Did’nt the future leader of the future * Rossiyskaya oblast’ Ameriki* campaign for Brexit. I seem to recall him being there calling himself Mr Brexit.
I’d question the idea that there was no need for this referendum, that it was purely to settle an internal Conservative party difference, etc.
You could say that the UK was overdue an EU referendum. Perhaps it should have taken place at the time of the Maastricht treaty in 1992 (the one where the EEC et al became the EU.) Several other nations did hold referendums to ratify that treaty (Italy, Ireland, France: passed with varying degrees of enthusiasm; Denmark: narrowly rejected. Denmark then got some concessions [particulary an opt-out from the euro] and had another rerefendum, which passed.)
In the UK, though, Maastricht was ratified by parliament. There had been no general election for several years before, and I don’t remember it being a feature of the 1987 campaigns, so there was not a clear mandate to make such a change. People at the time (not just eurosceptics, constitutional experts too) argued that Maastricht should have gone to a referendum here. Others said “the UK secured opt-outs from the treaty, and anyway we don’t do referendums, parliament is supreme,” but that might have been because they feared it would not pass as it stood. And we seem to have become rather fond of referendums since then. British eurosceptism really became a significant thing after Maastricht. Before then the Tories were the pro-Europe party and the smaller band of sceptics were mainly Labour.
We never had a referendum to join the European Communities (as they were then) in 1973, and there probably was no need, because it was more of an international trade agreement than the more supranational arrangement that the EU is. But between 1973 and now there has been an accumulation of changes to the UK’s relationship with the EEC/EU that arguably had constitutional implications.
I’m not saying that’s why Leave won in 2016, for some high-falutin’ constitutional reasons. Just that the lack of any referendum was a constant driver behind eurosceptic opinion and opinion makers. Successive governments ducked the issue, hoping it would go away, but it didn’t. Time ran out on David Cameron’s watch.
I can’t edit, so will correct myself here: Parliament actually voted on Maastricht **after **the 1992 general election.
Hilarious satire of Brexit with a Titanic theme
rule brutannia | By BBC London Calling "Unofficial" | Facebook
Mrs May is a smart woman who knows what she is doing. (One of the worst consequences of the internet is foolish people thinking they are smarter than clever people because we all resort so easily to dismissive hyperbole.)
The Chequers plan is the closest she could get to the Leavers’ original ‘have all the cake and eat it’ vision. Everyone knows it won’t fly. Everyone can see it would be a bad outcome. She has to propose it to prove that it won’t fly and that it would be a bad outcome. One might hope that its rejection would prompt the Great British Public to realise that the original vision was ridiculous. Sadly, many people seem to think this plan will be rejected because the Europeans are meanies and Mrs May is stupid and incompetent. (They heard this on the internet so it must be true.)
What I find interesting is that ‘no deal’ is still largely treated as a negotiating lever. While plenty of internet warriors think it would be an admirable outcome, I don’t think any MP has openly said this is their preferred outcome. Am I wrong? Presumably because it is also obviously terrible.
The other stark omission is the absence of any political pressure for the agreed transitional arrangements followed by a straightforward free trade agreement, of the sort the EU has with Canada and now Japan. Logically, that would appear to be exactly what the Leavers wanted, given that such free trade agreements are what are supposed to make Britain great again. Cynically, I think the deafening silence on that option is because it is so obviously worse than the status quo, even ignoring the impact in Ireland. You can expect Mrs May to propose it once she has methodically eliminated all the other options, so that we, the British people, finally have to face reality early next year.
Which leads neatly into the question of withdrawing the Article 50 letter. This is a political not a legal question. The British government won’t formally attempt to cancel the process without the clear support of Parliament. Parliament won’t give that support without a clear change in public opinion (really - Parliament won’t stop the people shooting themselves in the head if that is what the people want to do). If all this happens, then the EU would go out of its way to agree unanimously that Britain stays on broadly the same terms.
What won’t happen, is somehow the EU being forced through some legal process to allow Britain to remain, while British public opinion remains divided. The EU would refuse that, and the British government could hardly pursue a case through the European courts in that context.
In hindsight, QE2 should have withheld Royal Assent.