The UK’s Soft Exit from the EU
Author(s): Michael John Bramham and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Assorted In-Sights (In-Sight Publishing)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/11/18
One of the biggest ongoing issues in the headlines is Brexit, which is the motion for Britain to leave the European Union. On June 23, 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether or not the country should stay in the European Union. The question asked in that referendum was the following: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The votes were open to British, Irish, and Commonwealth citizens over the age of 18. 52% of the UK population voted in favor of leaving the EU. Prime Minister Theresa May stated that Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union would be invoked to implement the results of the referendum to leave the EU. A Department of Exiting the European Union was created in the light of this.
Britain’s membership in the European Union has been controversial since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which ushered in a new era of closer integration in Europe. This is, in part, due to unresolved historical questions of identity that have plagued the British political psyche since the dissolution of the British Empire.
Indeed, Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union notes the statement from the Lisbon Treaty that provides the right of the member state, in this case the UK, to exit the European Union. Prior to that point, the potential for any sort of withdrawal from the EU was difficult. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has been the main campaigner in support of leaving the EU since its foundation in 1993.
UKIP was established to campaign against continued integration with the European Union and to campaign for the UK to leave. UKIP was not alone in its hostility to the EU. In fact, many Conservative Party backbench MPs also came to oppose the EU for its liberal internationalist agenda. Although, largely a marginal player, UKIP was able to bring the issue of the EU into the mainstream from the mid-2000s onwards, largely thanks to the increasing division within the Conservative Party over the issue between the party’s traditional conservative and more neoliberal factions.
Seeking to resolve the increasing division in his party, under pressure from anti-EU MPs and hoping to silence opposition to the EU, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to have a referendum on the issue as a major part of his manifesto at the last general election in 2015.
Unfortunately, he underestimated the strength of opposition, the lack of knowledge about the EU among certain elements of the general public and the depth of the division in his own party.
The result was that 51.89% of voters voted in favour of leaving the EU to 48.11% in favour of remain. Discredited, Prime Minister Cameron announced his resignation a few hours after the result was announced leading to the accession of his Home Secretary Theresa May to the premiership on 13th July.
The main complication in the light of the referendum vote is the fact that there is an ongoing debate over whether or not PM May has the right to initiate proceedings for leaving the EU, or if she needs to win a vote in Parliament first. It is a legal dispute.
This raises complications around the political and legal history of the country. Take, for example, the half-reformed status of the UK, and the systems, some of them, that haven’t changed since the 17th century and the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688.
The government claims it can use the PM’s royal prerogative to trigger proceedings. However, given that the UK entered the EU by act of parliament, campaigners are arguing they need another act of parliament in order to leave.
When Britain established itself as a parliamentary democracy they did so by effectively transferring most of the absolute powers of the monarch to parliament and through parliament to the Prime Minister. Thus, today, the Prime Minister has many reserve executive powers they can call upon via the Queen, which are leftovers from the days of absolute monarchy.
However, May’s ability to use these powers at this juncture are ambiguous due to the fact that as an international treaty it was an act of parliament that took the UK into the EU and acts of parliament cannot be repealed by anyone except parliament.
Another complication, which has been of comfort to remain campaigners, is that the act that committed the government to having a referendum quite clearly states that it was ‘advisory’ and not legally binding.
As such, the government and parliament are under no legal obligation to leave the EU in spite of a leave vote, which leaves the UK parliament and the public in a bind regarding the EU.
Especially since the majority of MPs were in favour of staying in the EU, even in spite of this glaring complication and the majority of the MPs having been in favour of staying in the EU, PM May has vowed to push ahead through the legal wilderness to ascertain the coveted Brexit, CBC reports.
New developments in the past few days have seen the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn announce that his party would block any deal over Brexit that did not ensure the UK’s continued access to the single-market.
This is a blow to Theresa May and her cabinet colleagues who seek a ‘hard Brexit’ which would inevitably have to include a withdrawal from the single-market in order to be implemented. With the referendum turnout voting in favour of Brexit the possibility of leaving the EU seems likely. However, with the legal complications, the opposition in parliament and the demands for continued access to the single-market, then PM May, if she does go through with Brexit, may be forced to go for a ‘soft Brexit’ rather than a ‘hard’ one.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 
Comments are closed.