…
I disagree with Robertson. Under the UK constitution, the government will need to get a Bill through Parliament in order to repeal the European Communities Act, which is something they will have to do when the UK leaves. But they don’t have to get a Bill through Parliament in order to serve the Art. 50 notice, which is something that happens two years earlier; the conduct of foreign relation is a prerogative exercised by the Crown on ministerial advice.
Minister may think it politically prudent to obtain the sanction of Parliament before doing something, but that doesn’t mean its a constitutional requirement. And where they already have the sanction of the voters, expressed in a referendum which they have committed to respect, there’s every chance that they won’t think it politically necessary to obtain the sanction of Parliament as well (or politically desirable to seek it).
Just to add (missed edit window):
I could be wrong. The new PM could get an early vote in Parliament expressing a desire to remain in the UK, could go to a general election for a mandate to do that, could win a thumping majority in the election, could announce that the UK will not serve its Art. 50 notice, and could suggest that We Never Mention The Referendum Again. I don’t think its very likely; I think it’s highly unlikely. But, yes it could happen.
But that, of course, is an even worse position from which to negotiate new carveouts or exceptions or whatever. If the UK is committed to staying, there’s no need to give it special inducements to stay.
The time to look for special treatment is when you are about to make a decision about staying, not just after you have made a decision. This remains true whether the decision you have just made is to stay or to go; either leaves you in a piss-poor negotiating position. And, of course, Cameron did go to the EU and negotiate additional special treatments for the UK, the public attitude to which is presumably reflected in the referendum result.
- I don’t live in England, or for that matter in Europe, so I didn’t vote in your election.
- In general, over most of Europe, broadly anti-immigration parties are doing better than they used to. Or in some cases, parties that used to be pro-migration are switching to a more critical position- most recently the KPRF in Russia. You might be the future in England, in the medium term. I don’t think you’re the future in the continent as a whole.
- In any case, the opinions of a cohort of people don’t always stay stable over time.
What are the positions of the British political parties, especially the biggest two?
My understanding is that the Labour and Tory parties are both anti-Brexit. Given the split in the electorate, it seems unstable that the major parties would not split over the issue as well. Does that mean that a pro-Brexit party is posed to replace one of them?
Will there be Parliamentary elections soon? Should there be? Given that major parties are anti-Brexit, I’m not sure how either one can legitimately invoke article 50 and negotiate exit.
Tory leadership: pro-EU
Tory membership: substantially anti-EU
Labour: mostly pro-EU, but with a residual leftwing suspicious of the EU as a corporatist scam
LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, Northern Ireland Alliance: entirely pro-EU (but the Unionist hardliners tend to be anti-EU)
(40 years ago, the Labour Party was the one split over Europe, and the 1975 referendum on the basis of minor revisions to the terms of entry for the UK was a device to satisfy the left opposition, just as this referendum was supposed to be Cameron’s way of seeing off the anti-EU people in his party “banging on about Europe”, as he put it when trying to pull his party back to the mainstream).
And then there is UKIP - entirely anti-EU and pro-Brexit, and over the last few years recipient of the generic anti-politics mood, and particularly hoovering up votes from the parts of the country and society that feel themselves abandoned and left behind in all the social and economic changes of the last few decades.
The reason why Cameron has invited his party to elect a new leader is precisely to give the Brexit forces in the party (and particularly Boris Johnson) the opportunity/responsibility to work through the consequences of their campaign (if only on the principle that if you break it, you own it).
As for Labour, they remain committed in principle to the EU, though Corbyn (for as long as he can hold on, which may not be more than a few hours or so as I write) is widely suspected of never having been that keen on it, as an old leftie; his supporters are predominantly young, Occupy-oriented, but would have been mostly keen Remainers. However, the Labour parliamentary party is overwhelmingly opposed to Corbyn precisely because he is an old, student union type, leftie, and just doesn’t look inspiring or prime ministerial enough to the kind of voters who have been drifting off to UKIP and the Tories. There are those arguing for a left/progressive set of reforms to the EU, just as Varoufakis has, but whether that would get anywhere with a Labour government or some sort of anti-Brexit progressive alliance with the SNP/Greens/LibDems, who knows?
There would be an argument for a new government to seek a new mandate, and every temptation for a new Tory PM to take advantage of turmoil in the Labour Party to call a snap election. But what would emerge from the Tory (and likely Labour) leadership elections and what sort of line either new leadership would develop, and how the voters would react… who knows?
But I see nothing wrong in a government saying “We didn’t think there should be a Brexit, but that’s what the people have voted for, and we’ll do the best deal we can that would respect what the people appear to want”. That’s how politics works - compromising to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. Of course if the majority decide that on balance that isn’t what they thought they wanted… well, tough. Too late now.