14th August 2021
There are a couple of tweets on Twitter that are being heavily retweeted and liked saying that because of some court case or another, Brexit can be ‘annulled’ or ‘cancelled’.
These tweets are false – and those earnestly retweeting and liking the tweets are being given false hope.
The tweets are by knaves – accounts that either do or should know better.
And those knaves are taking those opposed to Brexit for fools.
There is a fancy that it is only the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage and other Brexiters lie about Brexit.
But lies – and liars – are on the Remain side too.
And one can hardly complain about ‘fake news’ and ‘post-truth’ when one is also happily promoting social media posts that say false things that you want to believe are true.
That is not the opposite of Trump-like politics – but its application.
Brexit is a historical and legal fact.
There is no mechanism by which any court anywhere could order Brexit to be undone.
There is no court order that can undo Brexit.
There is no court of competent jurisdiction that can undo Brexit.
The only way the United Kingdom can (re)join the European Union is by the process under Article 49 (the one that comes before Article 50).
And such an application, if it is ever made, will not be quick – not least that the European Union would want to see a settled political consensus in the United Kingdom in favour of (re)joining.
It will be a slow slog – and may not even be in the lifetime of many reading this post.
Fantasy, of course, is more appealing for a supporter of the United Kingdom than this dull, distant prospect.
But that is all that these knavish tweets and tweeters are offering: fantasy.
Not all lies are written on the side of a big red bus.
**
Thank you for reading.
Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Doesn’t Article 50 say “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”?
What if the UK courts found the Brexit process to be unconstitutional? The requirements of article 50 would therefore not be satisfied.
Too late.
In the event of new information, time limits can be reset.
In any case, why not address the question as an academic exercise?
What would happen if a court found the A50 notice was never valid?
The EU could not argue that it was: for a start the A50(1) box was quite pointedly not ticked, but more significantly, they could only argue by dictating to us what our own constitution says.
I imagine they could be a bit upset, and would want to see the perpetrators in gaol for a long time, but I think we should be able to accomodate that easily enough.
Whichever way you dress this up , even to the extent of putting ‘ lipstick on a pig’ the academic arguments still have the shrill ring of ‘spilt milk’ and lack of acceptance that Brexit as a fact has now happend.
Sure, the impacts of Brexit are only now playing out.
Short of a working time machine, hard to see the referendum outcome being reversed.
I’m not a lawyer but:
1. Both the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and TCA are international treaties lodged at the UN
– undoing a treaty requires mutual agreement of UK & EU
2. Both WA and TCA were agreed by Parliament, therefore, by definition, deemed Constitutional at the time of signing.
3. Not clear to me how The Supreme Court could ‘overturn’ Parliament’s right to make laws or even if such a case was justicable at The Supreme Court.
Assuming someone with standing sued the EU institutions, perhaps a Czech or Slovenian Anglophile, and assuming it wasn’t out of time and wasn’t barred for reasons of the Luxembourg court’s deference to the EU27 who’ve long ago agreed to accept the UK’s Article 50 submission (and it’s vanishingly unlikely they wouldn’t be), and didn’t have the problem that the Treaties have been amended such that the court doesn’t really have anything left to rely on, then the court would then have to ask what *are* the UK’s constitutional requirements?
And those requirements to the best of everyone’s knowledge are these: that what the UK Parliament* orders by a majority, and, if needed, orders using the correct words of repeal, is by that fact of its being so ordered a) the position within UK law according to the highest authority known to it, and b) in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements.
So an action on those grounds is not merely hopeless, it’s categorically unarguable.
*Queen schmeen
Except for the small point that at no point did Parliament order that Brexit should happen: that decision was taken by David Cameron alone… arguably taken again by Theresa May, but at no point was parliament asked to decide.
In which case the Prime Minister’s decision to leave has to meet the constitutional and legal requirements for such a decision: they need to take into consideration all the things they need to consider and they should not be influenced by things that they ought not be influenced by.
