Hopefully that’s exactly what will happen in 2020.
Why go ahead with something the public doesn’t want, just because they thought differently 2 years ago.
The EU have said that they would be happy for the UK to cancel Brexit. The guy who wrote the “Article 50” withdrawal document has said that the intention was for a leaver to cancel with or without the EU’s agreement, and there’s a court case soon to confirm whether that’s legally the case. The only people saying that we can’t cancel the withdrawAl are the brexiteers who are scared they might still lose.
Yes, sure. But if a general election is called because the Tory government has collapsed due to internal feuding over how it fucked up Brexit, they Tories won’t be in any position to campaign. Right now, Labour should be ahead in the polls but aren’t - but there’s no way they wouldn’t have the edge over a Tory party that’s a) visibly screwed up and b) is tearing itself apart.
Anyhow, my main point is that this is how Labour are thinking of their chances - hence their motivation to vote the WA down. Whether, in the era of the FTPA, that’s enough to actually force an election, is another question.
But the U.S. presidential election results are legally binding. AIUI, isn’t there really no force of law to make Brexit go forward, other than everyone hem-hawing, “Well, since the vote happened, we have to do it” despite the referendum having no real binding power?
As with most aspects of our politico-constitutional set-up, it comes down to MPs’ judgement as to what the voters will let them get away with. Of course, the sovereignty of “the Crown in Parliament” means they could in theory say the referendum result can be put aside (could always have), but you don’t have to imagine very hard to see how that would play. But on the other hand, another referendum or another general election would just as likely come to an unsustainably inconclusive result. Indeed it’s not impossible that the MPs’ own votes will be pretty chaotic, in their relation (or lack of it) to coherent party positions for the future.
And David Cameron reportedly imagines he could come back as Foreign Secretary…
Within the UK, there’s no force of law behind the referendum result. As PatrickLondon says, it’s about political realities.
However, the UK did go ahead and submit Article 50 notification (following a vote in Parliament). Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union is pretty straightforward, and one of the most straightforward things about it is that the member state which wishes to exit will do so 2 years after submitting notification, unless both parties agree to an extension. The 2 years gives time to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement but in the event that 2 years pass without such an agreement, exit happens nonetheless. As things stand, the UK will exit the EU on 29th March 2019, by force of law.
It is possible that, should the UK government fall, or Parliament vote down the WA, the EU would consent to extending the deadline so that both parties can come back to the table and try again. But they don’t have to, and they’d have to be pretty sure the UK could commit to the resulting deal second time round or what would be the point of granting more time?
It is also possible, but less so, that the UK could wihdraw its A50 notification and just stay in the EU. It’s not yet clear whether this is legally possible (a court case to seek a ruling on this is currently underway); even if it is legal, it’s unclear that this is a viable political move. I mean, it may be! It’s possible that people are sufficiently hacked off with the whole Brexit thing to tolerate just backing out of it. But really you’d want to have won a general election on the explicit promise to do so, rather than just doing it off your own bat and telling people to trust you, you know what you’re doing.
Well it’s gettinb late here, and I have an early start tomorrow, but first impressions ar with at free movement of persons has been kept in essence the same way, with only some changes to form.
Looks like Farage lost this argument.
Concubinage it is!
The ERG are mobilising, apparently, to trigger a no-confidence vote with the Chair of the 1922 Committee.
It’s been mentioned on Twitter that this might not be specifically to unseat May, but to run down the clock. They fear that if the WA reaches the Commons, then ‘no deal’ is out of picture, and there’d be amendments to further soften the WA. Anathema to Brexit cultists.
But a leadership contest would paralyse parliament up to Christmas at least, meaning almost no time for the deal to be considered by parliament.
Turnabout is fair play. People complained about the delay in invoking Article 50. People complained about the law suits by the Remainers. And so on. So now we get to complain about delaying tactics by the Leavers.
I do want this to be a good deal for Britain. But no deal is better than a bad deal - it was a bad initial deal and the contempt the EU elites held for the UK that got us into this mess (and similarly the contempt of the elites got Trump elected in the US). So it’s got to be a good deal.
BTW I’ve just done a quick search of the document for fish - of particular importance hereabouts - and it seems like complete and abject surrender. Article 130 FWIW.
Bolding mine. That’s in relation to our own waters!
No change from the present. But a full read may reveal that I’m wrong (I hope so) and a different and better interpretation.
But that’s only during the transition period (March 2019 - December 2020), which is supposed to be a 'no immediate change to anything" period. It would be very surprising if the UK were given autonomy on fishing (or anything else) during the transition period, and I don’t think anybody expected it.
Reminded me of this exchange, in a very different context:
Joseph Hewes: “Mr. Jefferson, nowhere do you mention deep-sea fishing rights.”
[Everyone in Congress groans in frustration]
John Adams: “Oh, good God! Fishing rights? How long is this piddling to go on? We have been here for three solid days! We have endured, by my count, more than eighty-five separate changes and the removal of close to four hundred words. Now, would you whip it and beat it 'til you break its spirit?..”
