It seems like every day I’m having conversations with people who aren’t involved in politics who are resigned to the idea that we’re stuck with leaving the European Union.
When I tell them that we aren’t, and that the dangerous folly of Brexit could be stopped, they get very interested indeed.
I can’t be alone in that.
Just before Christmas, Parliament debated the Liberal Democrat amendment on a referendum on the final deal. To go along with that, the party published a timetable of how that could happen.
April 2018: Royal Assent given to the EU Withdrawal Bill
April 2018: Government introduces a Referendum on the Deal Bill, in line with the stipulations set out in the amendment:
May 2018: Royal Assent given to Referendum on the Deal Bill
September 2018: 12 week referendum campaign begins, with vote scheduled for early December. (European Parliament will also have a vote in this time and European Council must approve the deal)
December 2018: Referendum concluded, and Parliamentary vote held. In the case of a vote to remain in the EU, Article 50 would be withdrawn (Lord Kerr, author of Article 50 has stated this is a possibility).
Vince said at the time:
This potential timeline to a public vote shows Brexit is not a done deal – it can be stopped, but only with the approval of the British public.
Support is growing for a public vote on whatever botched Brexit deal the Conservatives manage to get from the EU.
It’s time the Conservatives – and the Labour leadership – listened.
Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats don’t believe the government can negotiate any deal which is better than the one we currently have as a member of the EU.
That is why we will campaign to remain in the EU in any future referendum.
The EU Withdrawal Bill can still be amended by the House of Lords, so that option is still live.
Also share with people that the author of Article 50 is very clear that we can revoke it.
At any stage we can change our minds if we want to, and if we did we know that our partners would actually be very pleased indeed.
However, there are a number of different scenarios in which we could stop Brexit. That’s why people like Nigel Farage and even David Davis have suggested that it may not be a done deal. They’re obviously trying to galvanise their own side into outrage, but we should be doing more to galvanise our side into positive action.
There are serious issues over devolved powers and the consent of the devolved administrations to the EU Withdrawal Bill. If the Scottish Parliament votes against it, as is quite likely, there is a serious constitutional issue to deal with.
Public opinion is also growing in favour of some sort of final say on the deal. As the shape of the deal and its inherent uncertainties become clearer, people may demand that the process is at least halted. Ahead of that final parliamentary vote, it will be very important to ensure that MPs understand how strongly their constituents are feeling.
So, if you come across resigned Remainers, give them hope and optimism that we can get ourselves out of this mess, but we’ll need their help to do it.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
University of Dundee Tower Building #dundeewestend
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
33 Comments
The judgement of our present leaders worries me a great deal and I have no confidence whatsoever that they have demonstrated the wisdom to manage our country satisfactorily outside the EU (a referendum result took them by surprise, an election to improve their position they all but lost, a Tory party at war within itself). The damage Labour may do can be reversed by making a start in the next parliament. The damage the Tory’s are set on will be difficult to reverse even in the next generation. I will support and vote for any party which has a firm intention to, and chance of, influencing the cancellation of article 50 and allowing us to remain in the EU. Not because I am a fan of the EU as it now is but because I feel this to be by far the least worse option.
#1 Early December ? A national referendum blotting out part of the Christmas party season, chilling the Christmas retail build up and in the very darkest and coldest time of the year ? They’ll be an emotional backlash which will call Remainers Grinches who wanted to dampen turnout. #2 What happens if the ” deal ” isn’t done in time ? What happens if the government or European Parliament or EUCO just won’t play ball ? #3 Only the ECJ can definitively interpret the Treaties and they haven’t ruled on A50. Nobody knows if it’s revocable or not. #4 Your confusing ” the deal ” with ” the deals “. Your time table assumes the full package is going to be ready by autumn. It’s not. If all goes to plan the A50 agreement plus a standstill transition will be but noone now thinks End State is going to be ready before we leave. You haven’t grasped that End State will be determined AFTER we leave under May’s timetable.
Mr Corbyn has today continued to insist that the Labour party do not support a new referendum on the terms – the facts of Brexit. If it turns out that the reason that we lumber out of Brexit into shambles is the obstinacy of the Labour leadership, history will never forgive them.
There are quite few holes in this piece
(i) Evidence does not show that public opinion is shifting towards the people being given a final say on brexit, in fact polls show that the majority are apposed to a 2nd referendum
(ii) This is assuming that article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, The EU’s Chief negotiator has said that the uk can not take this decision alone and it would need approval of the 27 other eu member states.
Why anyone would place any faith in Lord Kerr who helped draft the legislation and said himself he did not think at the time it would be used for a Brexit scenario , Lord Kerr imagined it as an exit procedure might be triggered after an authoritarian leader took power in a member country and the EU responded by suspending that country’s right to vote on EU decisions. People have also been telling us that there is no way that a deal can be done within 2 years. If that is truly the case then why did article 50 not allow for more time if 2 years was an impossibility? Seems to me that you are putting a lot of faith in lords and legislators that are quite clearly incompetent.
(iii) You are assuming that by September the Full details of the Brexit deal will be known.
(iv) Referendums only work if there are 2 choices to chose from. You cannot have on the ballot paper
(a) Accept the deal Negotiated by the EU/ UK
(b) reject the deal and resort to WTO rules
(c) Reject the deal and remain a member of the EU
If No answer got over 50% of the vote, people would be crying it is undemocratic
You can have a two stage referendum
1) Do you accept the deal negotiated by the UK Government Yes/No
2) If the deal is rejected what option do you want to see the Government take
Leave the EU on WTO rules
Remain in the EU
(whether that is a politically sensible approach is open to question but it is a way of getting a clear answer)
@OnceALibDem
“You can have a two stage referendum”
Can you elaborate a bit more please, do you mean we have 1 referendum where the choice is Binary
(A) accept the deal
(B) Reject the deal
Then if the answer is reject, it goes into another referendum on
(A) Resort to WTO
(B) Remain a member of the EU
That would be the only democratic way to do it because the 2 apposing sides would need campaign time to put forward their arguments on why WTO Rules or Remaining in the EU are the best options and that would then mean 2 lots of campaign periods for 2 referendums which would (1) not have enough time and (2) really pee the public off
In the first place I don’t see how the 2nd referendum ties in with the meaningful Parliamentary vote. If the putative 2nd referendum confirmed the decision to leave the EU, even by a narrow margin, it would clearly be politically impossible for Parliament not to affirm the negotiated deal.
Second as Gordon Brown said in a recent interview it is also politically impossible to go back to the country and ask it to vote again on the deal which has already been rejected. If you want to stay in the EU then you need to spend an equal or greater amount of time persuading the EU to offer further concessions, particularly on freedom of movement.
Third what if we vote to revoke Article 50 and the EU says, contrary to your expectation and belief that in order to do so we have to accept the euro or a reduction in our budget rebate or join Schengen. Do we get a 3rd referendum?
Finally I am getting seriously annoyed at the characterisation of remain voters who
accept the result as being resigned or having given up. Speaking for myself I voted remain with many reservations and was quite happy to accept the decision to leave. It seems to me that too many of the pro EU voices on this site are making the clearly false assumption that every single member of the 48% who voted remain love the EU as much as they do. From personal experience I can assure you that that is not the case.
What I meant was one referendum with two questions. There is a precedent for this with the first Scottish Parliament referendum which had a second question on tax raising powers which was contingent on a yes vote on the first.
A straight accept/reject the deal vote has a serious problem if the country splits 40% pro the deal, 25% anti as they want a harder brexit and 35% anti as they want to stay in the EU. It is in effect asking a question with more than one answer.
@OnceALibDem
“A straight accept/reject the deal vote has a serious problem if the country splits 40% pro the deal, 25% anti as they want a harder brexit and 35% anti as they want to stay in the EU.”
The problem with your argument though is that we have no idea until the deal has been done what type of deal it is, so it is impossible to decide what the question on the ballot paper should be.
It might be that the deal is an EFTA which would mean us staying in the single Market and continuing freedom of movement etc, but out of CAP and CFP and able to make our own trade agreements with other countries.
If that is the deal, then that might not be acceptable to a lot of people who voted Brexit, because we were told at the last referendum that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union and besides would this even be acceptable to Liberal Democrats who have said that they are going to vote against everything.
This type of deal, requires it’s own referendum and campaign time in order for both sides to make its arguments over what this deal would mean to the country.
If the deal is FTA, which see’s out of the EU Single market but having access to it and out of the customs union and creating a new customs union with the EU. This is an entirely different situation to the first one and again, requires a whole different set of arguments and approaches to campaigning.
Of course, there is also the possibility that there might be no deal whatsoever between the EU/UK and the decision is to leave and resort to WTO.
The point is, until the deal is known, you cannot properly decide what the question should be on the ballot paper.
We cant’t have a ballot paper that says if the Deal is (a) then how do you vote, or if the deal is (b) then how do you vote and if the deal is (a) then sub question 2.1 is applicable and how do you vote
It just does not work and that is why the sensible people in parliament keep rejecting another referendum on the deal.
I certainly agree you can’t have a referendum on the deal when the deal isn’t known.
This is where the idea of a 2nd referendum falls down a little. That timetable relies on a deal being concluded in a little under 8 months – which looks a little unlikely on performance so far! If it was agreed in say mid-Feb it would be relying on the goodwill of the EU27 to have a delay to the finalising of the Art 50 process whilst there is a referendum.
The window for the second referendum is rapidly closing
You have forgotten the £20m expenses bill we should pay the eu for all their trouble…
The UK can unilaterally revoke the notification with the consequence of remaining at current terms. The EU cannot make any conditions or block this, because this would in effect be an expulsion not provided for by the Lisbon treaty.
Brexiteers harp on about Remain warning voting for Brexit would mean leaving the Single market.
Correct Remain said vote Brexit and you leave the Single market a reason why many of us didn’t vote Leave. However the Leave campaign didn’t say that, they said
Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market Daniel Hannan MEP
Only a madman would actually leave the Market Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
So we agree the Remain campaign warned us of the consequences and the Leave campaign didn’t. So having sorted that out perhaps the question should be why did they mislead the electorate, through knavery or an inability to see the consequence of their actions. I’m afraid I think it’s stupidity, at least with knaves they may have a cunning plan with this lot i fear a plan is beyond them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce
Arnold Kiel (and indeed Caron and anyone else putting faith in Lord Kerr’s interpretaion):
Have you actually read Article 50? It’s here. I refer you in particular to paragraph 3:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
I draw your particular attention to the words “shall”, “European Council” and “unanimously”.
I suspect if it suited the EU Article 50 could be withdrawn unilaterally if it didn’t it couldn’t. If we ever get to that point i suspect we will find out which way they want to play it, till then it’s a moot point.
Malcolm Todd,
your quote (and the Article 50) does not address revocation before expiry of two years. If the UK revokes, neither an agreement has been reached, nor have two years passed. If the EU could effectively reject the revocation (in a situation in which no future relationship has been established), it would logically also be able to refuse to negotiate without the UK having any remedy, i.e. the EU could unilaterally bring about a crash-out. This would make no sense, and would also be in contradiction with the principle that members can notify their “intent” to leave, but cannot be forced out. Extension is a totally different matter, because it implies the intent of both parties to continue negotiations after two years.
@Arnold Kiel
I am afraid there are many legal eagles and indeed the EU Chief Negotiator who has a difference of opinion to yourself and I would have thought that they are more qualified to know the answer.
Besides, if the UK did unilaterally decide to “try” and withdraw from article 50, i suspect there will be a legal challenge to the European Court from Brexiteers.
But ask yourself this, don’t you think if it were intended that the process could be revoked, then that would have been written into the legislation?
I would argue that there would be no way the EU would allow a process were a member country could trigger article 50 process, cause 2 years of uncertainty, then decide to revoke at any time of their choosing. That puts far to much power in the hand of the member state and the eu does not like that. That leaves them open to any country in effect holding the EU to ransom everytime a new piece of legislation or dispute occurs with threatening to invoke article 50 process.
Think about it.
@frankie
I think you will find that the leave campaign argued that we could maintain “access” to the single market which is of course entirely different to being a “member” of the single market would you not agree?
It was good to hear of the party timetable for a referendum on the deal, which I had not been aware of. However, objection has been raised on the brevity of the time allowed, and so there has been talk – and indeed a proposed amendment to the Withdrawal Bill – about asking for extra time, for instance by suspending the Article 50 revocation, a somewhat problematic idea. However, I was glad to read some time ago on this site the carefully worked-out timetable proposed by Michael BG, which would allow the proceedings for the referendum to begin in October and be completed just in time before the end of March 2019. We can therefore continue to try to increase public demand for a referendum for the next few months, during which time it will surely be made plain to all that the country should indeed stay in the single market and the customs union, and that after due negotiation on free movement of labour we will do better just to stay in the EU. No free-trade deal with the USA then, but who thinks that can happen anyway?!
matt,
clearly, Article 50 was not designed for practical application, but it has one clear principle: exiting is the option of the member wishing to leave. If the UK did revoke, it would be based on a vote of Parliament, hence no legal challenge from a UK-based party would make sense. Even if your viewpoint had merit, it would be totally unclear how the EU would have to decide on its negative response: just the commission (the recipient of the notification of intent(!)), the qualified majority of countries required for approval of the divorce-settlement, all members unanimously, any one member individually? Nobody knows. What is certain: they all like the 10b net contribution.
@Arnold Kiel
Article 50 was written in mind of a rogue state being suspended by the EU and instead of the rogue state just saying that’s it, im off, a procedure was put in place for that to exit to occur.
If it was intended that the process could be revoked unilaterally, it would have been written into the legislation.
“ If the UK did revoke, it would be based on a vote of Parliament, hence no legal challenge from a UK-based party would make sense” I never said it would be challenged by a uk based party, it would be challenged by Vote Leave and other groups .
Can you really not see the problem with your argument, Do you really believe the EU would allow a treaty that allows any country to in effect use an article 50 process as a leverage at any time of it’s choosing and then not go through with it? The EU does not believe in a member having that kind of power and you all know it, you just don’t want to acknowledge it. If the UK were to be allowed to withdraw article 50 unilaterally without any repercussions this will cause chaos for future discipline and negotiations within the bloc with Hungry, Poland and any other country threatening to invoke article 50 everytime they don’t get something they want, the EU would become unmanageable.
Arnold Kiel 15th Jan ’18 – 5:32pm
“Malcolm Todd,
your quote (and the Article 50) does not address revocation before expiry of two years.”
Exactly my point.
matt,
The Article says: notify us of your “intent” and then we negotiate for two years. I clearly see the back-door between the lines; otherwise the leaving member would have no leverage.
Clearly, also the experimental triggering of Article 50 was not thought through when formulating it. But the UK-example should be a sobering sight for any member contemplating such a senseless step: the UK is already suffering greatly economically, institutionally, politically, and diplomatically, before effectively leaving and without having extracted a single concession from the EU. As can be clearly seen, the Article 50 process confers no leverage or power whatsoever to the member that has declared its intent to leave.
Of course, the UK will pay for a revocation in terms of international prestige and standing. Unfortunately, the best option, being an influential and respected member of the EU, has been lost for many years, but just being a member hasn’t.
@Arnold Kiel
“. But the UK-example should be a sobering sight for any member contemplating such a senseless step:”
I suspect you will be eating those words extremely shortly. The EU is facing all sorts of problems with Poland and Bulgaria for instance on human rights issues, democracy, curbing freedoms and democracy, they have been thoughts about suspending their voting rights. No EU country can be expelled from the EU, Article 50 intention was to allow for an orderly exit, we no longer want you scenario but please go nicely kind of thing.
If article 50 is Revocable unilaterally by the country without any repercussions that would then be used as leverage to cause the EU commission all sorts of trouble and uncertainty during times of dispute.
A further point, lets say the EU is wants introduce or change a policy that effects the amount of money Poland receives for the CAP, or a policy that effects Poland’s sugar beet industry, they are after all the biggest producers of sugar beet in the world. If Poland realises it can use the leverage of article 50 without repercussions if it later decides to revoke it, do you really think they are not going to use it.
You need to get real here.
“the UK is already suffering greatly economically, institutionally, politically, and diplomatically,.”
We are suffering economically, are you sure about that, has GDP fallen? Are we in a recession? is unemployment rising? I think you might be resorting to false facts and project fear here.
“before effectively leaving and without having extracted a single concession from the EU “ You are hardly going to extract a concession before invoking article 50, I don’t see your point, Camerons negotiations proved that
Arnold Kiel 16th Jan ’18 – 8:01am
“The Article says: notify us of your ‘intent’ and then we negotiate for two years.”
No, it doesn’t. The paragraph I quoted above says that “the Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question [i.e. the State will cease to be a member] … two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2″. The notification in paragraph 2 is the notification of intent to which you refer. So paragraph 3 makes clear that the effect of this notification is to begin a (by default) two-year notice period ending in withdrawal. The process of negotiation is obviously there in the hope of achieving a smooth, orderly exit and a reasonable future relationship. The 2-year deadline is the gun to the negotiators’ heads to encourage them to take it seriously. (I’m not sure it’s working in that respect, but that’s a whole other question.) However, there is nothing in the language of the article which permits the reading you want it to have.
Incidentally, in terms of practical politics (which will of course always trump mere legalism) matt’s argument is cogent and seems not to have been addressed: if Article 50 did turn out to be something that could be used as a cry of “Wolf!” and a bargaining chip by any disenchanted member with no consequences for misuse, the consequences for EU governance would be horrendous. I’m sure the EU27 and the Commission are very aware of that.
Come on, it must be the easiest thing in the world to cease negotiations and accept our present arrangements as long as the decision is verified by a referendum.
Malcolm Todd,
and “there is nothing in the language of the article which permits the reading you want it to have”.
I already extensively addressed matts false belief that triggering Article 50 tactically has any anvantage; it evidently doesn’t.
The Guardian, 3 hours ago: In a speech to MEPs, Donald Tusk, the head of the European council, suggested reversing Brexit was still a possibility in his mind. “If the UK government sticks to its decision to leave, Brexit will become a reality – with all its negative consequences – in March next year. Unless there is a change of heart among our British friends.”
Tusk recalled the words of the UK Brexit secretary, David Davis, who said in 2013 that “if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”. Quoting these remarks, Tusk said: “We, here on the continent, haven’t had a change of heart. Our hearts are still open to you.”
Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, endorsed this conclusion. “[Tusk] said our door still remains open and I hope that will be heard clearly in London.”
@Arnold
Actually you did not address my comments about article 50 and how Poland or Bulgaria could use it to their advantage, you totally ignored them and spoke only about the UK and even then those comments were misleading
You mention the things that Junker and Tusk have just said, but in none of those comments do they mention that the uk can withdraw unilaterally or whether there would be a price for them doing so.
The EU remain leaders are not all united and talking from the same hymn sheet, case in point the chief negotiator Michael Barnier, who said the UK cannot withdraw unilaterally and it would needed to be decided by a unanimous decision of the remaining EU27
You do understand that Junker and Tusk are playing a game don’t you, it’s called spreading discord amongst people, trying to strengthen their hand.
I have to wonder, were you any good at hide and seek as a child or where you the sort to shout out here I am before the game was up?
I wonder, have you also seen the guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/15/norway-may-rip-up-eu-deal-over-uk-brexit-demands
Where a Brussels official has said
“Brussels is not making preparations for a second UK referendum, with senior officials regarding it as highly improbable. In the event of a remain vote, however, key member states would probably seek to legally bind the UK into not calling a third referendum in the foreseeable future, officials believe.”
What does that tell you about the Eu’s attitude to democracy and sovereignty? Just watch the lead for Brexit increase if there was another referendum and this was part of the terms and conditions
Arnold Kiel
It’s nothing to do with desire on my part. I’ve shown in detail exactly what the meaning of the article is. Please refute it if you can.
You’re right, you had responded to matt’s argument, my apologies for overlooking that. I’m not convinced by your response, however. I think the situation would change if the UK were permitted to unilaterally withdraw its notice.* Even if the UK did not try to bargain for a better deal in return for staying in, the sheer disruption to the functioning of the EU that all this nonsense has caused would be enough to give weight to a threat by an unhappy member to plunge the organisation into chaos if its demands aren’t met.
*I’m not sure how that would happen, to be sure: presumably, if the EU27 didn’t agree to it, the UK would have to appeal to the ECJ. Or if parts of the EU wanted to accept it, a dissenting minority might appeal against to the ECJ – I don’t know.)
The Guardian article link posted by Matt clarifies more of the details of why this country will not be allowed special treatment by the EU, and of the harms that will therefore occur after Brexit. Hopefully the publicity over the reality of those harms will sway more of the public to accept over the next few months that it is better to stay in. It is clear that Parliament can then decide to do so, or hold another referendum first to ensure that they are following the people’s more mature judgment, and that then withdrawing the Article 50 enactment will be legal and acceptable to the EU so long as it takes place before March 29th 2019.
matt,
if the second biggest net contributor can gain nothing out of “playing” Art. 50, why should 2 massive net beneficiaries? The UK does not care about its one Mio. citizens abroad, in order to limit immigration. For Poland and Bulgaria, it is a one way street: they have no British hostages at home, just their expats in limbo. Nobody can use Art. 50 to her advantage.
I for my part quite like Tusk and Juncker, sorry (to remain on the purely emotional level of your comment regarding them).
Your link is irrelevant because it concerns a final deal.
The UK would not go for another referendum anytime soon after the humiliation of holding one and revoking the notification inside 3 years, no need to worry. But, just to be clear: the EU cannot enforce this (“seek”). A moral obligation of the UK not to hold another one would, however, be indisputable.
“the Eu’s attitude to democracy and sovereignty” has been and remains to be impeccable. After all, we are discussing unilateral UK-decision-making here.
Malcolm Todd,
I still see nothing in the Article that excludes my interpretation.
