Politics

Theresa May podría respaldar un nuevo referendo por el Brexit

Oct 23, 2018 Anatole Kaletsky

LONDRES – Ahora que las negociaciones por el Brexit entran en la recta final, un punto muerto se ha convertido en el desenlace más probable. Son buenas noticias. No significa que Gran Bretaña “se quedará afuera” de la Unión Europea sin ningún acuerdo: los acuerdos en la Unión Europea tienden a cerrarse en el último minuto. Pero el parlamento británico probablemente rechace cualquier acuerdo que logre negociar la primera ministra Theresa May con los líderes europeos, y la manera más factible de poner fin al estancamiento será realizar un nuevo referendo que reconsidere la decisión de abandonar la UE.

Hasta hace poco, la lógica descartaba esta posibilidad. Pero ahora las mecánicas políticas que podrían conducir a un nuevo referendo y a la cancelación del Brexit se están volviendo más claras.

Cualquier versión del Brexit que proponga hoy May enfrenta un veto. Un “Brexit blando” al estilo noruego que mantenga a Gran Bretaña en las estructuras comerciales de la UE sería bloqueado por los euroescépticos en el Partido Conservador de May. Un “Brexit duro”, que exija controles fronterizos con la República de Irlanda, es inaceptable para el gobierno irlandés y para la UE. Y un acuerdo híbrido que retire a Gran Bretaña del mercado único de la UE pero mantenga adentro a Irlanda del Norte sería un factor decisivo para el Partido Unionista Democrático de Irlanda del Norte, cuyo respaldo May necesita para mantenerse en el poder.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 Comments on this article

Christian Moon Oct 25, 2018

The referendum was promised by the Conservatives to stop its voters continuing to defect to UKIP. If the Conservatives do not deliver Brexit, then it will still be outflanked by a party that will.

The theological exaggeration of the Irish border issue is a transparent pretext, calculated as something intractable only by the EU/Remain interest. It can be declared resolved at will, but instead it's intended to give cover to the UK government for when the time comes for it to insist that further concessions were unavoidable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Oct 25, 2018

THE VOTE WAS FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY - NOT INSECURITY
The analogy most appropriate is NATO - and a European referendum.
While France may delight in becoming the Defender of Europe, others will block.
Any exit from NATO will not pass muster in the small nations of EU.
Poland and the erstwhile East European Nations will defy France.
Netherlands and the Hanseatic League nations will defy France.
Hence a European referendum to exit NATO will rightly be flawed and fail.
Until European Unionization creates a real alternative that guarantees SECURITY.

Economics has reiterated its voice on Brexit - the real alternatives are conjectures.
Brexiteers have been unable to coalesce those conjectures into real options.
Economic Security is perhaps as important as Defense - any exits only when sure.
Two years have not yet created The confidence needed post Brexit.
Brussels will not help - rather humiliation is its preferred option like in Greece.
Britain never voted for a future that is a leap into the dark.
The divorce deal must be economically sound - and until secured, better blocked.

Perhaps a General Election or a Referendum that votes on The Brussels Terms.
Not a repeat Referendum - but what the Author suggests.
Like NATO Exit - where European Union will block until secured alternative exists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Robinson Oct 25, 2018

The European Union, in its present conception, is dead. It tried to be a "über-government" in which all of its members were merely to be "The United States of Europe, with its capitol in Brussels, DC." Economically speaking, it is "oxen yoked unequally together."

Europe is not, and will never be, a mere collection of "states," beholden to a central government that their people did not elect.

Britain -will- "exit," and other nations one-by-one will follow their lead. And so, the world's great experiment in "globalism" will be over, as nations re-remember what "sovereignty" is for, why we have it, and why we embrace it.

It may seem strange when I assert that Donald Trump's "America First!" strategy is brilliant: if every nation on Earth did this (with regard to their respective sovereign nations), all of them stubbornly pulling towards the middle and championing the interests of their own people "first," only the strongest possible international treaties would survive. "European Union 1.0," that never-ending land of compromise and obeying the word of someone you didn't elect, would never have gotten off the ground. We would not be discarding it today; we'd have no need to.

In the end, some form of European Union will continue to exist, but it will be much different, and much smaller, than it is today. It will be, as it first started out to be, a -trade- union only.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Akhurst Oct 25, 2018

This somewhat optimistic analysis ignores the fact the prime ministers (and governments) will invariably seek to hang-on to their job for as long as possible, even when all around them know change is inevitable. Therefore, May is unlikely to take any action that will cost her the premiership or the Tories the government.

