The idea of a vote on the final Brexit deal is an appealing one to Remainers, says Steve Bullock. But by Christmas 2018, after acrimonious negotiations, the rest of the EU may be in no mood to give the UK a second chance. In any case, there would be no time to renegotiate before the 2019 deadline, which would mean Britain might end up leaving with no deal at all. The time to call a halt is now – while the EU is still receptive.
Like many staunch Remainers, I’ve often found myself supporting calls for a referendum, or, at the very least, a vote in Parliament on the final Brexit deal. It is an appealing thought. It gives hope that Brexit can be stopped at the last moment, between a deal being agreed and the UK’s exit from the EU. It also gives a nice clear defence to the ‘will of the people’ argument: democracy does not just happen on one day, the democratic will of the people evolves as new information comes to light, and a second enquiry as to whether the (rather narrowly) expressed will persists is reasonable.
It seems a fair plan, and, given the choice of a bad deal (all available deals are bad, as it happens), a stupidly catastrophic no-deal, or remaining, it’s reasonable to think Remain would have a very good chance of success.
A promise of what our politicians have cumbersomely termed a ‘meaningful vote’ in Parliament fulfils much the same role. Parliament is, after all, sovereign, and surely the amateurish, funny-if-it-weren’t-true Whitehall farce currently being played out will bring nothing that MPs of good conscience can willingly subject their country to.
We Remainers naturally assume that the EU27 would heave a big sigh of relief, perhaps demand an end to the rebate and some sundry opt-outs, and all would miraculously be well.
Donald Tusk’s Lennon-tinged invitation for the UK to change its mind, combined with less imaginative (geddit?) but obviously coordinated messaging from Paris and Berlin certainly points towards that. It looks as if Article 50 is legally and politically revokable, and the EU would welcome a UK change of heart. As the unpleasant reality of Brexit dawns on people, the Overton window is shifting back to a point where Vince Cable and even Newsnight commentators can admit that remaining is a real possibility. The UK just needs to do some sort of deal, then a referendum or Parliament will nix the whole appalling misadventure.
On reflection though, I don’t think this is true, as it relies on the idea that the EU27’s offer would still stand after negotiations are completed. The EU27’s messaging actually looks much more to me like an invitation to use this temporary window of opportunity before it is slammed firmly shut, and the security blinds lowered.
Imagine a ‘deal-referendum-remain’ scenario from the EU27’s point of view for a moment.
The end of September 2018 is the last point that a deal can be done and still allow the six months needed for ratification by national and regional parliaments. By that point, the UK would have put the EU27, against its will, through two-and-a-half years of very costly uncertainty. It would have tied up the EU27’s time, energy and resources through an insanely complicated negotiation. Five Member States would have had their Council Presidencies dominated by Brexit instead of their own priorities. The EU27 would have, by that time, negotiated their own arrangements for the future of the EU post-Brexit, including budgets, and new priorities. This will not have been easy, and will have required sacrifices by many Member States. EU27 businesses would have put their own responses into practice, shifting capital, production, staff and strategies. EU agencies would already have moved, or be well into the process of doing so. The EIB would have raised money on the markets to replace the lost UK capital.
Added to this the EU27, their governments, and their electorates, would have endured two-and-a-half years of insults, lies and propaganda from a UK government seemingly incapable of acting like grown-ups.
I therefore think that the idea that the UK could just call Brussels around or after Christmas 2018, tell them that they’re calling it all off, and just carry on as normal is not a serious one. EU27 electorates would just not accept welcoming back the UK after it had put them through so much for, basically, nothing.
Or take the scenario, which I consider likely, that the Government walks out of negotiations. A disorderly, no-deal Brexit would ensue. In this case, massive contingency plans would be well underway by governments and companies to mitigate the effects. EU citizens in the UK would be left in limbo in the absence of an agreement. Markets and the Euro may well have suffered shocks, and the ECB may well have used resources to mitigate them.