Besides, you might have noticed that the EU is diplomatically and emotionaly much smarter than your Brexit-poisoned Government. Irrespective of legalities, make the following thought experiment: if the UK came back revoking, politically, the only real options are immediate and uncontestable rejection, or a warm welcome with open arms. Staying out or coming back in as a result of a lengthy legal battle is unthinkable.
Immediate rejection, in a situation in which the time after is unresolved, would push an unprepared UK immediately down the cliff edge. It is equally unthinkable, among other things for purely humanitarian reasons, that Europeans would do this to each other. It requires a militant Brexiteer’s mindset to just entertain such a thought, and even they would blink when they see the full extent of their folly in terms of human misery.
That leaves a warm welcome (with a slightly false smile) as the only option.
@katharine
I am curious as to why you would mention the article I linked to, but ignore my point entirely about the EU official who has said that such that a condition would be demanded that the UK would be legally prevented from calling another referendum for the foreseeable future. Would you be happy with abandoning that level of democracy and sovereignty? Does that suggest to you that the EU is capable of the reforms that you keep talking of?
@Arnold Kiel
Either there is a language barrier going on here or you are intentionally missing the point.
Firstly, until Brexit negotiations are concluded you have no idea what the uk gains out of invoking article 50, you are speculating with a biased opinion.
Secondly, the net beneficiaries i.e. Bulgaria / Hungry would get leverage in an argument with the Commission from either threatening with invoking article 50 if it does not get something it either (a) wants or (b) if it does not agree with a new policy area, or indeed (c) if the EU tried to impose discipline by suspending voting rights (That is the point that for some reason you are choosing to ignore). The EU wants to avoid this at all costs, another member state throwing the EU into chaos by invoking article 50 process and then being able to revoke at a time of their choosing with no repercussions..
That is why if Brexit is revocable, there will be a cost, maybe even as severe as only allowing article 49 as a way back in.
““the Eu’s attitude to democracy and sovereignty” has been and remains to be impeccable” Please explain then Junkers comments then:
Junker is on record for saying “”When it becomes serious, you have to lie,”” Mr Juncker has never hidden his view that the compromises and deals being worked out in EU meetings or leaders or ministers need be protected from public scrutiny, by lies if necessary.. He told a meeting of the federalist European Movement that he often “had to lie” and that eurozone monetary policy should be discussed in “secret, dark debates. He also said Prime Ministers should stop listening to their voters and instead act as “full time Europeans”
Is that your idea of democracy?
matt,
if the UK’s notification has strengthened the EU, rather than “throwing it into chaos”, how should the rather insignificant and burdensome members Bulgaria or Hungary do so? Barnier and Brexit are (unlike Davies in the UK) an EU sideshow, easily handled by a fraction of the available expertise. Again, if the much more advanced and resourceful UK fails at carrying this out in an orderly and beneficial fashion, how could they? No chance. Besides, their citizens do not want to leave (for many good reasons).
Since when does have an ardent leaver a problem with lying? I guess just when someone is honest about it.
@Arnold Kiel
You may find the following an interesting paper on wether article 50 is revocable or not unilaterally
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/596820/IPOL_IDA(2018)596820_EN.pdf
This research paper was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs and has just been published
Some points that might be of interest to you and points that I have been making in the last few months
“In addition, the same legal argument maintains that Article 50 is a succinct but complete provision which describes the entire withdrawal process. Under this reading, the withdrawing state which wishes to maintain its links with the EU has two alternatives: either to request for the (unanimously agreed) prolongation of the two year period or to reapply for membership. This argument claims, therefore that the Treaty has covered the eventuality of a change of mind of the withdrawing state and provided, as a solution to this, the possibility of a new application.58
• The political argument – or more adequately, the “moral hazard” argument – relates to a risk already outlined during the negotiations of the Article in the Convention for the Future of Europe, namely that a possible right to revoke a withdrawal notification would alter the nature of the Article
and could become a means of a blackmail by any Member State which could use notifications and revocations successively in order to reinforce its bargaining capacity.
The European Parliament has taken the position that a hypothetical revocation should be some form of multilateral act and include conditions set by the remaining Member States. In its first resolution on Brexit, on 5 April 2017, the Parliament included a paragraph that suggests that the revocation of the notification is possible – although it should be “subject to conditions set by all EU-27”. 70”
“The EP Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, has also declared that the door for the UK would remain open if it changed its mind but that “it will be a brand new door with a new Europe: a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real power and with unity”. In other words the article 49 process I mentioned in my earlier post.