From Brexit to Bremain?
So, that happened.
Last month in an unprecedented referendum, a majority of UK voters advocated leaving the European Union largely amid fears from many that immigration, sovereignty, and the British national identity is drifting out of control.
The response, as predicted, was not pretty. The British pound sunk to its lowest value against the dollar in 30 years. Global stock markets lost $3 trillion in two days. David Cameron, the current prime minister and chief proponent of the Remain camp, pledged that he would resign in October. Scotland, having voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU, signaled that it might be time to hold a referendum of their own to break from the UK. Northern Ireland suggested seceding as well. Even elsewhere in Europe, emboldened right wing politicians hinted at their own EU exit strategies. The future of the largest trading bloc in the world has never been more uncertain.
In the midst of all this, some of the most fervent Brexit supporters are starting to walk back their promises and suggest that the divorce might not happen after all. Nigel Farage, the (former) leader of the UK Independence Party, or UKIP, admitted that £350 million per week of EU dues promised for the National Health Service if the Leave campaign was successful might actually not be realistic. Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, former favorite to succeed Cameron, and perhaps the most visible supporter of Brexit, seemed to suggest that Britain is now free to hammer out a new deal with the EU leadership, conceding that “the UK will always be part of Europe,” as if the entire endeavor was just one (very costly) negotiation tactic. Similarly, many Brexit voters regret voting for Brexit, apparently not being fully aware of the consequences, or that they might actually win.
Is there really a way back from the brink, once you’ve already jumped off?
First of all, there’s no definitive answer on whether Britain actually Brexited. The vote was a democratic decision, but for all the damage that has been done it has always been legally non-binding and merely advisory — the British Parliament holds the final say. In order for the UK and the EU to finally part ways, the UK government needs to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins a negotiation process between an exiting state and the EU that can take up to two years. So far, no one has, and Cameron has made clear that he will push the responsibility to his successor. That won’t be until months from now.
Regardless, the Europeans are done with this mess. While Leavers are hanging their hat on the possibility of hashing out a deal in which the UK enjoys access to the European single market while eschewing the free movement of labor that other European countries must foster in exchange, the EU leadership naturally considers that to be a non-starter. Angela Merkel maintained that the UK was not about to “cherry-pick” what they could get out of EU membership. “I want to say very clearly tonight I see no way to reverse this,” she said. Furthermore, the leader of the EU Council, Donald Tusk, seems ready to begin the exit process as soon as possible in order to control the economic fallout.
In spite of this, some believe that the UK is not about to leave the EU for a number of reasons, one being that a Brexit solely by referendum might also be illegal. Without going too deeply into the arcane details of British law (at least from my perspective), the Scottish Parliament needs to approve any measure that may affect the application of EU law in Scotland. Even though Scottish Parliament is “devolved,” meaning that their authority is secondary to the British Parliament, since this is on a national level, it would have to be overturned by the UK proper, which means a potentially nasty debate in the Commons is likely. A law firm recently filed a lawsuit arguing for just that, claiming that the UK cannot legally leave the EU without a formal parliamentary vote.
The critics are right that the real work in making Brexit a reality lies within Parliament, and I would wager thusly the status quo will remain in some form or another. A pretty healthy majority of MPs and cabinet officials are against Brexit, and that’s not insignificant. Even though David Cameron shot down the prospect of a second referendum — a new vote was “not remotely in the cards,” he insisted — there is enough history of governments ignoring referenda, a recent and notable example being Greece over EU austerity measures. And who knows what sort of economic pain may transpire before voters figure out that leaving wasn’t such a good idea after all. Two years maximum is a long time to negotiate a deal, and more importantly, for minds to change.
Former State Department official Phillip Gordon, speaking on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS last week, put it quite nicely, calling a walk back from Brexit “unlikely, but it’s also not crazy:”
The thing about this is the answer to most of these questions is ‘We just don’t know.’
This referendum clearly is the start of a process and not the end of a process. And it starts a process that will begin with trying to figure out the terms of the withdrawal, which will already be incredibly complicated, as they pick apart exactly what it means to withdraw.
And then there will inevitably be some new relationship between Britain and the European Union. We just don’t know what it is, how much of a single market, how much free movement of labor, what sort of other arrangements. I don’t think it’s completely crazy to imagine a scenario whereby, once they start down that road and they realize that all of the other options are bad. […] They might start to say, well, can we rebuild something? And pretty soon it starts to look like European Union membership.
Either way, the Tories have placed themselves in the unwelcome position of having to choose what kind of pain is more endurable, the wrath of their electorate, or that of an economy hamstrung by the misguided.
