One of the key issues of contention in the context of Brexit is the extent to which MPs and British voters should be allowed a say on the precise deal the UK negotiates to leave the European Union. Richard Rose writes that any hope a second referendum being held on these terms could result in the country staying in the EU is likely to prove unfounded – not least because the rest of the EU would be reluctant to begin another set of negotiations with the UK.
Theresa May has made ‘withdrawal’ from the European Union the key word in defining what Brexit means, while advocates of remaining in the EU are now arguing for ‘de-withdrawal’, that is, a second referendum held before withdrawal becomes effective. The question on the ballot of this second referendum would be whether people want to endorse or reject the conditions for leaving the European Union that would be on offer after negotiations between the UK and the EU. In case of rejection, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU would be withdrawn.
For the EU, each member state has the right to withdraw from membership. The terms for doing so are set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Once the UK notifies its intention to withdraw, two years are allowed for negotiations about the future relationship with the EU. When that period ends, the UK’s membership of the Union shall cease, whether any postmembership agreement has been reached or not.
Advocates of a second referendum believe that negotiations would make evident the supposedly disastrous consequences of leaving the European Union. This prospect would cause more than two per cent of voters to switch from favouring exit to endorsing remaining in Europe. This shift would be sufficient to reverse the verdict of the June referendum. There is precedent in Ireland for a second referendum on specific features of EU policy. These have been called when the government did not get the result it wanted in the first round.
In the jargon of the British debate, ‘de-withdrawal’ is a unicorn. If Theresa May were to propose a second referendum, many would see this as reneging on the pledge that won her Downing Street. Before the Commons could consider a bill to authorise a de-withdrawal referendum, angry Tory MPs would be triggering a new leadership election and Cabinet ministers would be lining up in the race to succeed her. Unlike David Cameron, Theresa May is averse to risking Downing Street on the outcome of a referendum.
It is also unclear whether Brussels would consider ‘de-withdrawal’ possible. In fact, Article 50 makes no provision for withdrawing notification for withdrawal, and EU leaders would have neither the time nor the patience for starting yet another set of negotiations with the fractious British. Continentals expecting to benefit from British withdrawal would lose pickings from the British corpse that were almost in their hands, such as more seats in the European Parliament.
Paradoxically, the completion of British withdrawal from the EU in 2019 opens up the path to re-entry by applying to become a new EU member state under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty. This would not mean reverting to the UK’s status in the EU before the referendum, since new applicants for membership are not eligible to receive the budget rebate and Eurozone opt out that Britain has had.
It is conceivable that a pro-EU post-Corbyn Labour party winning the 2020 British general election in alliance with a revived Liberal Democrats party could seek to rejoin the EU. A second possibility is that pro-European Tory MPs become numerous enough to fight and win back control of the party from Brexiteers. However, what is possible is not thereby probable. Cautious MPs might regard either possibility as a unicorn dressed up in the clothes of a very dark horse.
Even if a different British government successfully negotiated re-joining the EU, any agreement would be subject to the unanimous approval of all EU member states. Under the terms of the 2011 UK Parliament Act, it would also be subject to approval by another British referendum. If advocates of Britain being an EU member state are determined, they must be prepared to do what the victorious Brexiteers did: spend decades banging on about Europe until persistence and fortuitous circumstances bring success.
Note: A version of this article originally appeared at UK in a Changing Europe. It gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Christopher Martin (CC-BY-SA-2.0)
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/2dVMPz0
_________________________________
Richard Rose – University of Strathclyde
Richard Rose is a Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow. He is also a commissioning grant awardee from The UK in a Changing Europe.
The referendum asked the British people whether they wished to remain in the EU or to leave the EU. Those who voted, voted to leave and were the majority. Any attempt to block this by an unholy alliance of failed politicians, extreme nationalists, Lib Dems (hoping, and failing, to be seen as politically relevant) and multi nationals and other businesses who are worried their pool of cheap and easily exploited labour will dry up, will be seen as ignoring the democratic mandate of the British electorate.
As for Corbyn and the Labour party winning the next General Election? only in their dreams and more deluded fantasies will that ever happen.
This is partly wrong on matters of fact. Richard Corbett MEP has just written to the Times pointing out that the two year membership cut-off is prescribed in Article 50 ONLY in the event of failure to reach an agreement within that period and no unanimous agreement to extend that deadline. Many lawyers think that the UK could withdraw its A50 notification during the notification period. Whether this would be agreeable to Ms May is another matter. We are a Parliamentary democracy. But the question of Ms May needs to be faced.
There now needs to be much wider and more open discussion about removing May as Prime Minister because of (a) the clear catastrophic economic consequences of her hard Brexit policy (b) her clearly emerging tendencies to dictatorial abuse of executive and prerogative powers.
Parliament could remove her from office by a simple vote of confidence. She could then be replaced by another Tory – perhaps Hammond – who would be able to command cross party support on a more cautious and prudent approach to resolving the Brexit issue and putting A50 invocation on old pending further consultations.
Yes we are a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament, at last, put Britain’s membership to a vote by the electorate, the outcome of the vote was to leave. Theresa May is the Prime Minister who is now delivering what the electorate voted for.
There is no “Hard” or “soft” Brexit, they are just adjectives being used by whinging remainers to try and portray one as “possibly good” and the other as “all bad”. We should seek to leave the EU with a deal which is beneficial to this country, which does not include any form of freedom of movement, or EU laws with which we need to comply. If there is no acceptable deal on the table, we should just walk away.
There are no “clear catastrophic economic consequences of her hard Brexit policy”, we heard all these lies in the run up to the referendum and didn’t believe them then.
We don’t go in for “coups” in this country and any attempt to oust Theresa May purely to thwart the democratic will of the people is likely to lead to a situation in this country which does not bare thinking about.
“Soft” Brexit seems to mean staying in the Single Market (so being subject to EU laws irrelevant to cross-border trade – and subject to the unfettered right of EU citizens to settle in the UK).
In short “Soft Brexit” seems to be rebranding the EU to make it sound like the old “common Market” (which in 1975, so many people thought they were voting to stay in).
As for a 2nd Referendum – Bring It On !
Armageddon has not occurred (despite Carney’s best efforts to trash the £).
Reluctant Remainers now wonder why they fell for the scare-stories. (Nobody likes to admit being conned).
Next time they can vote what their head said rather than their heart.
The economic consequences of Brexit become clearer day by day, and the value of the pound reflects informed market judgement on the consequences of current policy. 51.9% did not vote for national economic suicide. If the PM is incompetent and unfit then parliament has the constitutional right and duty to remove her.
There are plenty of prosperous countries in the world which are not members of the EU and there is absolutely no evidence that Britain cannot prosper without being a member of the EU.
Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal etc. are certainly not thriving within the EU.
“National economic suicide” hyperbole.
Theresa May is the most competent and fit for office PM that this country has had for a long time and very welcome too.
🙂
Dear Colin….
If you think that FX markets are “informed” then you are mistaken.
As a former bank dealer – often sitting next to FX dealers, the main drivers were:
– sentiment (for short term movements)
– knowledge of big orders (for longer term movements)
– interest rate outlook
While the majority of FX dealers sit in London, a large number of order-givers sit overseas.
The latter may have been (to be polite ….) seriously mis-informed about the EU, the “Single Market” and Britain’s desire to open up to the world.
As for “the value of the pound” surely cutting interest rates AND reversing the previously signal for higher rates this Autumn have a lot to do with recent falls ?
(esp. since so many other economic indicators are positive)