Letter to my MP _ the "meaningful vote"

In January this year Mrs May told journalists "When the time comes for Parliament to vote on the final deal, we will ensure that Parliament has the appropriate analysis on which to be fully informed, on which to base their judgement."

Today the Prime Minister has published "EU Exit - Long-term economic analysis" in preparation for the coming debate and decision on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration she agreed at the EU Council on Sunday.

You will be asked to vote in less than two weeks, as required by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to accept or reject the two documents agreed at the summit.

Today's analysis doesn't describe a "final deal" though. The political declaration on the future relationship is only a starting point for negotiations which might begin next April, and the analysis doesn't work from what was signed off last Sunday anyway. As we are told on page 4, one of the modelled scenarios is "the policy position set out by the Government in the July 2018 White Paper on 'The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union'" (commonly known as Chequers).

Do you feel sufficiently "fully informed" to register your vote on 11 December?

A lot of people aren't going to like this

Five weeks ago I tried to describe how this Brexit thing could actually happen. It was about right as far as it went, but there's (at least) one point I didn't cover.

When it comes to the new year and whoever's in charge for whatever reason decide they'd really prefer to avoid the total failure that is No Deal, and that they might need more time to...

1. finalise the wording of the withdrawal agreement or (perhaps more likely) the political statement on a future UK-EU relationship
2. pass the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill through Parliament
3. run a leadership election in the ruling party
4. run a general election
5. run another referendum, either on the merits of "the final deal" (which, for the thousandth time, is the withdrawal agreement, not a trade agreement) or because it's discovered that the original campaign was seriously tainted by illegal activities (Professor Chris Grey considers this quite a logical proposition, and unlikely in the extreme)

... it might be thought necessary to extend the Article 50 period, which, if nothing is done to change it, comes to a screeching halt at midnight, Brussels time, on 29 March 2019.

Firstly, they'd have to be pretty sure that the leaders of the other 27 member states were going to agree to the proposal, since Article 50 requires unanimous agreement. At various times other EU leaders have seemed open to the idea, but that might change as the actual implications become apparent. 

Then, they'd have to change UK law, at least the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which defines "exit day" as "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m." (UK time being an hour behind Brussels time). The bill was originally designed to allow this date to be left undefined until nearer the time, but May & co were spooked into setting it in stone quite early in its passage through the Commons. After all, nobody was to get the idea that it would be possible, and certainly not easy, to stop the process.

So far, probably, so straightforward (once the parliamentary battles on the decision to extend had been won). The big problem is elections to the EU Parliament, which begin on 23 May 2019. Any proposal to extend the Article 50 process - meaning that the UK would be a member state during the elections - would require us by EU law to hold elections. But the 73 seats currently occupied by British MEPs (some of them also representing Gibraltar) have been allocated to other countries (two to Ireland) and the UK would find that it doesn't have the law to hold such elections, since the relevant act was repealed (unnecessarily early, but that might also have sprung from the spooking of May) by that same EU (Withdrawal) Act.

Open Reason (associated with Nick Clegg) consider how these problems could be addressed, with exotic suggestions such as Observer MEPs, or even simply ignoring the law! Suffice it to say that any such development would maintain our reputation as awkward sods. 

Even some parliamentary Brexiters might find all this a bit upsetting if they'd come round to the idea that the delay was in fact necessary. 

Looking at the numbered list above, we might consider points 1 and 2 fairly straightforward, and quite possibly easy to complete within the period from 29 March to - say - 17 May. 3, 4 and 5, on the other hand, might now look self-indulgent to varying degrees, but might turn out to be more or less necessary as the time approaches.

I write at the end of a week which has featured many headlines, quickly denied by government spokespeople (then probably reinforced by others) telling us that a deal is imminent, so all this might be quite unnecessary (I'd still keep 1 and 2 in mind though). Yet we're now told it's only 50-50 and it's still quite possible that anything that is "brought back from Brussels" will be rejected, leaving No Deal as a real possibility. And then the horrors of 3, 4 and 5 might be back with us.

I suspect we ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say.