Brexit: Are we sure that “Leave means Leave”?

The direc­tion taken by the Bri­tish govern­ment wor­ries eve­ry­bo­dy, both Tories and Labour.
Jo John­son has resi­gned as mini­ster of trans­port. He denoun­ces an «Inco­he­rent Bre­xit» and sta­tes that it «Is now impe­ra­ti­ve to go back to the peo­ple».
Sadiq Kahn, the Lon­don mayor, addres­ses the exe­cu­ti­ve direc­tly and demands that: «The Bri­tish public should have a say on the out­co­me of tho­se nego­tia­tions inclu­ding the option of stay­ing in EU».
Also the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty, as testi­fied by a let­ter to the Sun­day Times signed by more than 70 entre­pre­neurs lea­ders, has cal­led for a public vote on The­re­sa May’s deal.

Are they asking for a new referendum?

The pri­me mini­ster has alrea­dy been clear on this point say­ing that «The govern­ment will never accept a second refe­ren­dum». Still, the time is run­ning out and the­re is no final agree­ment. The dead­li­ne is on March the 29th, and the two par­ties are still discus­sing impor­tant issues.
They want to regu­la­te the Nor­thern Ire­land fron­tier, which is the only phy­si­cal con­tact bet­ween UK and EU, in order to main­tain an open bor­der. Indeed, the­re is still con­fu­sion about what kind of custom union is coming after the two years of tran­si­tion period. Moreo­ver, even if they find an agree­ment the par­lia­ment will have to appro­ve the govern­ment proposal.
An even­tual rejec­tion could lead to dif­fe­rent scenarios:

  • Gene­ral elections
  • A new referendum
  • Hard Bre­xit  

Jere­my Cor­by, lea­der of the Labour par­ty, belie­ves that is impos­si­ble to stop Bre­xit. Once trig­ge­red arti­cle 50 of TEU — Trea­ty on Euro­pean Union — the pro­cess is irre­ver­si­ble. In rea­li­ty, this is not true: a new refe­ren­dum could be held throu­gh a par­lia­ment act but this would not be poli­ti­cal­ly convenient.

What could it mean for the people who voted ‘remain’?

They would stop belie­ving in demo­cra­tic deci­sions and start fee­ling power­less. In addi­tion, if this time the out­co­me would be dif­fe­rent, poli­tics would have sho­wed them that Lon­don —  the esta­blish­ment — always wins.
The after­math would be easy to under­stand. It could be fer­ti­le ground for far-right popu­li­st lea­ders to attack demo­cra­tic insti­tu­tions and to radi­ca­li­ze public opinion.
Euro­pean Union would be, as usual, the sca­pe­goat and the con­struc­ti­ve dia­lo­gue on refor­ming the Euro­pean insti­tu­tions would be stop­ped. Fur­ther­mo­re, it would dele­gi­ti­mi­ze direct demo­cra­cy and refe­ren­dum legal strength.

Europe’s best hopes lie in the British capacity to face and solve the very social and economic problems that have determined Brexit.

Yet, not eve­ry­thing is lost; the Bri­tish govern­ment will always have the pos­si­bi­li­ty to rejoin EU thanks to the point 5 of arti­cle 50: «If a Sta­te which has with­dra­wn from the Union asks to rejoin, its reque­st shall be sub­ject to the pro­ce­du­re refer­red to in Arti­cle 49 (Mem­ber­ship cri­te­ria)».

Con­di­vi­di:
Federico Sarchiapone
Stu­den­te di giu­ri­spru­den­za, appas­sio­na­to di poli­ti­ca e del­le sue riper­cus­sio­ni sul dirit­to. Amo l’i­ta­lia­ni­tà ma cer­co di ave­re una visio­ne cosmopolita.
About Federico Sarchiapone 9 Articoli
Studente di giurisprudenza, appassionato di politica e delle sue ripercussioni sul diritto. Amo l'italianità ma cerco di avere una visione cosmopolita.