It seems more than likely that the UK and EU will not reach agreement on Brexit in time to enter the 21 month exit phase from March 2019. That leaves three options: hard-Brexit, extend the negotiation/transition period or the UK stays in the EU. The first and last options will not give May a majority in her party and will therefore end her term. An extension might get Tory party support, but is probably a card that can only be played once and for a fairly short extension. Thus with both the UK and EU making favourable noises a limited extension may seem the most likely scenario. But...

Savy Tories may see an extension as an opportunity to kick the problem into Labour’s camp since it looks likely Corbyn will win whatever the Conservatives do. Whatever Brexit looks like can then be blamed on Labour and the Tories can claim that they did their best to negotiate a good deal but were undermined by a partisan Labour Party. However, such an outcome may be just as unlikely as a soft-Brexit under May given that it is unlikely she will be able to muster a majority in her own party let alone in parliament to get a long enough extension agreed.

By any analysis a hard-Brexit must remain most likely as it needs no one’s approval but just the lack of an alternative capable of gaining majority support in both the Tory party and parliament.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Oct 24, 2018

Hi Anatole,

"Why would she not seize this chance?"

Because the decision has already been made and the UK is proceeding inexorably towards Brexit. There is no stopping it. No, not even for Europhile elites who think the sky will fall on March 29, 2019.

The UK is not going to have referendum after referendum until Britons produce the result that Europhile elites want, as in the Irish experience.

The UK will leave the EU on March 29, 2019 and nothing will stop it.

Europhile elites need to accept this. (Living in permanant denial means living in a sort of parallel universe becoming more and more detached from reality as time rolls forward)

The only thing to be decided is the EU response (which, as you rightly say; "deals in the European Union tend to be struck at the last possible moment.") which is very disrespectful to European investors and global stakeholders in the European economy.

In the event of no timely deal with the EU by December 31, 2018, the UK will prepare for a No Deal Brexit -- which won't be half as traumatic as it is being amped-up to be by agents provocateurs.

UK exports to the EU account for a tiny percentage of UK GDP, which can be covered by increase exports to the other 7.3 billion people on the planet. Although there will be a period of adjustment/discomfort for the UK which will be *100% on the EU* for two reasons:

1. For being so intransigent over the past 2 1/2 years (which was more than enough time to arrange a Brexit deal suitable to both sides)
2. For trying to stir up internal divisions in the UK (which comes very close to outright interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation state) by, among other things, trying to create a political false narrative that a 2nd referendum is required "to make sure" the people voted the right way in the 1st referendum.

So, it's *on the EU* if there's a No Deal Brexit -- and that won't be forgotten for a very long time.

I respectfully point out the flaws in your thinking:

a) You wrongly assume the 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th) referendum result would be different than the 1st referendum result.

b) Whatever the machinations that appear in the public domain, the UK is leaving the EU on March 29, 2019. The EU *still* can't comprehend what a bad deal it is for the UK to stay in the European Union -- and it is a very bad deal indeed. It's so bad that there is no fixing it, although many UK Prime Ministers have diligently tried, without getting anything more than a "Harrrumph!" from Brussels.

c) UK overpayments to the EU have been in the neighborhood of £8.6 billion per year, but this year jumped to £9.03 billion, and over the next 5-years will rise to £11.1 billion per year. Remember, those are *net* payments (an overpayment) which means that UK citizens don't get anything back from those obscene amounts.

I realize the UK has been the EU's 'cash cow' since 1993 and that it would be very convenient for the EU to receive a *net* overpayment of £71.6 billion over 7-years -- but that's not going to happen.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316964/net-contributions-to-eu-budget-by-united-kingdom-uk-to-eu-european-union/

Globalist Europhile elites need to understand that it's not their money that's paying to prop up the EU economy -- it's British taxpayer money, and the UK has had precious little say in EU affairs since 1993.

Being *allowed to comment* on EU affairs while not having much actual say in EU decisions, just isn't good enough for £9 billion per year. And the Brits are so sick of that, there is no way in #%[[ they'll stay.

Not to mention the billions in missed opportunities the UK has suffered since the British people were hoodwinked into joining the EU (without benefit of a referendum in 1993 it must be said -- so much for the democratic ideals of the EU and the UK at that time!

Now, all of a sudden, Europhile elites want democratic referendum after democratic referendum until they get the result they want.

Of course the EU can or will try to make it difficult for the UK -- punishing them for leaving... but any problems will be 100% on the EU for their actions. And it's going to be costly for them.

It will be interesting to see what the EU's true colours are.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anders Skoldberg Oct 24, 2018

There is still time to try and improve a decision that was taken under difficult circumstances.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 23, 2018

Anatole Kaletsky urges Theresa May to call for a new referendum that rejects a „no-deal“ Brexit, arguing voters must be given the chance to decide on an outcome that will be bad for the economy. He believes if voters reject “no deal” in favour of “no Brexit” in a new referendum, she would be able to escape the “cage” of her own making. Her hardline opponents would be “silenced,” and her position would be “secured” till the 2022 election. The question is “why should she not seize this chance?” In the past she claimed that a second referendum would be a “betrayal of democracy.”
The author says May needs a game-changer “to break the impending parliamentary deadlock.” Brexit is getting messier as negotiations stagger from one standoff to another. The only way to end this uncertainty would be to let voters to decide whether “they still wanted to go ahead with Brexit on these tougher terms.” Besides she does not have the mandate to gamble so recklessly with Britain’s economy and people’s livelihoods. Should voters change their minds about leaving, it “would result in an economic rebound, almost certainly guaranteeing a Conservative victory in 2022.”
In recent months polls suggest that people want a vote on a final Brexit deal obtained by the government. It is equally fair to ask them to vote on a “no-deal” Brexit if one is not secured. This question should appease Boris Johnson and May’s other rivals, because diehard Brexiteers have always presented a “no deal” as a “perfectly acceptable outcome.” Should a “no deal” Brexit be rejected, May could “outmaneuver” her critics and “have the satisfaction of watching Johnson cope with the resulting chaos.” The other option would be to ask voters to once again decide whether they want to remain in the EU.
The author says the “demographic balance of the UK population has shifted in favor of pro-European voters by around one million since 2016.” Young Britons seek to take their destiny into their own hands. While their elders decided to leave the EU — a decision many of them will not have to endure the consequences of — young Britons voted overwhelmingly to remain. Moreover many do not think Brexit is being managed well by the government.
Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn and many top party members said they would prefer the public to be given a say on Brexit in a fresh general election. They hinted that, if “the election gambit failed,” the option of a second referendum should remain open, “which is backed by 85% of its members.” Indeed, the motivation behind the Tory Brexit is one of hubris and a strong lack of rationality. Pressure for a second vote would become overwhelming should moderate Conservatives fail to shape a sensible Brexit deal.
A second referendum will not betray democracy. The second Irish referendum on the Lisbon EU treaty in 2009 did not serve to overturn democracy, but to improve it. An earlier vote in June 2008 resulted in a decisive defeat for the EU treaty. In a turnout of 53%, 53% voted no, which was a major shock to the government and main opposition parties endorsing the treaty. In October 2009 the Irish electorate voted again and returned a very different result. With turnout of 58%, 67% of voters voted yes and just two of the country’s 43 electoral constituencies voted no. A majority of men and women of all age groups and socioeconomic classes endorsed the treaty after realising the seriousness of the issues at stake.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Oct 23, 2018

I tend to disagree in that I think it's not so much which decision is more damaging, as the Brits will survive quite well either way. The harm is in the inability to decided or to predict which way things will eventually turn out. The likely outcome is that march 2019 will arrive with this government still in manic, deep disarray. A second referendum will simply not be an option and hopefully, withdrawal will be automatically triggered. That will take care of the indecision and allow the country to focus on what's ahead of them. Problem fixed.
UK politicians may yet come to regret the deep divisions they have caused with the stupid way this referendum was set up. And Europe may finally feel free to structure the EU it's final shape.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Oct 23, 2018

News Item: Britain is drawing up plans to charter ships to bring in food and medicines in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit next March, in a move greeted with disbelief at a stormy meeting of Theresa May’s cabinet on Tuesday.

Brexit means rationing. Now we know.

What sane government inflicts this level of idiocy on its own population?

What sane population votes for this level of idiocy?

How much can a koala bear?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/vyBC0WLes

Theresa May podría respaldar un nuevo referendo por el Brexit

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Theresa May podría respaldar un nuevo referendo por el Brexit

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification