Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Can UK exit from the EU still be avoided? More arguments for saying it can

by Brian · 2 August, 2016

The following is the full text of a new Ephems post at http://www.barder.com/4750. Please post any comments on it there, not in reply to this email.  Thanks.

In a helpful comment on my earlier post, ‘ObiterJ’ has helpfully drawn attention to an article by the philosopher and commentator Professor A C Grayling in which he states forcefully the legal and constitutional case for parliament to reverse the verdict of the (advisory only) EU referendum. This is clearly helpful if the calamity of Brexit is even now to be averted.  But however strong the professor’s legal argument may be, and it is very strong indeed, I can see many MPs and peers being afraid to act on it because on its own it will be misrepresented as an unacceptably arrogant act by the élitist establishment claiming to know better than the millions of people who voted to Leave — a million or so more than those who voted to Remain — and a flagrant breach of party leaders’ promises to respect the result of the referendum.

I believe however that it can also (not instead) be justified on other and much more persuasive grounds as a necessary opportunity for the British people to give their opinion, at the appropriate moment and in the most appropriate way, on whether the terms of our exit from the EU and above all whether the terms of our future relationship with the EU, when these are sufficiently clear and known, are acceptable or not.  It would have to be made clear that if these terms are rejected by popular vote, the UK will remain a member of the EU on the same terms as before but able to seek changes and reforms from within. If the terms were to be accepted by popular vote, parliament could be expected (but still not constitutionally obliged) to go ahead and approve them and the UK would leave the EU on those terms.

It could be properly stressed that this would not be a case of “a second referendum” held in the hope that the electorate would change its mind.  The 23 June referendum result will have been respected by the discussion with our EU partners of the terms of Brexit and of future relations with the EU.  The question put to the electorate now would be quite different: “These are the best terms we can hope to get: do you wish to accept them, yes or no?”  Asking the people to decide whether or not to approve the terms can hardly be called undemocratic, nor a betrayal of the Brexiteer voters in June.

Finally, the choice would almost certainly have to be made in a general election, not in a second referendum.

The LibDems have already come out loud and clear in favour of allowing parliament to decide whether to proceed with Brexit or not.  Good for them.  But this seems unlikely to run unless in the form of a further popular consultation on the terms.  And for that to be an option, invoking Article 50 must be deferred until the terms of exit and future relations have been worked out, at least in outline, between the British and other EU governments, and the outcome put to the people of the UK for acceptance or rejection.

The power to decide whether and if so when to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty rests exclusively in the hands of Mrs May, the prime minister, and no-one else’s.  It’s Britain’s only bargaining chip.  It must not be carelessly or prematurely thrown away.

Brian

Search this site

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences 
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
  • Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
  • Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
  • The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
  • Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

  • Next story Fred Cornwell’s War: a new history of one man’s and his family’s wartime experiences, 1942-46
  • Previous story Is Brexit now inevitable? Not yet by a long chalk

Recent comments


    Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
    • Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
    • Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }

    The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
    • Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }

    A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
    • Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }

    The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
    • V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
    • Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }

    The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
    • Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }

    Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
    • xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }

    A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }

    More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
    • Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
    • Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }

    Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
    • Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
    • Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
    • William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
    • Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
    • Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }

    Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
    • Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
  • Older »

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. 2 August, 2017
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted 5 July, 2017
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos 20 June, 2017
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences  9 June, 2017
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome 2 June, 2017

Search this site

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog © 2021. All Rights Reserved.