This is why decsions such as these need to be taken by parliament and not by the people who are pulling the Prime Minister’s strings.
The referendum was the idea of Cameron.
He obviously had to create the EU Referendum Act to get that through Parliament.
The Millar case gave Parliament the right to vote on whether to give the government the ability to invoke Article 50 – which it comfortably did.
Hard to see the problem.
I would agree with Hairyloon, in theory, that decisions such as these need to be taken by Parliament, but I would at least add the caveats that
(1) MPs adhere to their Code of Conduct rather than being dictated to by whips,
(2) the Government does not make adherence to that first rule appear undemocratic (for example, by claiming that an advisory referendum was binding), and
(3) sufficient time is allowed for the relevant debates.
However, since it was Parliament that gave Theresa May the power to decide whether the UK should leave the EU, I agree that it could be argued that Parliament approved of Theresa May’s decision in advance (even though none of the rules (1), (2), nor (3) were followed when that approval was given).
My view is that the claim that the advisory Referendum was binding (which persisted even after courts confirmed otherwise in the Miller case) was unconstitutional and so Article 50 requirements were not met.
“My view is that the claim that the advisory Referendum was binding (which persisted even after courts confirmed otherwise in the Miller case) was unconstitutional and so Article 50 requirements were not met…”
This has a more than an incorrect strawman assertion ( or whiff) about it.
The Supreme Court in no way decided that the Advisory referendum was not binding* – it merely acknowledged, rightly, that Parliament had the right to decide that the Government could invoke Article 50.
No more or less.
* the EU referendum was not binding because of Parliament not being able to bind its successor principle.
”…Parliament had the right to decide that the Government could invoke Article 50”
Parliament had the right to decide *whether* the Government could invoke Article 50.
The EU referendum was not non-binding due to “Parliament not being able to bind its successor principle” but due to it being an advisory referendum – Hansard 16 June 2015 column 231: Winding-up speech by The Minister for Europe, 3rd paragraph: “The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year.”
By the same logic, we could have gotten out of the EU ( then known as the EEC) by ignoring the ‘advisory’ referendum of 1975.
Your opinion might have had added weight had we not heeded the 1975 advisory referendum.
The point is, the Government of the day led by Harold Wilson did agree to the result of that referendum.
Precedence eh – who’d have thought.
To try to address your substantive point: yes, it would have been possible for the UK government in 1975 to have brought forward a bill to repeal the 1972 Act. The government accepted the result most of its members had campaigned for. As I understand it, since the UK was already an EEC member, no further legislative action was required, so the splits in both then-main parties over the issue of “Europe” weren’t immediately further exacerbated.
The only interesting thing about the (factually-correct) “it’s only advisory” position articulated by the responsible minister in 2015, is what it was deployed against. Amendment 16 required jurisdiction-specific majorities. The point being that while, ultimately, “the people” are sovereign, crucially they are sovereign by-jurisdiction. [Which may go some way to explaining why the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution].
Knowledgeable UK replies to my original comment miss the bigger picture. A proper constitution should be capable of undoing any government action in any timeframe. At the very least it should be possible to put the ball into the EU’s court by saying sorry, it wasn’t constitutional, what are you going to do about it?
Argh, wishful thinking of the highest order:
1. In a representative democracy Parliament cannot bind its successor – so, even with our unwritten, (un)proper Constitution there’s nothing to stop a new referendum being considered
2. Unfortunately it was constitutional to hold a referendum when we did
3. Why oh why would UK say sorry ? For what ?
Acceptance of Brexit is part of the grieving process – agreement to Brexit, was and remains optional.
“Argh” I am sorry to be causing you such pain.
Not wishful thinking at all. Note my use of “should”. I am perfectly well aware that it is too late as DAG commented above.
Of course a parliament cannot not bind its successor in a representative democracy. That is not under debate. However, every parliament should be bound by the constitution. If there was a proper one.
