Once Article 50 is “Invoked” (however that is done) and 2 years have passed, I take it, come Hell or High Water, “Brexit”, whatever it turns out to look like, will be, by definition Complete. In definition, if not entirely in action.
What if, as the UK did in the 1960’s, decide that the ECC is, after all, really pretty, and wants to join?
For those not around at the time: France used its EEC vote to block the UK’s admission.
And, this time, the Germans may well also hold a grudge.
For the Leave: has the idea of re-joining the EU (or at least parts of it) been considered?
I understand that there was, in some quarters, the belief that access to “Common Market” (free flow of goods and services) would be easily obtained.
Ignoring that idea, has the concept of “wanting back in” been considered, or is it believed to never again be attractive?
Others may disagree but the idea of “wanting back in” has not really been considered. It’s far too early for that. There was some early talk of trying to reverse the decision with a 2nd referendum, or ignoring the referendum altogether. Far greater consideration has been given to either a hard Brexit or soft Brexit. Generally Brexiteers want a hard Brexit, Remainers want a soft Brexit, but this is not a hard and fast rule.
This is not aimed at you but pointing out the relative intransigence of our “European partners” will not endear the EU to a single Brexit supporter.
In respect of the “what happens next” question, this letterby Stephen Philips MP (Tory, voted Leave) makes a good case, I think:
(Any typos are mine)
He goes on to make the point that those who voted Leave did so largely because they wanted to restore the sovereignty of Parliament - for the government to attempt to ignore that sovereignty is making a mockery of people’s votes.
I think there’s a strong point here. The vote was to Leave, but questions about Hard or Soft Brexit, membership of the single market, EEA vs WTO tariffs, freedom of movement etc. (and etc. and etc.) were not asked and therefore not answered.
It would be painful to have another referendum on Hard or Soft Brexit, or freedom of movement. Luckily we have existing democratic structures and principles for making collective decisions, and we should be using them.
Indeed, and actually one of our major problems in handling EU issues over the decades was precisely that Parliament never really got on top of what successive governments were doing in the management of the sovereignty we’d pooled in the EU (let alone developing informed public debate until it was too late to do anything much about it) - an entirely homegrown problem.
This should be little surprise to anyone. Political movements are usually a coalition of various competing and sometimes conflicting interests. Im sure the Remain camp included an uneasy coalition of EU statists, full integrationists and the odd advocate of Britain joining the single currency.
There is a distinction, though. Whatever you think of remaining in the EU, it is at least a clear policy choice with known and knowable legal and political consequences and effects. Whereas “leave the EU” creates a policy vacuum; what is the UK to do in regard to trade, migration, employment protection, border control, etc, etc if it leaves the EU? The government had no plans to do anything at all in this event - they didn’t expect Brexit to be approved - and as a result offered no proposals and have no mandate for any particular course of action. Brexit supporters could construct any fantasy they like for what might be done if the UK left the Union, and imagine that they were voting for that. The result is that different Brexit voters were voting (in their own heads) for different things, some of which are inconsistent with one another and some of which are simple fantasies. The government has no mandate to do any of them and won’t do most of them, and many or most Brexit voters will feel betrayed.
The lesson is not that referndums are undemocratic. Other EU countries have referenda on various questions relating to the EU (and indeed on various questions unrelated to the EU) and it mostly works out well. What is undemocratic and stupid is a government holding a referendum seeking a mandate for for a policy that it doesn’t wish to implement and has no idea how to implement. I predict that it will be a while before any British Government makes that mistake again.
I think David Cameron got a bit referendum-happy as his tenure went on. It became his way of settling political questions that he couldn’t get out of via normal politics. First the Alternative Vote referendum, which from his point of view was a triumph, a punch that the Lib Dems walked right into to get them into the coalition. Next was the considerably more risky Scottish independence vote, and then of course Brexit, by which point he was perhaps overconfident in his referendum prevailing powers. And then he pissed off the moment he lost it.
His legacy will be:
Don’t hold referendums
If you must hold referendums, make sure they’re ones you will win
Yes. If I recall correctly, when the UK held a referendum on the voting system there was a fully-fleshed out proposal as to the voting system to be introduced, subject to approval in the referndum. And each of the devolution referenda was based on already-enacted (but not yet in operation) legislation establishing Scottish/Welsh legislatures, devolving powers to them, and prescribing their relationship to the existing Westminster institutions.
The contrast with the Brexit vote could not be starker.
And, indeed, the SNP produced an in-depth white paper laying out their plans for independence for the Scottish referendum. Criticism of the flaws in that paper played a large part in the eventual defeat, but that’s kind of the point - people need to know what they’re voting on - and what they’re not.
It’s also a bonus if the government can be clear on this too.
(I would still argue at tedious length that even referendums on concrete policies are undemocratic, but that may be for another thread.)
Still, fair play to Cameron - he only had the referendum so he would no longer have to deal with internal party management problems, and he unquestionably succeeded in that goal.
Actually, the 1997 Scottish Referendum was on the principle (should there be a Scottish Parliament) and not the policy, because Blair was worried (he goes on this is his memoirs) that if they went with a specific proposal, many who might otherwise vote Yes, would vote No.
As it is, I have heard some commentators that if the actual Scotland Act 1998 had been put to a referendum, then there is a good chance the result would have been “No”.
Still, voting on the principle rather than the policy is a departure from earlier British practice.
I thought one of the criticisms of the SNP paper was that it was light on specifics and made many presumptions on Westminster’s willingness to act as they wanted it to act?
And the new government isn’t even giving parliament much of a chance to review and debate its wish-list for the Brexit negotiations (even assuming it’s yet agreed what should be on it).