If Prime Minister Theresa May gets her way, the UK will no longer be a member of the EU in a year’s time. However, even if she convinces parliament to vote for the withdrawal agreement before then, it will not be until after the UK has left the EU that ordinary EU member states get to vote on the new agreement. This is because what will be agreed before March next year will only be the “ heads of terms “ of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Negotiations will continue during the transition period - after the UK leaves - and could still fail at the last stage. The dreaded “no deal” is still a very real possibility, even if an agreement is reached before March 2019.
The March deadline means that time is not on the UK’s side. The sheer volume of ground to be covered, as well as the political reality of disagreements not only within parliament but in May’s own cabinet, mean that only a fudged agreement could meet next year’s deadline. Like a panicked hungover student’s attempts to bash together an essay an hour before the deadline, it’s unlikely to be any good. But Brexit doesn’t have to be an essay crisis. Our current deadline is determined by the date May triggered article 50 , but with cooperation from the EU we can change it. Sensible students recognise their limitations and seek extensions; the government should do the same if it wants to pass the test.
May should put the horse before the cart. The proposed, two-stage “exit, then reach a deal” framework makes no sense. It is like leaving the house before putting your shoes and coat on, or even worse slamming the door behind you without taking your keys. First, there is the “preparation” aspect, which is causing civil servants to fret. Although the transition period will retain some of the current economic arrangements such as the single market, customs union and budget contributions, being officially out of the EU means that from March 30, 2019, over 40 non-EU countries are no longer in trade agreements with the UK. They will be free to put tariffs on British goods and the UK will lack the means to retaliate, since it will still be in the customs union with a common external tariff. More time is needed to reach new trade agreements with third countries before we are officially out. A delayed exit day also gives time for the UK to reconsider. It is becoming increasingly clear that May’s vision of Brexit does not line up with voters’ expectations or wishes, and they deserve to have a say on our country’s future. Furthermore, by the end of transition in 2021, we will live in a very different country: children who were 13 at the time of the referendum will be able to vote. For the sake of the next generation, it is only fair to have another public vote on the withdrawal deal. As David Davis, the Brexit secretary, once said, “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”
And finally, a delayed exit day allows all parties to vote on the deal before the UK leaves. At that point, parliament will know what it is actually voting for, as opposed to just heads of terms. There may even be a new government, and there will certainly be a different electorate, probably with different ambitions for our EU relations. Democracy requires full information and due process — the current model of “leave, then vote later” offers neither.
Article 50’s provisions allow the UK and EU to agree on a day of exit. This should be moved to a date after transition (which would probably be December 31, 2019) rather than March 29, 2019. Parliament can force the prime minister to make this a negotiating priority. But it would be easier for May to do it without an embarrassing Commons defeat. Everyone, including Wallonia and all EU member states, would fare disastrously with a no deal. Whether you want a good Brexit or you want to stop it altogether, we need more time.
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
Geraint Davies is MP for Swansea West.
