The prospect of a second referendum is growing by the week, although this morning Theresa May explicitly warns against it, saying it would 'break faith' with the British people (HERE). This makes it more likely than ever. It looks certain her negotiated deal will not make it through parliament and there seems no majority for any Brexit outcome. There is talk of holding a series of votes in the House to see if MPs can coalesce around something but there is scepticism about ever reaching any kind of consensus.
It may be that a second referendum is eventually the only option to try and clear the logjam.
It is clear to me that there will one day be another referendum in any case, simply because the demographic shift, as young pro-EU voters replace older anti-EU ones, will force a rethink. The only question is if we can have one before irreparable damage is done to the nation. And quite why another referendum would break faith with anybody is not clear to me. Either the original decision is confirmed or the will of the people has changed. What is the problem?
Fox was on TV yesterday (HERE) saying:
"If the deal could not get through the Commons, Parliament would have to decide on the alternatives."
And I assume one alternative is
to hold a second referendum.
If MPs can agree something
other than the current deal, and want to start negotiating some entirely new
proposal, the Irish Foreign Minister (HERE)
says we will either have to ask for an extension to the Article 50 period or revoke
the notification temporarily. Either way, it would mean another delay, and
perhaps a long one, in which case the 2016 mandate is going to look even more
dated.
A constitutional law
blog (HERE) looks at it from the position of the government deciding it wants another referendum.
"For one thing, the UCL Constitution Unit
has shown that a new referendum will need at least 22 weeks to organize. This
means that even if the UK Government decides it wants to hold a referendum to
reverse Brexit it is likely to need to obtain the agreement of the other 27
Member States to extend the two-year period under Article 50 to give it time to
organize this vote. Whether the Member States would agree to such an extension
unless the UK government promised to campaign for remain is very
uncertain".
But whatever the government decides, provided it is NOT the current deal an extension to Article 50 would be needed and the EU will certainly become involved. The blog goes on to examine whether the government could temporarily revoke the notification to give it more time, but this looks like a political and legal minefield with the ECJ potentially having to step in again. I think the government would want to avoid this if at all possible. If they pull the Article 50 notification it would have to be permanent I think.
Anyway, these lawyerly types think that the EU will be involved if any delay to Article 50 is needed. In which case, the price of getting that extension may well be to have a second referendum with the remain option (a) on the ballot and (b) the government would have to campaign for it.
And I am not convinced the EU would allow no deal to be put to the vote at all.
No deal would damage the EU although it would
damage the UK far more. Would it be responsible for the EU and the UK to offer
such an option? I don't believe so.
This effectively means the choice on the ballot would be leave under whatever is available or remain in the EU. And since most people think membership represents the best deal there is, I think remain would win..
