Wednesday, as newspapers have reported, he said: "I'm not going to ascribe days to particular actions."

"The end of Wednesday is important but what we've been doing in government in the two years since the referendum is to take forward contingency planning against all eventualities," he said. "We both hope and expect a deal will be negotiated."

Britain and the European Union are near touching distance of a Brexit deal which could be clinched in the next 24 to 48 hours, Prime Minister Theresa May's de facto deputy said on Tuesday.

Britain and the European Union are near touching distance of a Brexit deal which could be clinched in the next 24 to 48 hours, Prime Minister Theresa May's de facto deputy said on Tuesday. "We're not quite there yet," Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington told BBC radio. "We are almost within touching distance now. The PM has said it can't be a deal at any price." Asked if he was saying it was possible there could be a deal in the next 24 or 48 hours, he said: "Still possible but not at all definite, I think pretty much sums it up. Cautiously optimistic." While officials choreograph the biggest divorce deal in EU history, it remains unclear whether May can get a deal passed by parliament where opponents have warned she is betraying Brexit by signing up the United Kingdom to EU subjugation. Sterling jumped half a percent to as high as US $1.2917 on Lidington's comments. The EU wants to get agreement on a draft deal by the end of Wednesday at the latest if there is to be a summit this month to approve it. Some EU diplomats said they didn't have high hopes of a breakthrough this week. The EU and the United Kingdom need an agreement to keep trade flowing between the world's biggest trading bloc and the fifth largest national economy. But May has struggled to untangle nearly 46 years of membership without damaging trade or upsetting the lawmakers who will ultimately decide the fate of any deal she can secure. 'TEMPORARY AND NOT INDEFINITE' With under five months until Britain leaves the EU, the so-called Northern Irish backstop is the main outstanding issue. It is an insurance policy to avoid a return to controls on the border between the British province of Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland if a future trading relationship is not agreed in time. Asked if the UK could be trapped in a backstop against its will, Lidington said: "The prime minister has said again and again, if the backstop were ever to be used - we don't want it to be used - ... it's clearly got to be something that would be temporary and not indefinite." But the intricacies of any deal, hammered out in late night sessions at the European Commission's modernist Berlaymont building in Brussels, are unlikely to change the growing opposition to May. By seeking to leave the EU while preserving the closest possible ties, May's compromise plan has upset Brexiteers, pro-Europeans, Scottish nationalists, the Northern Irish party that props up her government, and some of her own ministers. Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said on Tuesday he was confident of progress in talks, though he gave no further details. Lidington, who voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum, declined to say whether the proposed deal would make the United Kingdom wealthier or poorer, saying that the people had decided to leave the EU. Asked whether Britain would have to start preparing in earnest for a "no-deal" Brexit if an agreement were not clinched by the end of Wednesday, as newspapers have reported, he said: "I'm not going to ascribe days to particular actions." "The end of Wednesday is important but what we've been doing in government in the two years since the referendum is to take forward contingency planning against all eventualities," he said. "We both hope and expect a deal will be negotiated."

Brexit deal possible in next 24-48 hours, May's deputy says

The European Union's chief Brexit negotiator warned ministers from the other 27 member states on Monday that no deal has been sealed on Britain's departure from the bloc.

"Michel Barnier explained that intense negotiating efforts continue, but an agreement has not been reached yet," the European Council, which represents the member states, said in a statement.

"Some key issues remain under discussion, in particular a solution to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland."

EU ministers voiced caution Monday about the chances of striking a rapid&nbsp;Brexit&nbsp;deal, at the start of another week billed as crucial for an agreement.

Ministers from the other 27 member states were to be briefed by EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier as time runs down before Britain's withdrawal on March 29.

"We have time but not so much," Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders told reporters as he arrived for talks with fellow EU ministers in Brussels.

"It's difficult to make real progress, but before Christmas I'm hoping it's possible," Reynders said, as the EU awaits a "positive signal" from London.

The European Union's chief Brexit negotiator warned ministers from the other 27 member states on Monday that no deal has been sealed on Britain's departure from the bloc.

The European Union's chief Brexit negotiator warned ministers from the other 27 member states on Monday that no deal has been sealed on Britain's departure from the bloc. "Michel Barnier explained that intense negotiating efforts continue, but an agreement has not been reached yet," the European Council, which represents the member states, said in a statement. "Some key issues remain under discussion, in particular a solution to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland." EU ministers voiced caution Monday about the chances of striking a rapid Brexit deal, at the start of another week billed as crucial for an agreement. Ministers from the other 27 member states were to be briefed by EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier as time runs down before Britain's withdrawal on March 29. "We have time but not so much," Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders told reporters as he arrived for talks with fellow EU ministers in Brussels. "It's difficult to make real progress, but before Christmas I'm hoping it's possible," Reynders said, as the EU awaits a "positive signal" from London.

EU ministers told no Brexit deal yet: Official

Britain would remain in a temporary customs union with the EU, avoiding a hard Irish border, as part of a new deal being thrashed out between London and Brussels, according to a Sunday Times report.

Senior sources told the paper that Prime Minister Theresa May has secured concessions from Brussels, with the EU agreeing to write an "all-UK" customs union into the divorce deal.

This would avoid the EU's "backstop" solution that would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of Britain.

There will be an "exit clause" from the customs union in a bid to convince Brexiteers that it is not a permanent arrangement as May looks to secure enough votes to get the deal through parliament, added the paper.

May's spokesman refused to confirm the report, calling it "speculation", according to Sky News.

The Irish border has proved the biggest obstacle to a deal, with both sides vowing not to reinstate a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland for fear of destabilising the peace accord that ended decades of deadly sectarian violence.

Under the agreed deal, the EU accepts that regulatory checks on goods can be carried out in factories and shops rather than at the border, the Sunday Times said.

The deal keeps open the possibility of Britain securing a future free trade agreement similar to the one signed between Canada and the EU in 2016.

The opposition Labour party has all but ruled out supporting any deal May reaches with Brussels, leaving the prime minister reliant on her slender parliamentary majority that comprises her own divided MPs and coalition partners the Democratic Unionist Party.

She is expected to warn her most stridently anti-EU MPs that they will be held responsible for the consequences of a no-deal&nbsp;Brexit&nbsp;if they do not vote for her deal.

However, if these Brexiteers are not convinced that the customs union is only a temporary measure they would almost certainly rebel.

Her cabinet is due to hold talks over the plan on Monday, with a potential EU summit pencilled in for the end of November, if they agree enough progress has been made.

Parliament would then vote on the deal in December.

Britain would remain in a temporary customs union with the EU, avoiding a hard Irish border, as part of a new deal being thrashed out between London and Brussels, according to a Sunday Times report.

Britain would remain in a temporary customs union with the EU, avoiding a hard Irish border, as part of a new deal being thrashed out between London and Brussels, according to a Sunday Times report. Senior sources told the paper that Prime Minister Theresa May has secured concessions from Brussels, with the EU agreeing to write an "all-UK" customs union into the divorce deal. This would avoid the EU's "backstop" solution that would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of Britain. There will be an "exit clause" from the customs union in a bid to convince Brexiteers that it is not a permanent arrangement as May looks to secure enough votes to get the deal through parliament, added the paper. May's spokesman refused to confirm the report, calling it "speculation", according to Sky News. The Irish border has proved the biggest obstacle to a deal, with both sides vowing not to reinstate a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland for fear of destabilising the peace accord that ended decades of deadly sectarian violence. Under the agreed deal, the EU accepts that regulatory checks on goods can be carried out in factories and shops rather than at the border, the Sunday Times said. The deal keeps open the possibility of Britain securing a future free trade agreement similar to the one signed between Canada and the EU in 2016. The opposition Labour party has all but ruled out supporting any deal May reaches with Brussels, leaving the prime minister reliant on her slender parliamentary majority that comprises her own divided MPs and coalition partners the Democratic Unionist Party. She is expected to warn her most stridently anti-EU MPs that they will be held responsible for the consequences of a no-deal Brexit if they do not vote for her deal. However, if these Brexiteers are not convinced that the customs union is only a temporary measure they would almost certainly rebel. Her cabinet is due to hold talks over the plan on Monday, with a potential EU summit pencilled in for the end of November, if they agree enough progress has been made. Parliament would then vote on the deal in December.

UK and EU close to Brexit deal over Irish border: Report

Scotland`s first minister said on Tuesday that the devolved Scottish parliament would not consent to legislation necessary to keep Britain`s Brexit plans on track, presenting another thorny issue for the government to surmount.

Prime Minister Theresa May`s government on Monday indicated that it would go no further in offering concessions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are concerned that they will lose powers in a constitutional realignment after Britain leaves the European Union.

The United Kingdom`s devolved nations do not have a veto on Brexit legislation, but ignoring their wishes risks worsening already strained relations, stoking nationalism in Scotland, and further complicating the already-difficult withdrawal process.

&quot;I will not sign up to something that effectively undermines the whole foundation on which devolution is built,&quot; Nicola Sturgeon, whose party supports independence for Scotland, told BBC radio. As things stand, her government could not recommend consent for the bill, she said.

Cabinet minister David Lidington said on Monday that most currently devolved powers would now automatically stay in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, the devolved nations` capitals, after Britain leaves the European Union.

But the British government would make exceptions if it believed that would damage the UK as a whole, he said, comments that raised hackles in Scotland and appeared to overturn progress made between the sides last week.

The British government needs a deal before the summer in order to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in Britain`s national parliament. The bill will formally sever the UK`s ties to the EU and &quot;copy and paste&quot; EU legislation into British law.

May`s government on Monday indicated that it would go no further in offering concessions to Scotland

Scotland`s first minister said on Tuesday that the devolved Scottish parliament would not consent to legislation necessary to keep Britain`s Brexit plans on track, presenting another thorny issue for the government to surmount. Prime Minister Theresa May`s government on Monday indicated that it would go no further in offering concessions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are concerned that they will lose powers in a constitutional realignment after Britain leaves the European Union. The United Kingdom`s devolved nations do not have a veto on Brexit legislation, but ignoring their wishes risks worsening already strained relations, stoking nationalism in Scotland, and further complicating the already-difficult withdrawal process. "I will not sign up to something that effectively undermines the whole foundation on which devolution is built," Nicola Sturgeon, whose party supports independence for Scotland, told BBC radio. As things stand, her government could not recommend consent for the bill, she said. Cabinet minister David Lidington said on Monday that most currently devolved powers would now automatically stay in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, the devolved nations` capitals, after Britain leaves the European Union. But the British government would make exceptions if it believed that would damage the UK as a whole, he said, comments that raised hackles in Scotland and appeared to overturn progress made between the sides last week. The British government needs a deal before the summer in order to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in Britain`s national parliament. The bill will formally sever the UK`s ties to the EU and "copy and paste" EU legislation into British law.

Scotland says won't consent to Brexit bill after latest UK offer

Prime Minister Theresa May said Friday that Britain would only agree a detailed financial settlement for Brexit once its future relationship with the EU was agreed.

&quot;The full and final settlement will come as part of the final agreement that we&#39;re getting in relation to the future partnership. I think that&#39;s absolutely right,&quot; she said at a summit in Brussels.

May said Britain would only?agree on a detailed financial settlement for Brexit once its future relationship with the EU was agreed

Prime Minister Theresa May said Friday that Britain would only agree a detailed financial settlement for Brexit once its future relationship with the EU was agreed. "The full and final settlement will come as part of the final agreement that we're getting in relation to the future partnership. I think that's absolutely right," she said at a summit in Brussels.

Brexit bill must wait until final deal with EU: May

British Prime Minister Theresa May has yet to set a date to move forward with legislation to sever ties with the European Union, her spokesman said on Wednesday, after reports that the government was delaying its passage through parliament.

Asked whether he could confirm an earlier report that the bill would not be taken to the so-called committee stage of the parliamentary process when lawmakers will demand concessions, the spokesman said: &quot;We haven&#39;t yet confirmed a date for the bill at the committee stage, but the leader of the house will set out (next week&#39;s business) tomorrow.&quot;

Earlier on Wednesday, the prime minister said&nbsp;Britain was working to win the best possible deal for when it leaves the European Union but that government had to plan for every eventuality, including exiting without a deal.

Asked in parliament whether the government was contemplating a no-deal Brexit which critics say could plunge Britain into economic uncertainty,&nbsp;May&nbsp;said: &quot;It would be irresponsible of government not to prepare for all possible scenarios. That&#39;s exactly what we are doing.&quot;

British Prime Minister Theresa May has yet to set a date to move forward with legislation to sever ties with the European Union, her spokesman said on Wednesday, after reports that the government was delaying its passage through parliament.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has yet to set a date to move forward with legislation to sever ties with the European Union, her spokesman said on Wednesday, after reports that the government was delaying its passage through parliament. Asked whether he could confirm an earlier report that the bill would not be taken to the so-called committee stage of the parliamentary process when lawmakers will demand concessions, the spokesman said: "We haven't yet confirmed a date for the bill at the committee stage, but the leader of the house will set out (next week's business) tomorrow." Earlier on Wednesday, the prime minister said Britain was working to win the best possible deal for when it leaves the European Union but that government had to plan for every eventuality, including exiting without a deal. Asked in parliament whether the government was contemplating a no-deal Brexit which critics say could plunge Britain into economic uncertainty, May said: "It would be irresponsible of government not to prepare for all possible scenarios. That's exactly what we are doing."

PM May yet to set date to move forward with Brexit: UK

brexit-bill

Brexit Bill, News on Brexit Bill, stories on Brexit Bill, articles on Brexit Bill, Brexit Bill stories at Wion, Brexit Bill news, Brexit Bill latest news

brexit bill