Having caused this level of harm for no reason other than the internal politics of the UK, what EU27 leader could go back to their capital and announce that they had agreed to ignore all of that and let the UK remain?
The situation is only a little different for the much mooted ‘meaningful vote’ in Parliament. Firstly, what would the vote be on? If it is on ratification of the agreement, the choice is “Aye” or “No”, not leave or remain. Accept the agreement, or don’t. There would be no time for Parliament to request a renegotiation. Even if there were, why would the EU27 consider a renegotiation after two years’ toil and cost? An amendment could be tabled, or a new bill even, authorising the Government to attempt to revoke the Article 50 notification. Would this Government be prepared to do this? A new election may be needed, but then we’re in the same position as after a referendum but with even less time. If Parliament rejects the deal, it is still possible that Article 50’s two year limit becomes the default and the UK slides out of the EU with no deal.
This all assumes of course that MPs would actually vote to reject a deal, and there has been little evidence so far that this would happen. The meaningful vote beloved of some looks anything but.
Lawyers including Jo Maugham and George Peretz have pointed out that Article 50 is probably legally unilaterally revokable right up to the point that the exit treaty is ratified by all. It is hard to see though how this could happen politically once negotiations are completed. In any of the scenarios described, it would be being revoked with with no more than three months to go until the two year Article 50 deadline. In practical terms, preparations would be in place on the EU27 side for the exit, and by then most parliaments would have ratified the agreement. The UK could simply slip out of the EU when the time ran out, presumably while still awaiting rulings from the ECJ. While the ECJ may rule in favour of the UK’s revocation, in the short term it would require political will on the part of the EU27 to either accept the revocation and halt the process itself, or halt the process pending the Court’s ruling. By that stage, they may rather just let Brexit happen and move on.
So the UK needs to grab this opportunity by the horns (or tusks, perhaps), and accept the offer of a rethink now, not at the end of the process. By then the opportunity may well be gone, and the idea that the UK can decide unilaterally to remain in the EU could be merely imaginary. Brexit can and should be stopped, but leaving it to the last minute to pull the plug on it would be a mistake.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. It is based on a Twitter thread originally posted here and was originally published at LSE Brexit.
_________________________________
Steve Bullock
Steve Bullock worked at the UK Representation to the EU from 2010-2014 where he negotiated several EU regulations for the UK in EU Council working groups. He has also worked for the European Commission and the Department for International Development’s Europe Department.
I am inclined to agree having taken part in an academic conference at Portcullis House last year. I made two simple points obvious to all. First the timescale is impractical and second the Brexit policy lacks clear objectives. Even now it is very difficult to see how this can be rushed through. However be that as it may the longer the delay and the greater the ill informed hype the more difficult this negotiation becomes. Being frank now and realising this great mistake is better than what may lie ahead.
Quite apart from that this referendum has undermined the sovereignty of Parliament and our judiciary: the pillars of our constitution.
In short if these negotiations fail this could be the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez at worst another Munich in terms of loss of prestige.
How to recognise a diehard Remainer:
They say:
“Brexit policy lacks clear objectives”
Every Leaver knows what is required – and has said so:
– No longer subject to EU law – with ability to repeal any laws unrelated to Trade
– No longer subject to the ECJ
– No longer required to accept EU citizens settling as a right.
After that, there are any number of future relationships and the precise one shouldn’t matter – as a long as we have the ability to elect a Govt. that does what the country wants.
Instead of pretending not to listen/read, why don’t Remainers expend their energy on lobbying the EU to be rational rather (i.e. mutual self-interest) than spiteful (punishment) ?
Jules, you’ve claimed that “every leaver knows what is required” then simply listed three things you personally want to be rid of without detailing in any way what type of relationship you actually think the UK should have with the EU. You also seem to think the precise relationship “shouldn’t matter” despite the fact it could potentially cause serious economic problems for the UK, could ruin the lives of millions of British citizens currently living in other EU countries (and so on – you know, things that actually matter an awful lot more than abstract debates about sovereignty).
In short, you’ve presented no answer whatsoever to the countless questions raised by Brexit for the country, you’ve just listed three things you don’t like and sniped at everyone who happens to have a different opinion to your own.
“three things you personally want to be rid of ..”
Having canvassed hundreds (if not a couple of thousand) people – including a few Remainers (the vast majority of whom were “on balance” not “committed) – it was pretty clear what most people wanted:
– British laws made by British Politicians (“They may be barstewards, but at least they’re ours and we can get rid ….”
– UK Govt controlling immigration policy – so that that the negative impacts on house prices and public services can be reduced.
– No higher court that the British Supreme Court.
“without detailing in any way what type of relationship you actually think the UK should have with the EU”
I could “detail” – but that’s for another debate (#see below).
I’m a democrat !
As I said, there are many different future arrangements.
That could even include unlimited immigration – AS LONG AS IT IS A UK LAW & NOT EU LAW – that a future UK Govt could repeal/amend.
As for:
“ruin the lives of millions of British citizens currently living in other EU countries”
What a pleasant surprise. A Remainer not putting EU citizens here first.
Please direct your concerns to the EU. It is they who are prevaricating over the UK’s offer to allow EU citizens already here to be allowed to stay.
# Trade: Business-as-Usual is the aim.
And with UK business already product compliant, there is no reason why not – unless the EU make obstacles. Remainers should be pressing the EU instead of undermining the UK Govt.
The same goes for Customs checks.
We already have a system for pre-dispatch declarations by “trusted” suppliers – and it could continue B-as-U :>
“Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system records the declaration to Customs of goods by land, air and sea. It allows importers, exporters and freight forwarders to complete customs information electronically,”
The EU could make this difficult – but if so, why do Remainers whinge at the UK Govt instead of lobbying the EU ?
Ireland/N Ireland.
Remainers or the EU tell us that an electronic border isn’t possible – because there are so many rural roads.
But the London Low Emission Zone has 1145 cameras just inside the M25 detecting number plates.
Who’s “sniping” ?
“Having canvassed hundreds (if not a couple of thousand) people – including a few Remainers (the vast majority of whom were “on balance” not “committed) – it was pretty clear what most people wanted:”
You can’t seriously be trying to suggest that you wandering around talking to people should be afforded more weight in this discussion than the numerous opinion polls that have been done on the subject since the referendum. There’s a clear (and growing) majority in the polling for prioritizing single market access over scrapping free movement, as shown here: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/pm-july-charts2.png
There is no mandate for a “scrap everything and sod the consequences” approach to Brexit. It would have dire consequences for the country, the public don’t support it, and there’s no majority in parliament for it. Democracy is about listening to what people want, not putting words into people’s mouths, and the public simply don’t support what you’re calling for.
—-
“# Trade: Business-as-Usual is the aim.
And with UK business already product compliant, there is no reason why not – unless the EU make obstacles. Remainers should be pressing the EU instead of undermining the UK Govt.”
You want us to leave the single market, ignore all EU legislation, and yet still have “business as usual” when it comes to trading access. That’s muddled in the extreme. Leaving the single market means, by definition, that we’ll have worse access when it comes to trade. It’s not rocket science: we can’t have the same access while ignoring all of the rules. We also can’t ignore all EU legislation and implement our own rules without creating non-tariff barriers in the process.
Perhaps you can surprise me by making a reasonable argument where you acknowledge Brexit will give us worse trading access but that on balance the cost is worth the benefits. It would be nice to see a leaver actually acknowledge this for once instead of hiding behind vague soundbites and confused interpretations of how trade works.
Burns,
“opinion polls” .. on such a subject are notoriously prone to the context – set up by the previous survey questions. But that is secondary to the substantive point……
There is no need to accept the Right to Settle (a.k.a. F of M) to get “Single Market access”.
No other country with a Free Trade Agreement has to accept unfettered migration from the EU !
Why do Remainers seek to undermine the UK by shouting for a lesser Trade deal than others ???
“the public simply don’t support what you’re calling for.”
Neither do I … support the words you put in my mouth. (Typical mis-representation of the Leave case we’ve had to put up with for over a year !)
“You want us to leave the single market, ignore all EU legislation”
Please STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH !
No one said “ignore all EU legislation”. No-one can ignore the laws of the country tey export to or visit !
“we can’t have the same access while ignoring all of the rules.”
If you refuse to pay attention – or continue to mis-represent, I don’t see why I should have to explain it AGAIN….
… but for other readers I will.
22,000 EU laws.
Nearly 7,000 about cross-border trade. Like Norway, we would keep ~95% of those.
Around 15,000 are nothing to do with cross-border trade. Norway doesn’t have to adopt these -and neither does the R of the W.
The UK Govt plans to embed these in UK law – so any future Govt could repeal unwanted ones – which should be of no interest to the EU if they don’t deal with trade.
“We can’t … implement our own rules without creating non-tariff barriers”.
Sorry, but that’s a stupid statement.
Of course we can “implement our own rules without creating a tarriff barrier” (unless you believe utterly in the ability of Sir Humphrey to screw things up !!).
“acknowledge Brexit will give us worse trading access”
OK. If it makes you feel better …..
I will acknowledge that the EU has to make Brexit look worse for the UK….
…perhaps an obstacle to the trade in truffles or something equally minor.
If the EU tries anything worse (and which undermines German etc exporters), we KNOW we are better off out.
So why don’t you join those pressuring the EU to be rational and not petty?
denials not just a river in egypt
If it is the case that the Article 50 notice can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time before it takes effect, i.e. 29 March 2019, then there is no need for “acceptance” of that withdrawal by the EU27 or any of them. We just stay put, and carry on as before the notice was delivered. It’s hard to believe there would be no adverse political consequences of doing this at the last minute, but legally the EU27 would not be entitled to obstruct it.
Of course the CJEU might eventually decide that there is no right to withdraw an Art. 50 notice, in which case we would be on the cliff edge with nowhere to go but forward. However we could have bought ourselves some vital valuable time by bringing the CJEU into the process, so there might be some kind of landing net ready for us by then. After all, the situation could hardly be worse than getting to 29 March 2019 without any deal at all on what happens next..
Also don’t forget the European Parliament election in 2019 would be messed up if the UK wanted to remain, EP parliament politicians like Manfred Weber (leader of the EPP) have said an extension of the 2y negotiation period is impossible because it would mess with said election.
Jules: ““opinion polls” .. on such a subject are notoriously prone to the context – set up by the previous survey questions. But that is secondary to the substantive point……”
Whereas you wandering around talking to random people isn’t affected by context at all. Be serious for goodness’ sake. Polls are the best measure of the public mood we have and there’s no evidence in the polling that people support the kind of hard, damaging, and ideologically driven Brexit you’re arguing for. You’ve offered no evidence at all for your contention that this is what people want beyond an anecdote about random people you’ve spoken to.
——
““We can’t … implement our own rules without creating non-tariff barriers”.
Sorry, but that’s a stupid statement.
Of course we can “implement our own rules without creating a tarriff barrier” (unless you believe utterly in the ability of Sir Humphrey to screw things up !!).”
This is mind-numbingly silly. You’ve responded to a point about non-tariff barriers by making a statement about tariffs.
The rest of your comments on trade are more or less a greatest hits version of the vague soundbites and confused interpretations I mentioned above:
1. A free trade agreement does not give you the same level of free trade that we have as full members of the single market. Making statements like “other countries have EU free trade agreements and they don’t have to accept free movement so why can’t we?” are utterly besides the point. It’s beyond boring seeing people churn this confused nonsense out over and over again without engaging their brain first. It’s not complicated. Read it. Understand it. Get a better argument.
2. You say you don’t want to be subject to EU laws or the jurisdiction of EU courts (in fact you claim it would be undemocratic for us to continue to be in such a situation) yet you consistently cite Norway as an example for us to follow, despite the fact Norway is subject to EU laws and EU courts. If you want to have an adult conversation then you have to make a consistent argument.
You either want us to follow states like Norway, which participate in the single market but opt out of a limited number of areas, or you want us to leave the single market entirely and have worse trading rights/privileges than we have now. It cannot be both at the same time. I know it’s incredibly difficult for Eurosceptics to be specific on this point because you want to dance on the head of a pin to try and pretend Brexit will give us absolute sovereignty without damaging trade in the process, but from a logical standpoint what you’re saying is completely inconsistent. Pick a position and stick to it.
Dear Readers,
Sorry for the lengthy post – but when Burns puts words in people’s mouths he needs to be called out – and errors corrected
Burns,
One tries one’s best to be civil, but rude Remainers like you make it very hard ……
A.1) “Polls are the best measure of the public mood we have ”
The lastest YouGov poll claims says that:
” 61 per cent think “significant damage to the British economy [would] be a price worth paying for bringing Britain out of the EU”.
What is not explored is the LIKELIHOOD of “significant damage”.
Most Leavers think there will be little or none.
That Survey is headlined “Brexit Extremism”.
What if 61% said that:
“significant damage to the British economy [would] be a price worth paying for funding the NHS”.
Would that be labelled “NHS extremism”.
Context – and world view is all !
A2) “anecdote about random people you’ve spoken to” = belitting ?
During the Referendum I canvassed hundreds of people – maybe over a thousand.
They weren’t given set questions. They were free to say what they wanted – in their own words.
That told me more than enough.
B) Wasn’t my typo obvious ??
Of course we can “implement our own rules without creating a NON-tariff barrier” !
C1) “A free trade agreement does not give you the same level of free trade that we have as full members of the single market”
How do you know ?
Perhaps it is unprecedented for two trading partners to have such a high degree of convergence – but Business-as-usual is posible – with the will.
Why are you so negative?
“other countries have EU free trade agreements and they don’t have to accept free movement so why can’t we?” are utterly besides the point.” Wrong !
How can you not see that F of M (Right to Setlle) has no reason to be part of a FTA ?
Who is not “engaging brain” ?
C2) I have never cited Norway as an “example to follow”. (Who’s not being “adult” or “consistent”?)
But Norway DOES inform us that
a) They do not need to adopt ALL EU laws. (They adopt about 28% – mostly trade-related ones)
b) They choose to participate in some EU Programs and pay contributions
c) Norway is NOT subject to the ECJ – but rather to the EFTA Court – and that has limited scope.
(The BBC often misreports ECJ jurisdiction over Norway)
d) Norway can influence world trade standards by having a seat on World Trade Bodies
C3. “you want us to leave the single market entirely and have worse trading rights/privileges than we have now”. = More childish mis-representation.
We “want” Business-as-usual (trade-wise) with the EU – and the freedom to increase trade with RotW.
How can you be surprised that so many Remainers are considered with contempt rather than the patience Ive applied here ?
3.4 You criticise seeking ” sovereignty without damaging trade in the process”.
The EU is protectionist.
Also, why presume this is all a zero-sum game?
Yet Free Trade has been shown to improve economies of most countries, most of the time.
Mutual recognition of standards is hardly “loss of soverignty”.
This response is all over the place and it’s impossible to respond to all of it, so let’s just take one consistent misunderstanding you display again and again in your comments: your muddled interpretation of what non-tariff barriers are.
Leaving to one side your laughable “stupid statement/tariff barriers” gaffe (it’s always a good idea to double check what you’ve written when calling someone else’s comment stupid) your argument on non-tariff barriers simply doesn’t make any sense. A non-tariff barrier occurs when two markets have different rules governing them. If the UK has a completely different set of regulations from the EU then businesses will have to adapt to different rules when they do business in the UK and the EU, thereby distorting trade.
You’re attempting to make a fairly nonsensical argument that the UK will be able to scrap significant amounts of EU legislation, replace it with its own rules, and yet not create a single meaningful non-tariff barrier in the process. It’s an argument that’s either mindlessly pedantic (e.g. by claiming that if the UK implements all EU legislation from outside and calls it “British” then it wouldn’t create non-tariff barriers), inconsequential (e.g. if the UK keeps almost all EU legislation but simply tinkers at the margins with a minority of legislation that doesn’t directly impact on trade) or blatantly ill-informed (i.e. you don’t know what a non-tariff barrier is and are just churning out confused soundbites under the mistaken impression you’re proving something). It’s impossible for us to know which is true because in typical fashion you haven’t written anything more specific than calling my statement “stupid”, spelling the word “tariff” incorrectly, and then whining about non-existent personal abuse because you can’t argue a point properly.
You’ve then followed this up with an equally nonsensical argument where you claim that it’s possible for a standard free trade agreement to give the same level of free trade as full participation in the single market. The same pedantic/inconsequential/ill-informed options apply here. A free trade agreement typically has no comprehensive mechanism for eliminating non-tariff barriers and in many cases can include actual tariffs for certain sectors. You ask why other countries have free trade agreements without accepting free movement, and the answer is because these agreements don’t provide the same level of free trade. It’s that simple: if you want to continue to flog a dead horse then that’s your problem.
And all of this reply refers to just *one* point you’ve made above. I won’t even begin getting into the countless other misleading statements you’ve produced here – e.g. claiming the EU is “protectionist” without offering the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. Any idea what the weighted mean for EU tariffs on all products is? Any clue as to how that compares with other major economies like the United States? Of course not.
Burns
Putting aside your childish “but you said … (typo)” , ”you mistyped “tariff”” (once)
It is perfectly possible to have different trade rules that do NOT amount to a “barrier”.
e.g. Requiring Grams to be shown alongside the exporter’s Ounces would NOT be a barrier.
But if the EU (or the UK) banned ounces (which was one of those issues a few years ago – metric martyrs etc) that would be a barrier.
But this is straw-man stuff – like much of your post.
No-one is proposing to “scrap significant amounts of EU legislation” when it comes to Trade.
Quite the opposite.
The (stupidly named) “Great Repeal Bill” seeks to embed EU laws currently only in the Treaties into UK laws …
… so they can be scrutinised properly by Parliament.
Over time, annoyances and irritants can be amended or repealed – but the focus would be on those non-Trade-related EU laws.
Apparently you write “non-existent personal abuse”
So who is “blatantly ill-informed” when you write:
“a minority of legislation that doesn’t directly impact on trade “
Again….
Around 22,000 EU laws exist
Norway, we were told by a Norwegian EU fan implements over 95% of EU law. (His “fax democracy”?)
It turns out that Norway implements just over 6,000 or 28% of ALL EU laws.
Most, but not all of the Tread-related ones.
Call me old-fashioned, but 16,000 or ~70% is strange “minority of legislation that doesn’t directly impact on trade”.
“you can’t argue a point properly. “
Not rude at all !
But just in case ……
….. I’m really sorry that I cannot explain these things to you any more clearly.
On FTAs and the SM, you continue to re-work my wording to suit your argument. Your crude debating tricks are getting tiresome.
The Single Market does NOT cover services – so we are not currently in EU, “free-market” heaven anyway.
A FTA can cover as little or as much as the Parties agree – and the EU/UK already has much to agree about.
“Free-movement “- which in EU-speak means “Right to Settle” is not necessary for Free Trade.
No-one is arguing against business or leisure “movement” – so no-one is seeking a non-tariff barrier.
Are you denying that the EU is “protectionist” ?
So which African farmers do NOT suffer obstacles to exporting their (e.g.) coffee beans to the EU?
“Weighted tariffs” ? Go on …..