Let me expand on that. In most modern democracies, the people are sovereign. They hold sway over all political processes via a standing document that sets out the overriding rules. A proper constitution in other words. Nothing a parliament can do can trump that constitution and even if any unconstitutionality is unnoticed at first, there is no time limit on bringing the constitution to bear to strike out an unconstitutional action by the parliament.
In the UK, the people are not sovereign. Therefore the UK’s constitution is not a proper constitution, rather it is merely the accumulated wisdoms of the governing classes. Parliament can do what it wants even if that means trampling each and every value that a majority of the public holds dear. The public’s only recourse is at the next election and if the opposition is equally appalling, the country must continue to suffer.
“In the UK, the people are not sovereign. Therefore the UK’s constitution is not a proper constitution…”
We the UK have, over the years, chosen to be what is called ( commonly understood) to be a Constitutional monarchy which gives sovereignty to the UK Parliament.
We, the people, knew that at the time of the 2016 referendum – under the terms of our ‘proper’ or commonly understood uncodified constitution.
The use of the word ‘proper’ adds no value – the World ( including the UK people) accepts the UK constitution for what it is – not some neo liberal abstraction of what others perceive to be a “proper’ constitution.
“In the UK, the people are not sovereign.”
That’s not entirely true, in Scotland sovereignty lies with the people.
“That’s not entirely true, in Scotland sovereignty lies with the people.”
What kind of sovereignty offers those who wield it no control whatsoever over their own destiny? The Scottish people cannot even decide to be independent without Westminster’s permission.
It was constitutional to hold a referendum, but it was unconstiutional to try and change the nature of that referendum in the middle of the campaign, and fundamentally unconstitutional to ignore the result in the way that they did.
The only thing that that result tells us is that parliament were severely out of touch, and the fact that their hubris overwrote that information proves beyond question that parliament is not fit for purpose.
This is not a question of accepting Brexit, it is the total destruction of British democracy, and that is not a thing that we should accept, at least not unless we have found a better alternative.
Unfortunately all of that which you write doesn’t change the result of the referendum.
The 16m v 17.4 m votes was based on simple majority agreed in the EU referendum bill.
Plus, the referendum was always advisory for reasons already given – Parliament can’t bind its successor.
Still getting feeling of non acceptance /spilt milk trope.
John Jones wrote ”The 16m v 17.4 m votes was based on simple majority agreed in the EU referendum bill.”
When that bill was debated it was argued that there was no need for a supermajority because the Referendum was to be only advisory. (For the same reason, saying that the Referendum was based on a simple majority does not mean much.) Had the Referendum been binding, a supermajority would have been appropriate to try to ensure that any vote to leave was supported by a majority of those franchised (and the number franchised may well have been greater).
Of course, if the Referendum had been binding and conducted properly, the voting pattern would have been different, but it is unlikely that the Leave vote would have reached the supermajority threshold. What we do know is that the UK has left the EU as a result of a decision by Theresa May based on a mythical binding referendum.
What is acceptable about that scam?
Shame that Lab/Lib/EU-tory’s didn’t request or argue for your super majority back in 2016.
As the UK honoured the 1975 advisory referendum ( to remain), some can/will argue that the Government ( of the day) had to honour the ‘advisory’ outcome.
Indeed. It wouldn’t be too much of a surprise to discover that some ERG-lite cabal was behind this cunning plan as such nonsense only serves to kick the Remain can further down the road.
Article 49 does imply a long process however the potential chaos to come after October 2021 & the lack so far of any plan or strategy for brexit, could suggest more closer links with the CU and SM without rejoining the EU (bino).
Of course the swivel-eyed loons would need to be undone first and until the Labour party gets its act together, that’s probably a long way off too. It’s the hope that kills…
I doubt that this is an ERG plan, given that the best argument for the decision being unconstitutional is that the people making and implimenting it are guilty of criminal misconduct.
Is it not the case that when a thing happens with no lawful basis and the law is caused to notice that the thing has happened, then in the eyes of the law it becomes as if it had not happened? Or at least in some cases.
There are much better examples than the prorogation of parliament, but none that leap to mind.
So if a court found that the decision to leave had not met our constitutional requirements that would mean that the A50 notice was never valid and everything that promulgated from it should be annulled.
Or do you say that a court could not make that finding?
Time limits would certainly be a hindrace…
If you are arguing that that won’t happen, you may well be right: irrespective of the law, that would be far too politcal for the courts to go anywhere near.
Goes to the heart of what’s justicable ….. under which Court.
Only the UK can determine its own constitutional requirements – Parliament is
sovereign in this respect. Precedence is the basis of what Common ( UK) law is still about, presumably?
Parliament may be sovereign, but they did not make the decision to leave and the Notification of Withdrawal Act was passed under false pretences.
And the issue has been to court once, as I recall it was deemed out of time and they failed to make the case anyway, but I don’t believe it was thrown out for want of justicability.
So the question turns to what are our constitutional requirements?
Do they, for example require that the decision maker exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that our electoral processes are not subject to foreign interference, or that the people are allowed the free expression of their opinon in accordance with protocols of the ECHR?
Should they do some analysis of the potential impact of the decision?
Does our constitution allow for a Prime Minister to change an advisory referendum as set out by parliament to a de-facto binding one on a mere whim?
I don’t know the answers to those, but it seems to me that they are all arguable. The issue we have now is that the question is well out of time…
Unless something new comes out of the woodwork.
“Do they, for example require that the decision maker exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that our electoral processes are not subject to foreign interference, or that the people are allowed the free expression of their opinon in accordance with protocols of the ECHR?
Should they do some analysis of the potential impact of the decision?
Does our constitution allow for a Prime Minister to change an advisory referendum as set out by parliament to a de-facto binding one on a mere whim..”
These issues are classic “what-aboutery” questions. They were extremely popular during the remainiac parliament of 2017-2019.
You then face issues of how to measure and enforce, what are essentially political decisions. The weakest is that of impact of the decision – it was leave or remain – the how we leave and what’s the impact was never asked on the exam/ballot paper.
If these questions were so popular, then you should have no difficulty in answering them, but as none of them were asked in court, any answers that you give could only ever be opinion.
There may be issues over how to measure and enforce political decisions, but those issues are by no means insurmountable, and political decisons should by no stretch be put beyond question.
This kind of logic has all the hallmark of best out of 3, or best out of 5 or ‘best out of n’ until the right decision to get whichever political decision the setter wants.
It’s very EU Commission savvy.
The question written on the ballot was simple, but other questions were inherently inferred by the referendum and those questions cannot be ignored simply for the expedience of the Brexidiocy.
Most fundamental of those questions was of whether the nation trusts the Prime Minister to keep his word.
Of course the government insists that such a question is beyond question, and it was a total abrogation of democracy for parliament to acede to that demand.
The rear-view mirror optic really is ‘looking backwards’.
Is it pedantic to suggest that “Remain” has ceased to be a relevant term, Britain has nowhere to remain except where she is.
Not pedantic. It still is a useful term, like Whig or Tory
Ive no beef about remain – I’m confident that we will remain outside of the EU regulatory ambit of SM and CU for some significant time.
I’d wager at least 45 years, given historical symmetry. Ok, it’s unlikely that the EU ( in its current form) will likely exist in 45 years I hear you shout.
The Untied Kingdom. I like that. Deliberate or not.
I lost my thread…
(Corrected)
It’s not often that I want a “Like” button on these pages… ;)
On the main point, BTW, I thought that the ECJ and others were of the view that the UK could undo its notification under Article 50 but this possibility would vanish on the signature of the Withdrawal Treaty. It would, therefore, have been a much better test of Parliament’s view to have a Revoke/Sign choice before them at the appropriate moment. However, the machinery of the politics was altogether against that, even though 6m or so people signed a petition in favour of Revoke. These 6m no doubt remain dischuffed but, so far, rendered correct, but unthanked, regarding the consequences of leaving.
Fully agree with you. I have noted the increasing chorus in the blogosphere and even in the mainstream media saying ‘we must rejoin the single market’.
As you note it’s not possible to be in the single market without being a full member of the EU or a member of the EEA with Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein.
To do either will require a formal request for accession and step one of that is that the the EU Commission must ascertain the request is genuinely the will of the majority and to that end it will require at a minimum a new referendum with [IMO] at least a 60% majority in favour and a Act of Parliament passed by the same threshold. No 52% vs 48% will suffice.
There is no chance of that support for at least a generation from England (85% of the population of the UK).
There is a huge difference between,
1.) trading as a third party in the geographic single market either under a comprehensive FTA (as does Canada) or as a member of the EU customs union (as does Turkey) and
2.) being an actual member of the seamless borderless single market with frictionless full free trade in both goods and and services. In this every part is considered as being domestic and under a single overarching law and courts regarding trade matters (the EEA mediated via the EFTA Court and having to follow not all, but a significant part of, the EU acquis communautaire.
The TCA that Johnson negotiated and which was ratified in Parliament to rapturous praise is now revealed to just be WTO terms with no tariffs but the full panoply of non-tariff barriers which will only grow with time as UK law and regulations diverge from those of the EU which the Brexit-Jacobins (the apt term of Chris Grey) in charge currently are determined to maximise so as to make rejoining the EU impossible.
Far more likely is the break up of the UK Union with NI and Scotland taking their own routes out and back into the EU (NI) and EEA or EU (Scotland). Both are distinct societies in the UK and have all along been firmly ‘remainer’ and both have been welcomed by officials of the EU/EEA to rejoin.
Dating since 1920 and updated in 1998 NI has a unique constitutional status as a hybrid both in the UK and a part of the whole island of Ireland and stays in the EU customs union under the NIP (part of the WA) that Johnson signed and Parliament ratified and thus is de facto still a part of the EU. All born in NI are citizens of both the UK and the ROI so we have not lost our rights like GB.
Just as Brexit is the NIP is “is a historical and legal fact”.
“As you note it’s not possible to be in the single market without being a full member of the EU or a member of the EEA with Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein.”
The EEA comprises two pillars – EU and EFTA – it’s noteworthy that Switzerland is also a member of EFTA.
As I understand it, Switzerland is;
“Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market. This means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals”
It’s access to the SM is via a large number of bilateral deals.
It’s also important to note that whilst Norway has access to the SM ( via EFTA) it is not part of the EU Customs Union – ergo, full frictionless trade with the EU is not feasible for many phytosanitary goods and some timber products.
Go look at the technology at the Norway/Swedish Border it’s impressive as are the customs posts /delays at busy times.
NIP is part of the Withdrawal Agreement & rightly as you say an historical fact.
Moving the border to the Irish Sea has unleashed ( sadly) other challenges as predicted. I’ve a horrible feeling that the GFA and NIP will come under intolerable strain in the months to come – real life has a habit of interceding in many a theoretical treaty.
One more point re Switzerland – it is not a member of the Customs Union.
Agreed and it’s therefore not frictionless either.
Pretty close to frictionless in practice because Switzerland has the highest level of trusted status.
Sorry, no, Mr Wilson, exporting to Switzerland is not ‘close to frictionless’ …. in a previous life I had to prepare exports to EU countries and Switzerland and preparing customs papers for loads to Switzerland was an utter pain!
Try crossing the border from France /Switzerland on a small country road near Basel.
When you’re met by a polite Swiss Customs officer on a sleepy Friday afternoon ( well they’re polite when I’ve met them) to prove what goods you’ve bought don’t exceed agreed volumes then you suddenly realise that the CU border between Switzerland /EU is very far from frictionless.
@Claudia @John Jones
By saying the Swiss-EU border is near frictionless I assumed exporters have the right documentation. However given the huge scale of mutual agreements between the EU and Switzerland the pathways for getting such paperwork are all in place and if correctly done the border crossing is smooth.
In contrast for example the EU-UK TCA has no MEA’s (eg no SPS deal) and so friction for many goods is maximum and will get worse as UK law, regulations and systems diverge over time.
As to the example of crossing the border on a country road near Basel, I’ve experienced exactly the same on a quiet road near Lake Constance and the inspection was was entirely aimed at making sure we were not bringing back significant amounts of (much cheaper) goods from Konstanz.
It’s easy to conflate having the right papers/forms with “frictionless”.
Plus, on quiet parts of the Swiss/France/German border it is the case that not all border posts are manned all of the time. Just to add a bit of frisson to the process.
Norway as an EFTA state but not in the CU (per Switzerland) also has significant Border post(s) with Sweden as it has no phytosanitary agreements ( or some timber agreements too) – no-one but no one claims frictionless* trade between Norway and the EEU
Generally recognised that Customs checks are less onerous ( but still not frictionless) than SM checks which include Rules of origin, standards conformity and SPS checks.
“By saying the Swiss-EU border is near frictionless I assumed exporters have the right documentation.”
Please don’t assume. Getting that documentation right was an utter utter pain and even when I thought I had got everything right, there was a weight discrepancy in the paperwork, which then created a whole host of problems all over again. And a desperate scramble to try and find the fault, remedy it and recreate the whole set of documentation, with the added time pressure of the logistics schedules!
Claudia – I’m completely with you.
I’m not sufficiently naïve or experienced to know that frictionless customs between EU & Switzerland just doesn’t exist, however one dresses the issue up.
Not being in the same Customs Union of the EU has costs/benefits.
I’m fully aware Switzerland is in the EFTA and has a unique status viz the EU that is not the same legally as the rest of the EEA nations although in practice it’s pretty near the same result, but I deliberately did not mention this in my first comment as it’s not applicable to the UK as I explain below.
Switzerland has hundreds of sectoral deals built over decades that must be constantly updated to match changes in EU rules (over which Switzerland has no say) and indeed a whole federal ministry in Bern is devoted to this process which isn’t easy given the highly decentralised nature of Switzerland and the requirement for referendums on many issues.
The reason Switzerland initially went this route is primarily that they wanted to preserve the absolute impression of neutrality by not being a member of any group so rejected joining the EU in 1992.
The current system is inefficient and very costly and both sides want to stop it and the EU has insisted. As you will be aware the federal Swiss government has negotiated a new overarching deal with the EU that essentially is a ‘Norway deal’ and it now needs to go to a national referendum.
There is a hiccup in that the SVP a populist and xenophobic right wing Eurosceptic party (the largest single party in the assembly with 68 of 200 seats) and aided by Eurosceptic members of left wing parties, has blocked the passage of a motion setting up a referendum on the issue the reason being they know opinion polls show the deal is popular and it would likely pass with a greater than 75% majority. They can do this because the Swiss Parliament works on consensus from all and not majority rule.
In reality this is a last gasp blocking measure and as time proceeds and Swiss business suffers due to increasing divergences then the pressure on the SVP will grow and the deal will be enacted.
The relevance to the UK is that the EU has been clear that it’s not interested in a Swiss type
arrangement with the UK, plus for Brexiters the insurmountable objection is that regardless of the Swiss or Norway approach both obey all four freedoms and pay dues and via different mechanisms both follow all EU law and regulations regarding trade in the SM. In my career I’ve been lucky to live and work in various nations including a short stint in Switzerland (Zurich) and it’s wonderful country but it’s model of direct democracy is not workable in the UK.
As to your comments about the NIP – I’m from NI and from a multigenerational unionist background and am quite confident the NIP is broadly popular and a workable way of preserving the unique constitutional status of NI although it will make NI a little more Irish and European than British. The hardline unionists are a minority view even in the Protestant community and are engaged with the help of English Brexit-Jacobins in trying to frustrate the NIP and will ultimately fail.
There’s something I don’t understand about this… What does the liar gain by the lies here?
I’m genuinely baffled as to why Fouchet should seek to mislead people in such a blatant manner.
Brexit may be here to stay. But other stuff moves on.
Can a party in an agreement unilaterally change their terms and conditions to waive the right by a trial involving a jury? Even if that jury would sit outside of their legal juristriction?
(I’ve just received updated T&C’s from a commercial entity for a widely used commercial product, whose commercial base is in another country. The updated T&C’s invoke a decision to wave a jury trial. I accept these terms on continuing to use said product).
About the Article 50 process, you correctly estimate that it would be very long and the commission would only welcome an adhesion request if a strong consensus in the UK was obvious which is not going to be any time soon.
But a point I seldom see made is that an adhesion is not only treated by the EU but also has to be accepted by every member state, according to their respective constitutions.
In France the constitution (art. 88-5) requires the same process than for a constitutional change : either a supermajority (60%) of both chambers reunited in Versailles, or a Nationwide referendum. No need to say this is not going to happen soon, and this is only France, there are the 26 others to consider too.
So no indeed, no rejoining for the next decades.
I think that your post is exhaustive, but I do not believe that, to quote you, “the commission would only welcome an adhesion request if a strong consensus in the UK was obvious.”
On the contrary, it will take generations to regain the international trust and credibility that was destroyed mainly as a result of the way in which the UK conducted the negotiations and what followed – the handling of the N.I. Protocol docet.
“will take generations to regain the international trust and credibility that was destroyed mainly as a result of the way in which the UK conducted the negotiations and what followed – the handling of the N.I. Protocol docet…”
Spot on – but it’s reciprocated.
Unless and until the EU does away with its ideological more tightly integrated political ambitions ( possibly the USofE) it’s extremely hard to see why the UK would seek ( say in the next 30-40 years) an acession request.
“Unless and until the EU does away with its ideological more tightly integrated political ambitions ( possibly the USofE) it’s extremely hard to see why the UK would seek ( say in the next 30-40 years) an acession request.”
The usual canard.
What is the EU? It is an agreement between sovereign states. The fact that factions within the EU wish for a federal outcome is no more relevant than that factions in the UK wish to stop all immigration or want the death penalty restored. The EU requires consensus to change treaties and there is absolutely no indication that the political will exists to go in the direction you describe.
‘its extremely hard to see why the UK would seek’ etc
You make the mistake of assuming the UK is a single unitary state and that England speaks for all of it.
I fully agree that England won’t seek accession to either the EEA or EU for at least a generation but Scotland and NI think totally differently and will take their own paths.
“Unless and until the EU does away with its ideological more tightly integrated political ambitions ( possibly the USofE) it’s extremely hard to see why the UK would seek ( say in the next 30-40 years) an accession request.”
Mr/Mrs Grace has already pointed out one important aspect of this sentence. I’d like to point out another: It talks of the UK, but the UK is not static, it is in flux at the moment. There is a widespread feeling that Scotland would like to be in the EU and I can see a Scottish accession request happening much sooner than the 30-40 years mentioned.
“There is a widespread feeling that Scotland would like to be in the EU and I can see a Scottish accession…”
Would like …. could like….. these are oft used phrases in the English Language.
Some key challenges still exist for Scotland to accede to anything.
1. A referendum has to be granted by Westminster
2. Scotland has to be clear what its currency will be after a successful ‘leave ‘ Referendum – don’t for one moment think that the BoE can or will allow the use of £/sterling – it ain’t gonna happen
3. Reality of any withdrawal agreement is likely to be c. 5-10 years
4. The border….. don’t forget the border – a wall, c. 6m high to preserve the sanctity of the EU SM/CU. If you think the NIP tricky – Id wager the Scottish Protocol/border to be 5 * a bigger issues.
5. To accede – Scotland has to commit to joining the euro – last opinion pole I saw – the Scots had no definitive agreement on wishing to join the euro whatsoever.
Taken all together – it’s an amusing idea that Scotland elite ( SNP) would want to join the EU – but what exactly would it join and when?
Yes, you are absolutely right, that there are some major issues before Scotland can join the EU and that the key challenge is in establishing an independent state. I don’t want to expand on the questions of Scottish independence as there will be future occasions where this will be a topic on this blog. Just quickly:
1. maybe, it’s debatable
2. no matter whether it’s Sterling, Euros or a newly established Groat – Scotland will have money.
3. Withdrawal agreement – five years, that’s ok. That gives time to set up alternative arrangements and get them to work.
4. yes, the border, there will be a customs and regulatory border. It won’t be quite as easy as the border in the Irish Sea, but a competent government should be able to cope.
5. the Euro. So what? Being able to buy/sell in a major market without currency risk will be a good thing. I’d be a bit sad to see the Scottish banknotes go, but maybe we could ask to have Scottish Euro notes? Given that there are national versions of Euro coins, it might not be impossible?
Your main question is why Scotland would want to join the EU? Because Scotland is a small country and it’d be advantageous to be in ‘a gang’. Also, Scotland is very definitely and consciously a European country and thus we’d like to be part of ‘Europe’.
“the Euro. So what? Being able to buy/sell in a major market without currency risk will be a good thing. ..”
Currency risk is, frankly, relatively trivial.
What national states in the Eurozone have quickly come to realise is that the ‘ one size fits all’ or ‘one size fits none’ of interest rate setting doesn’t lead to the holy grail of converging prices within the EZ.
Greater loss of fiscal policy and budgeting especially around tax rates is a near certainty for EZ counties. At this point Edinburgh becomes a quasi protectorate state of Brussels/Frankfurt.
Once the Scot’s realise the level of outsourced economic & monetary policy that will become necessary to join the EZ, it becomes easier to understand why many might not vote to leave the UK or, at least, not join the euro.
One of the main reasons for Brexit ( at least to some Brexiteers) was the increased level of caucusing by EZ countries. EZ will eventually have to lead to the EU – night follows day.
What the inborn British isolationism cannot accept is the fact that the EU (and her predecessors) is really an existential project – the inspiring document being Altiero Spinelli’s 1941 Ventotene Manifesto – that aims to prevails over the initial transactional one, necessary to build peace and prosperity in a Continent destroyed by nationalism, many other isms and two world wars.
Even Churchill advocated a kind of United States of Europe in 1946 and the steps that have been taken over the years with the various treaties are testimony of that aspiration.
As every critical mind knows, if with Brexit the UK is the loser, we in a civilized and liberal EU are not the winners.
Football apart, of course :)
“At this point Edinburgh becomes a quasi protectorate state of Brussels/Frankfurt.”
I think it is debatable how much influence Edinburgh has over monetary policy in the UK (via the BoE) or even fiscal policy (via the Treasury). There are quite a few people who think that currently Edinburgh is pretty much a protectorate of London and that by being part of the European institutions we’d have a seat at the table, when issues are discussed and we’d be able to influence the discussions and decisions.
Generations?
No, I think if we slapped the perpetrators in gaol for a suitably long sentence, then that would take us most of the way to the restoration of trust.
If… We have a saying in Rome: “se nonna avesse le ruote sarebbe un carretto” (if grannie had wheels she’d be a cart).
And we thought Gino D’Acampo was just being witty…
“If” is a wonderful word, but your comment suggests that it is a thing which ought not happen.
It may be the case that it will not happen, but that is only because of the inherent corruption in our law enforcement servcices and a general unwillingness on the part of the public to take such things into their own hands.