Tag Archives: EU

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some gap of political preferences on the European issue between Parliamentarians and voters last year, this gap has now been replaced by another, more flagrant asymmetry.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

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.

“When we have decided what you voted for, we will tell you.”

Brendan_Donnelly

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

It used to be claimed during the Cold War that in the countries of the Soviet bloc elections could not take place until the government had decided what their result should be. Here, we order these matters differently. We had a referendum on 23rd June about the European Union, but the government has still to decide what its result will be. The widely-advertised “brain-storming session” of Mrs May on 31st August has taken us little further in the search for content to fill out the empty assertion that “Brexit means Brexit.”  The only specific matter upon which Mrs May and her colleagues could apparently agree was their hostility to the principle of European free movement. This is not an encouraging basis on which to erect a negotiating strategy for the “sensible and orderly departure” of the United Kingdom from the EU that Mrs May says she seeks. Continue reading “When we have decided what you voted for, we will tell you.”

We have seen the future and it doesn’t work

Brendan_Donnelly

 

By Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

It was a favourite dictum of the late Robin Leigh Pemberton, former Governor of the Bank of England, that it was easy to predict the future but impossible to know when it would happen. Events since 23rd June have more than borne out his contention. Many who feared and campaigned against a “leave” vote last week fully expected that the reckless undertakings and contradictory aspirations of the “leave” camp would create difficulties for any government charged with implementing BREXIT. Few can have expected so rapid an unravelling of the political and economic prospectus offered to the electorate by those wishing Britain to leave the European Union. Continue reading We have seen the future and it doesn’t work

BREXIT: The Northern Irish dimension

Brendan_Donnelly

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

This article was first published on the LSE BrexitVote blog.

Much concern has already been expressed by some British commentators  about the possible implications for Scotland of a vote for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union on 23rd June. Less comment has until now been directed, at least on the British mainland, to the implications of such a vote for Northern Ireland. Commentators and politicians in both halves of Ireland have been less reticent. The former Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, recently warned that a British decision to leave the Union would be “negative in every way” for Anglo-Irish relations, in particular for exchanges between Northern Ireland and its southern neighbour. Continue reading BREXIT: The Northern Irish dimension

Ever closer union – neither a goal nor an aspiration, but a process

Brendan_Donnelly

 

by Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust

 

This article was first published on the LSE BrexitVote blog.

When the Conservative members of the European Parliament first formed in the early 1990s a joint parliamentary group with the MEPs from the European Peoples Party, there was a certain condescending expectation on the British side that their continental colleagues were in for a bracing lesson in pragmatic politics from their hard-headed British colleagues. The reality of the newly established parliamentary group could not however have been more different. British MEPs rapidly realized that their new continental colleagues conducted their business with a ruthless and effective pragmatism. If anything, it was the British wing of the newly-established parliamentary group given to ideological anguish and soul-searching. Continue reading Ever closer union – neither a goal nor an aspiration, but a process

Sovereignty – in whose hands and for what?

monica_threlfall

by Monica Threlfall (writing in a personal capacity), Reader in European Politics, London Metropolitan University

 

The Leave people are always saying they want “our sovereignty back“. But for what purpose? What is this sovereignty and for whom is it supposed to work? Not for ordinary people. Sovereignty is a concept that power-lovers cling to when they fantasize they might get more power thereby. What is the point of ‘sovereignty’ if a post-exit sovereign government abolishes the obligation not to discriminate against women or minorities (as a right-wing US state is now trying to do), removes most health and safety precautions at work, or allows companies to sack workers when they take over firms or privatised services? More workplace accidents and deaths are the cost of sovereignty in the wrong hands. Today EU member states are enjoying a steady decline in morbidity at work ever since joint laws were adopted, and the UK had to adhere to them too. Britain was performing well until Conservative-led governments started to find corners to cut despite the laws. Yet the Leave campaign is full of people who seethe over such protections – even Cameron launched his referendum vowing to get an opt-out from the Working Time Directive so that employers could lengthen working hours, cut holidays, paternal and parental leave, and more. But the member states said no to him over that, so we remain protected while we remain in the EU. Continue reading Sovereignty – in whose hands and for what?