We are now nearing the 2 year deadline, 29th March 2019 at 11pm, and we are in full political and economical turmoil.
EU leaders have approved an agreement on the UK’s withdrawal and future relations – insisting it is the “best and only deal possible”. After 20 months of negotiations, the 27 leaders gave the deal their blessing after less than an hour’s discussion. They said the deal – which needs to be approved by the UK Parliament – paved the way for an “orderly withdrawal”. Theresa May said the deal “delivered for the British people” and set the UK “on course for a prosperous future”. The reaction back in Britain was as anticipated…painful for the PM. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn responded to Sunday’s summit by calling the deal “the worst of all worlds”. He said his party would oppose it, but would work with others “to block a no deal outcome” and ensure “a sensible deal” was on the table. Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said he would find it “very, very difficult” to support the agreement as it stood. “I don’t believe that, so far, this deal delivers on what the British people really voted for,” he told Sky’s Sophy Ridge show. “I think it has ceded too much control.” SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon – who wanted to stay in the EU – said it was a “bad deal” and Parliament should consider “better alternatives”, such as remaining in the single market and customs union permanently. And Democratic Unionist leader Arlene Foster – who wants to leave the EU – said her party’s parliamentary pact with the Conservatives would be reviewed if MPs approved the deal.
So in a nutshell, unless a surprise pops up, this proposal should be defeated in parliament. But in the event, it went through what should happen next? Well for me it is clear, there should be a second referendum to ask whether:
- Yes I want to leave the EU and accept the deal (based on the fact that it would have been approved by parliament)
- Yes I want to leave the EU but reject the deal and agree to a no deal
- No I don’t want to leave the EU
Why is a second referendum a necessity and stop feeding me rubbish about being anti-democratic?
Do people understand what they were voting for 2 years ago? The answer is simple NO. Nobody knew, whether you are a remain or leave supporter. Do they now appreciate the consequences? Most likely. However, have we got a better understanding 2 years on? Again I would argue NOT. Yes we have a bit more specifics but quite frankly nowhere enough to make an educated decision.
So why do I push for a second referendum? More than anything, in order to put the whole thing to bed, kill it once and for all. The whole debacle has come to a high price already. Look at the economic factors, doom and gloom:
- Since the EU referendum, strong growth relative to other G7 economies has tailed off (NEGATIVE)
- Remarkable strength of unemployment (POSITIVE)
- Wage growth has been hit by higher inflation (NEGATIVE)
- Household have thrown caution to the wind – people are saving not spending (NEGATIVE)
- Companies are reluctant to invest (NEGATIVE)
- Investors still mark down UK assets (NEGATIVE)
You do not believe me? Check it out for yourself https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9. A country divided that will not heal its differences.
Because it has been done before, Ireland and Denmark
In the first rounds in both countries, as expected, the No campaign’s arguments tapped into the sensitive subjects relevant to society. In Denmark, the No side argued that the Maastricht Treaty would lead to loss of Danish sovereignty in a new United States of Europe, which would undermine or abolish the Danish currency and Danish citizenship. In Ireland during both the Nice and Lisbon referendums, the No campaigners repeatedly argued that the treaties would change Irish laws on abortion, lead to a loss of sovereignty, undermine Ireland’s military neutrality, and remove its permanent EU Commissioner.
In the second round, however, the arguments changed. The Yes side argued that Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side. With the Edinburgh Agreement, Denmark would have four opt-outs in the fields of European citizenship, economic and monetary union, defence policy, and justice and home affairs. Ireland, on the other hand, gained guarantees concerning its military neutrality with the Seville Declaration after the Nice referendum, and on the Irish commissioner, competency over tax rates, abortion, neutrality, and workers’ rights after the Lisbon referendum.
Because this referendum was not legally binding and is being challenged at the ECJ
Let me remind you that the referendum was only advisory. Its result did not place a legally binding obligation on MPs to get Britain out of the EU. The safeguards that allow for legally binding elections to be re-run in the event of rule breaches did not, therefore, apply to the EU referendum.
The supreme court has dismissed an attempt by the Brexit secretary to derail a European court hearing into whether article 50 – which triggered the UK’s departure from the EU – could be reversed. In a decision released on Tuesday, the justices refused the government permission to challenge a ruling by Scotland’s highest court that the issue should be referred to the European court of justice in Luxembourg. The supreme court’s conclusion came after three justices, including the president of the court, Lady Hale, had considered the written request from the Department for Exiting the European Union. The way now appears clear for the European court of justice to proceed with its emergency hearing, scheduled for 27 November. So watch the space.
In my opinion, this referendum has been a shamble from start to…most likely finish. No one knew what they voted for and we are not better 2 years on. Knowing that this referendum was not legally binding, all it now needs is for the proposal to be rejected and pave the way for a second referendum to put it to bed. It is clear that a second referendum would be democratic through new general elections.
PS: In order to avoid bad behaviour from both camps, their should be a joint paper sent to all households clearly articulating the points for and against. If this gets done and Brits decide to exit, then and only then, will I accept it