Brexit: Dicing with a No Deal

The UK will leave the EU on 31 October, at the end of the notice period currently running under Article 50. That exit is automatic, regardless of whether a Withdrawal Agreement has by then been concluded, unless the notice period has by then been extended (or the withdrawal notice revoked). Any discussion of extension must start with a request from the UK, and the new government has indicated that it will not make any further such request.

It became apparent as the last such deadline approached (31 March) that neither side was in fact willing to contemplate a No Deal exit, despite earlier rhetoric (e.g., “no deal is better than a bad deal”). We commented back then that the prospects of a No Deal had receded, in the absence of a major shift in political sentiment. Has there been such a shift, or is it again rhetoric intended only to improve the government’s negotiating position? On any basis No Deal now looms again as a possibility that calls for focused management attention.
 

While the UK government has firmly ruled out seeking an extension, it has a majority of only two in the UK Parliament and is likely to face serious efforts by MPs to prevent a No Deal Brexit. Whether such efforts would succeed is highly uncertain.

A Parliamentary Resolution opposing No Deal would have some force without being legally binding on the government, which argues that it has a democratic obligation to fulfil the mandate from the 2016 referendum to withdraw the UK from the EU.

If it could be adopted rapidly enough, an Act of Parliament could legally require the government to seek an extension. But a bid earlier this month to begin such a legislative process failed, and the time to re-start it is now very short: Parliament is in recess until 3 September, leaving only eight weeks after it resumes before Brexit is due. Were such legislation nonetheless to make progress, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the option of "proroguing" Parliament, in effect suspending all business until after Brexit. Alternatively – although he is currently ruling it out – the Prime Minister could call an early election to secure a mandate for his approach (assuming that he could get the support of the two-thirds of MPs required to call an election before the due date in 2022).

An early election might also be an option for the opponents of a No Deal Brexit, although again the timing would be very tight. If a majority of MPs supported a "No Confidence" motion against the government, it would have 14 days to try to persuade MPs to change their minds; its opponents could also try to form a new government. If both fail, Parliament would have to be dissolved and a general election held 25 days later. But delays by the government might push an election beyond the 31 October deadline.

Many companies have preferred not to expend resources on contingency planning for a No Deal on the grounds that it seemed unlikely; others had plans in place for the former 31 March deadline, but have not revisited them seriously since then. Given the UK government’s radical shift in approach, businesses would be well-advised to review their contingency planning.