The Brexit Blog

The Brexit Blog
— Lees op chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/

The blog illustrates the challenges of making really important decisions in modern democracies, and particularly in countries with an electoral system which more or less result in a two-party parliament. Referendums and two-party parliaments tend to create yes-no options, not compromises, where today in Great Britain, compromise is the only way forward.

Of course, the referendum in-out was foolish, because an informed politian could and should have known that the consequences of a straight “out” would be very serious indeed and that large majorities of the British population, once informed, would not be willing to accept these. This is very clearly visible today in Parliament.

For a “modified out”, unavoidable in our modern networked world, a compromise is inevitable. In the two-party system, this compromise first of all has to be sought within the governing party, because breaking party ranks would fracture the party and inevitably would bring the government down. If this compromise cannot be achieved (as is the case today), “compromise partners” have to be sought, inevitably with or within the opposition party. This will most likely lead to the disintegration of the governing party and, consequently, the fall of the government and, normally, new elections. More about these later.

In the Brexit case, the deadline created by triggering article 50 is a major problem for the time needed to hold new elections. According to the EU court (oh, irony) Britain can retract article 50 unilaterly, however only if meant as a permanent measure. If Britain wants to uphold the outcome of the referendum, at least untill after the elections, this is no option and the cooperation of the EU would be needed to extend the deadline. Given the fact that the EU wants to avoid a hard Brexit just as much as the majority in Britain, this extension most likely will be given. There will also, obviouly, be conditions, but it is unlikely that the EU will put a lot of pressure on the process. Problems, like the EU elections, can somehow be solved.

If the “out” result of the referendum is maintained, the next government, from whichever color it may be, faces the same problem as described before: the need to compromise. In the current harsh political climate it is unlikely that this can be achieved. It will take time to draw this conclusion however, presumably as much time as will be allotted by the EU as part of the delay of the article 50 deadline. A new crisis will then occur.

A new referendum without a very different approach will not solve the stalemate.

The only way forward thus is to go back to the “in-out” question of the referendum. The population can only fairly be asked to choose if it can understand the implications of a choice. These implications will be defined by a compromise, thus a more or less detailed agreement with the EU about the future relationship (as opposed to the current “statement of intentions”, which has no binding implications and will by most be considered as meaningless). This will be a difficult process, but it can be done.

Considering the British newly reasoned positions on various subjects, the EU-27 may be willing to integrate those into new EU agreements and regulations (the pre-referendum negotiations cannot be considered as serious negotiations, we know a lot more by now and political circumstances in Europe have changed as well). In this case, Britain can decide (by referendum or otherwise) to stay in the Union. Strategically, this would be the best outcome for all parties concerned. If Britain decides to leave anyway, it will at least have a negotiated compromise on the future relationship, which it could not have achieved on its’ own. This is, although a second-best, beneficial to Britain, but also to the EU.

Concluding: as quickly as possible delay the article 50 deadline (with say 2 years) and start negotiations about the future relatiosnhip.