Brexit: sharp exit looms as the only option

The defeat for Theresa May’s Brexit deal leaves Britain’s departure from the EU as uncertain as at any time.

The defeat — again — for Theresa May’s Brexit deal leaves the terms of Britain’s departure from the EU on March 29 as uncertain as at any time since the June 2016 referendum.

The possibility coming into focus is that a no-deal Brexit, ­despite the considerable economic disruption, might be the least-bad outcome left.

The Prime Minister’s deal was intended to cover the terms of Britain’s separation from the EU, with negotiations for the future trading relationship to come later.

Britain would have fulfilled its financial pledges to Brussels for the EU’s current budget, and trade regulations would have stuck more or less to the status quo while a broader free-trade agreement was negotiated.

That status quo would have allowed­ Britain to honour its commitmen­t under 1998’s Good Friday Agreement to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

MPs were foolish to spurn this plan. Brexiteer dissenters among May’s Conservatives complain it would have kept Britain entwined with the EU for the foreseeable ­future. They also may hope that by embarrassing May they can engineer her ouster in favour of one of their own, and sure enough her political future is in doubt after her parliamentary defeat.

But evidence is mounting that Britain and its voters aren’t ready for the economic disruptions a no-deal Brexit is likely to bring, and voters may eventually punish the politicians responsible.

The opposition Labour Party also is divided. Perhaps its members­ thought rejecting May’s deal was the quickest way to force a general election that could propel­ radical leader Jeremy Corbyn­ to power. That may backfire as voters recoil from Corbyn’s dalliances with anti-Semitism.

What this fiasco means for Brexit is anyone’s guess. Those who favour a softer Brexit or ­remaining in the EU ­believe they can push forward one of their own preferred plans.

May warned before yesterday’s vote that rejecting her deal might lead to no Brexit. But a hard Brexit with no deal on March 29 remains the default outcome under existing law and treaties.

It’s what will happen if, as has been the case so far, MPs can’t muster a majority for anything else. This could happen even if MPs vote this morning (AEDT) to ­reject “no deal” and ask Brussels for an extension of negotiations, as they might. Parliament has been incapable of showing what deal it will accept, and the EU can be forgive­n if it ­rejects appeals for more time if no one in London can say to what productive end that time would be used.

A no-deal Brexit terrifies many MPs, and no wonder. It will disrupt deep trading ties with Europe ­developed over decades, and trade may stop for a time as Customs checks are reintroduced.

Britain and its European partners­ will have to scramble to ­rebuild security co-operation. Reimpos­ing a hard border for Northern Ireland risks sparking a new round of sectarian violence.

Yet no-deal’s main virtue would be to give voters and the Brexiteers in parliament exactly what they say they want, and ­especially if yesterday’s defeat triggers­ May’s replacement with someone else.

Putting a Brexiteer in charge may be the only way to quell the corrosive cries of “Brexit betrayal” that otherwise threaten to derange British politics for another decade or more. Although many politic­ians oppose Brexit, no one has built a public consensus in favour of anything else.

MPs trying to avoid the econo­mic harm of a hard Brexit can try in the next two weeks to revive May’s deal if they think a third vote would be the charm. Or they can corral votes for a long delay leading to a reversal of Brexit, or for a second referendum.

In the febrile environment of Britain’s current parliament, any of these outcomes is possible. Whether they’d be wise is ­another matter.

A deal, whether May’s or someone else’s, would have been the best Brexit outcome. But if no polit­ician can build parliamentary or popular support for one, the best course at this late date is to give voters the independence from ­Europe they voted for.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL