Tag Archives: EU Referendum

Article 50 and the dictatorship of the “democratic” majority

Article 50 and the dictatorship of the “democratic” majority

 

By Brendan Donnelly
Director, The Federal Trust

 

During the EU referendum of last year, there was much talk of the supposed estrangement between British voters and their political representatives. The narrow victory of the Brexit camp has since often been cited as proof of this estrangement, given that the overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians favoured remaining in the European Union. If there was indeed some gap of political preferences on the European issue between Parliamentarians and voters last year, this gap has now been replaced by another, more flagrant asymmetry. Voters wishing to leave the European Union may have been statistically underrepresented in Parliament in 2016, but those wishing to remain in the Union or to leave only on consensual terms are in 2017 deprived of any effective Parliamentary representation whatsoever. The Conservative government has met disturbingly little Parliamentary opposition in its chaotic course towards the most disruptive of Brexits. Almost without exception, Parliamentarians have allowed themselves to be cowed into submission by the novel and dangerous concept of the “popular will” supposedly manifested in the advisory referendum of 23rd June 2016. Continue reading Article 50 and the dictatorship of the “democratic” majority

How long will Parliament ignore the 48% ?

How long will Parliament ignore the 48%?

 

Brendan_Donnelly

 

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

David Jones, the Minister for Brexit, assured the House of Commons this week that it would have the opportunity to vote on the treaty negotiated by Mrs. May’s government to bring about British withdrawal from the European Union. This assurance provoked mixed reactions. It helped to suppress a brewing Conservative revolt, but was widely criticized on the Opposition benches as giving no meaningful choice to the House of Commons, since the Minister had made clear that Brexit would anyway proceed, irrespective of the outcome of the Parliamentary vote. Both the welcome and the criticism for Mr. Jones were equally illuminating. Neither his supporters nor his critics seemed to recall that Parliament has the right to decide for itself whether it wishes to vote on the Brexit treaty and that it is up to Parliament to decide what the consequences of any such vote might be.  Parliament does not need to be dependent upon more or less tasty morsels from the governmental table furnished by Mr. Davis. The willingness of many Parliamentarians to subsist on a constitutional diet determined by the government well reflects the indecent haste with which they have rejected (at least for the short term) the chance offered it by the Supreme Court to play an autonomous role in the UK’s proposed withdrawal from the European Union. Continue reading How long will Parliament ignore the 48% ?

Ireland faces heavy costs for Britain’s Brexit folly

IRELAND FACES HEAVY COSTS FOR BRITAIN’S BREXIT FOLLY.

John-Palmer-200x200

 

By John Palmer

 

In the complex and sometimes arcane debate about the British government’s Brexit crusade, little attention has been paid to the consequences it will have for our neighbouring island, Ireland. In government circles there appears to date to be only limited awareness of the future implications the UK’s departure from the EU could have on future Anglo-Irish relations. Continue reading Ireland faces heavy costs for Britain’s Brexit folly

The Supremes say “Stop in the name of Parliament”

The Supremes say “Stop in the name of Parliament”

Brendan Donnelly

 

By Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

 

On general principles of good governance yesterday’s decision of the Supreme Court must be welcomed. Most Parliamentarians are profoundly uneasy at the erratic course Mrs. May and her government have steered over the past six months in response to the ill-defined outcome of the advisory European referendum on 23rd June. It was politically convenient for Mrs. May to claim to believe that a modern version of the divine right of kings dispensed her from the obligation to involve Parliament in these matters.  Happily, the Supreme Court has rejected such pretensions. Nevertheless, any pleasure at yesterday’s verdict must be tinged with disappointment that the Court needed to take such a decision in the first place. Continue reading The Supremes say “Stop in the name of Parliament”

Mrs. May answers the questions with the worst possible answers

Brendan_Donnelly

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust
17th January 2017

 

Mrs. May answers the questions with the worst possible answers

Mrs. May has answered many of the questions posed to her by commentators before her speech today. These answers provoke the further following reflections. Continue reading Mrs. May answers the questions with the worst possible answers

May’s Rocky Road Ahead: Why Brexit May Not Happen

op12In this article our director Brendan Donnelly argues that the triggering of Article 50 will not be the end of the Brexit story. Mrs May is likely to face over the next two years growing obstacles in her path of extricating the UK from the European Union. There is a chance that these obstacles could be so numerous and so severe as to prevent Brexit from happening altogether.

DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE HERE.

A “Titanic” success for the government in the High Court

Brendan_Donnelly

 

By Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

When challenged about its claimed right to initiate the process of taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union without Parliamentary consent, Mrs. May’s government has relied on two arguments, one legal and one political. The first is that the renunciation of treaties, such as the Treaty of Rome, is under the UK’s largely unwritten constitution an executive privilege of government. The High Court on 3rd November decisively rejected this claim by the government, a decision that will be challenged in the Supreme Court next month.  Whatever the decision of the higher court on the strictly legal issue, it will leave open the broader question of the political and ethical appropriateness of the British government’s seeking to leave the European Union without Parliamentary sanction. In response to this challenge, the government deploys its second, political argument, that the British people have spoken in the referendum of 23rd June, their decision to leave the European Union is irrevocable and those who seek to reverse it are acting undemocratically. This claim deserves much more critical scrutiny than it has received in public debate over recent months. Too many commentators and politicians have allowed themselves to be browbeaten and morally blackmailed by accusations from the government and its allies in the media that the referendum of 23rd June, with its narrow majority in favour of ill-defined revolutionary change, constituted a mandatory basis for whatever action the government decided it wished to take in interpretation of that decision. Continue reading A “Titanic” success for the government in the High Court

Brexit, what Brexit?

Brendan_Donnelly

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

Recently installed as she is at 10 Downing Street, Theresa May has probably not yet given much thought to her resignation honours list when she ceases to be Prime Minister. If she does, an obvious candidate for preferment should be the official who invented for her the magnificently vacuous mantra, “Brexit means Brexit.” These three little words have provided over the last month at least some decorous concealment of the indecent confusion which comprises current British governmental policy towards the European Union. The phrase corresponds well to Lloyd George’s definition of a perfect parliamentary answer: it is short, true and wholly uninformative. Of course, “Brexit” means “Brexit.” The question is what “Brexit” means. No answer to that question has yet been given, and it is difficult to see how Mrs. May’s government and party can ever arrive at a consensus on this issue. Continue reading Brexit, what Brexit?

The Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Brexit impact

viara-bojkova-profile-114x114

by Viara Bojkova, Head of Geo-Economics Porgramme and Senior Research Fellow, Global Policy Institute

 

While the UK economy and the society are still adjusting to the new political and business reality, to make any final conclusions about the Brexit impact on the rest of Europe seems challenging. My intention with this piece is to make a few points to describe how the relations between Britain and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe might be affected. Continue reading The Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Brexit impact

The light at the end of the tunnel is several oncoming trains

Brendan_Donnelly

 

By Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust for Education & Research

Until the time of writing (15th July) the chaos wreaked on the United Kingdom by the disruptive and unexpected outcome of Mr. Cameron’s referendum on 23rd June has been more obviously political than economic. The personal ambitions and resentments of the leading personalities in the “Leave” campaign have spilled over into a Jacobean drama of revenge and treachery which has diminished our country in the eyes of the rest of world. At times, it has appeared that the UK’s likely exit from the European Union was simply a collateral consequence of the dysfunctional Conservative Party, a consequence not necessarily desired by all its apparent advocates. Despite this febrile background, we now however know and understand more about a number of issues which will be central to the process of attempting to terminate British membership of the European Union. Continue reading The light at the end of the tunnel is several oncoming trains