Report comment

The crucial difference between the referendum that led Britain to join the Common Market/European Community/European Union and the Brexit referendum is that the nature and constitution of the organisation we were joining was clear and known (even though it changed considerably after we became members via changes that we participated in). With the Brexit referendum the public had no idea what the political, economic, legal and social landscape would look like after leaving the EU because no-one (least of all the Leave campaign) could tell them. Broad brush assertions that 'we will be able to control our borders' and 'we will get back £350 million a week to spend on the NHS' (now clearly seen to be a lie) are no substitute for a detailed understanding of what will happen. That will only come after years (at least two and probably more) of negotiations and agreement (maybe) with our erstwhile EU partners. So, the Brexit referendum was, and can only ever have been, advisory - a test, indeed a very important test, of public opinion on the high level issue - Leave or Remain?

In constitutional terms, the vote was not binding on the Government or Parliament. This is because, constitutionally, it is the Queen in Parliament that is the sovereign body. We are a Parliamentary democracy, where the reins of power are held by Parliament, as led by the Government of the day. However, as a matter of political reality, the vote is binding because our politicians have confirmed, firmly, that they are treating it as binding (indeed, it is the very fact that they have expressly asserted that 'Brexit means Brexit' that tells us that the vote was not binding as a matter of law, otherwise the assertions would have been 'Brexit is binding upon us because the Referendum legislation says it is'). This is a matter, then, of political reality rather than law, but is nevertheless not something that can be ignored or made light of. Could the Government/Parliament call for a second referendum 'just to make sure', as Ireland did a few years ago? Yes, of course it could, because Parliament is sovereign. But, again, the political realities are that, at least in public, no-one in power wants to be seen to suggest that the voters might have got it wrong.

So, should the decision to invoke article 50 formally be one that the Prime Minister (presumably with the backing of her Cabinet colleagues) takes alone, as a matter of prerogative, or should it be one that Parliament votes on? With such an important matter, one would like to think the latter is more appropriate in a Parliamentary democracy. However, let us see what the court decides (if the action gets to a hearing). Unfortunately, it probably doesn't matter in the long run. This is because the article 50 process seems manifestly unsuited to its purpose.

Anyone who has ever negotiated anything at all will know that the only reliable process that leads to a binding commitment that works is one where one negotiates first to sort out the details of the proposed arrangements and then makes a decision after the negotiations to sign up to or walk away from the arrangements. How on earth does the negotiation process work where the commitment to the outcome (here, leaving the EU) precedes the negotiations?

At the very least the process here will need good will, good understanding on all sides of the political realities at home that underlie the approach to negotiation of each of the states involved, and their politicians, and the hope that some commitment to common self interest will prevent particular parties dragging their heels or blocking reasonable solutions to issues. And, in the end, will the British citizenry be happy with the outcome?

Just to take one obvious issue, will they be happy with continuing uncontrolled entry of EU nationals if access to the single market is negotiated on the basis of free movement of labour, or will they be happy with exclusion from the single market if that is what it takes to wrest back 'control of our borders'? The plain fact is that the country, and our politicians as well, are split on this issue. We need to sort out these kinds of argument at home before we head off into negotiations with our EU neighbours. As any negotiator knows, a party that goes into negotiations without a clear understanding of what it wants to get out of them is a party that is going to be taken for a ride by the other parties. And we need to remember that, with all the vast amount of EU influenced legislation on our statute books, Parliament will need to approve the volume of legislation that will be needed to unravel this (not just a matter of repealing the EC Act 1972, unfortunately). If Parliament only comes into the matter at the end, can we be sure that everything will go through as required?