Parliament rejects May plan on Brexit | There was …

PageI12 in Great Britain

From London

After nearly three years of voting for the exit of the European Union (EU), two years after the start of negotiations and 17 days after the official departure of the bloc, Parliament again rejected the agreement concluded by Theresa May with L & # 39; EU for the British release this 29th of March.

The vote was still strong. The three explanatory documents granted by the EU in May Monday evening, or the promise of investments and improvements in labor legislation made to Labor MPs, were worthless, not even the threat of an exit from the block already imminent. corner

Three hundred and ninety-one deputies rejected the agreement. Only 242 voted for. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox's opinion on the documents negotiated with the EU was decisive and proved to be pithy. Prior to the opening of the House of Commons debate, Cox pointed out that there was no guarantee that the UK could leave the EU under the negotiated system in order to avoid a physical boundary between Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) and the Republic. of Ireland (part of the EU).

Once again, Theresa May will have to balance the increasingly thin European cornice. His term is filled in 2022. Nobody knows today when he reaches mid-year. In the meantime, after the death of the agreement, the Parliament will continue this autistic exercise in order to seek a consensus on a proposal allowing it to reach an agreement with the EU which will no longer be bored by the House of Representatives. municipalities.

Today, MPs will vote on a motion that clarifies the political chaos that this Brexit saga has provoked. Parliamentarians must decide whether or not to accept the UK to leave the EU without an agreement as it would be after the mbadive defeat in May.

The prognosis is that there will be a mbadive rejection of this possibility. In this case, Parliament will still have to vote on Thursday a motion asking the European Union to extend the date of departure, that is to say on March 29th. In this trail garden, it is unclear what kind of extension will be required and for what purpose. The government talked about a few months, but why would Parliament not accept any formula? This is what several European leaders, including French Emmanuelle Macron, have raised in recent weeks. "If there is an extension, you have to know what," said the Frenchman.

The parliamentary debate of yesterday did not much clarify things because, except in a few cases, most of the arguments about the relations that the former British empire should have with the EU, debates who have saturated, jaded and polarized the British over the past decade. The 2016 referendum was presented as an exit: it was not. We now have to see how the parliament comes out of the maze opened by the Conservatives by holding a referendum based on the mistaken principle that this would be the best way to keep the UK within the EU.