Article 50 defines the mechanism that enables a country to leave the EU. As far as we know it is the only way out. And once the process has started it is, as written, irrevocable. What is more it provides just two years to agree a new and alternative agreement or it says there will be no agreement at all.
The Leave vote did not bind David Cameron's government or any future government to invoke Article 50. It did not, in fact, demand that they do anything. It was simply advisory. It could be ignored. And it certainly did not say how any negotiation should be conducted with what intended outcome. Like almost everything else about this referendum it was not clear what it wanted. It just provided an option to say what it did not want.
i very strongly suspect that there is, barring Nigel Farage who will at present get no say, not a single UK politician who would want to invoke Article 50. There are two good reasons for this.
Cameron has already consigned himself to the longest obituary in political history, given that he is a relatively young man, by delivering the Brexit vote. Hard to imagine, but his legacy may be worse than Blair's. And not a single realistic UK politician will want to join him by being seen as the person who guarantees we leave. No wonder Johson and Gove look so sheepish: they realise just how disastrous is the situation that they have created and do not want to share Cameron's fate.
But there is another reason why no knew will want start the Article 50 process and the EU has already exposed its hand here. It wants the UK to go quickly and so wants Article 50 invoked now. But precisely because doing so gives them all the negotiating power no one in the UK will want to do that. After all, once Article 50 is invoked the EU can say no to absolutely anything the UK suggests, wait two years and see the UK leave empty handed and there would be literally nothing the UK could do about it.
One hopes the UK will realise that and as a result do something much more sensible. It must negotiate first, and when there is agreement invoke Article 50. Or alternatively, and with more likelihood, say 'hang on a minute, we just need to put that to a referendum'. And I suspect there is not much barring breaking Treaty conditions that would undermine any credibility it has with just about every European electorate that the EU could do about that.
Article 50 s key to all this. And like the ace of trumps, the U.K. Has to decide very wisely when to play it, and in this case, if at all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But no one knows. Is it a letter or a speech or…anything? Couldn’t the EU turn round and say at such and such a time on 24/6/2016 the leavers got 51.9% of the vote. Article 50 invoked as it is pretty definitive.
But it was an advisory vote
Nothing said it triggered Article 50
And you can be sure if they do that negotiating will be pointless
No. The BBC today reported ‘But a European Council spokesman reiterated on Saturday that triggering Article 50 was a formal act which must be “done by the British government to the European Council”.
That is correct
have you signed the petition?
I did last night and it has gone up another 300,000 in 9hrs!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
coming up on 3 million now!
Over 3 million now
It’s unwise to have a referendum accepted with such a small margin -I agree.
The petition has been hacked and has fraudulent entries. Some from North Korea, and 39,000 from the Vatican. (Population 800). Noted by the Guardian today.
The only thing left out of that is the possibility the EU will fund a legal pretext to assume the implicit invoking of article 50 once it is clear that the future/current government fully intends to adopt the will of those who voted to leave.
That would be interesting
I think that would be too difficult to sell elsewhere domestically
A pyrrhic victory indeed for Johnson et al. There is another comparison with Blair, in that there is no plan (as after invading Iraq). I wonder when people will realise this? I think a few months of economic and political turmoil may be enough to swing the population the other way.
There’s no plan, period (apologies for Americanism). Since the onset of market fundamentalism we have an approach that treats the economy like a weather forecast.
I imagine that Gove and Johnson will be revealed as the bumbling, opportunistic shysters they are – then where will the dumbed-down-to-the level- of-magma ‘British Public’ turn to?
perhaps real thinking might be on the cards? (Herds of pigs fly past my window to choruses of Rule Britannia).
Yes Richard, I agree.
I did think earlier, Hmmm, Farage seems to be the only Brexit / Leave leader actually enjoying this ‘victory’.
Hopefully after a general election, resulting in Jeremy Corbyn as PM
Being a nice person is just not enough, need someone with mettle and a hard hitting intellect to lead. He has showed a Luke warm attitude to the referendum. His talents should be used elsewhere.
Sadly the Parliamentary Labour Party are determined to prevent him (or any Labour politician) becoming PM, regardless of the harm Brexit will do Britain. I despair.
If his own disloyal MPs dont do him down first.
How anyone can blame Corbyn for any of this is beyond me. If Cooper or Burnham had won I think the Labour leave vote would have been bigger!
It’s not actually looking great for Corbyn.
When the result was announced — and before Cameron’s resignation speech — Corbyn said that the government should invoke Article 50 “immediately”. Now, there may be good political reasons for doing so. For example, if Cameron had invoked Article 50, Corbyn looks prescient. If Cameron delayed Article 50 (as was in fact the case), Corbyn gains credibility in the eyes of the disenchanted former Labour electorate who just voted for Brexit.
The problem is, invoking Article 50 would be a disaster. It would be foolhardy even if the desire is to leave as soon as possible. Corbyn looks out of touch with the entire issue.
I did wonder why he said that
If Corbyn leads Labour into an election this year, the party will be eviscerated. I use ‘lead’ in a notional sense.
Political reform always needs a good crisis and it looks like we’ve got a big one developing in both labour and the tories. I’ve no idea how this will pan out but change is in order.
I agree, Keith – some form of plunger had to be thrust down the toilet to clear the passage- if not here it might well be brewing somewhere else. The problem is that it is being done for the wrong reasons which have been the result of lies and emotional manipulation of the worst sort.
No one talks about the real cognitive dissonance at the heart of the E.U.-the elements of socially progressive thinking existing side by side economic policies that achieve the opposite. The leaders of the E.U don’t even seem to notice this. This is a case of grotesque political myopia. The sheer hubris- I haven’t as yet heard anything from the E.U that implicates itself in these issues -where’s the self reflection?????
Simon, I think from the outset of the EU referendum debacle there has been a fairly consistent theme on this blog of the need for fundamental reform of the EU and UK political and economic systems.
The means to achieve that may have been a point of difference (Leave and Reform or Remain and Reform), but reform was the constant.
And so whatever short term economic and political fall out there may be from the result, reform must still be the main focus of those who wanted it then and still do now.
As for Labour, in my view Corbyn should stand his ground and fulfil his mandate to the party members while allowing the dead wood to be cleared out from his shadow cabinet and the rest of the PLP (either voluntarily or forcefully if they show no loyalty).
Because in my view the Labour top team is wrong as it is not united in supporting the core Labour voter, the top team failed to recognise that going into this referendum despite it being clear Corbyn himself and a large number of the members had major reservations about the EU, and therefore the top team needs reshaping around the mandate that Corbyn received from the party.
That is the sign of a good leader (not the pathetic excuses and wimpering of those who don’t have the balls to stand up for the job or support their party members clearly expressed interests).
So let’s see how things develop over the coming days, but the bold must be brave in my opinion!
But hang on, more people voted to Leave than Remain. This is democracy, the will of the people. I thought your principles were a bit higher than this?
I cannot invoke Article 50. Maybe you have not realised I do not have that power, but I assure you I do not
In which case this was a comment on what others will or will not do
Why are you accusing me?
It is absolutely laughable how the LEAVE campaign has been exposed as the spivs and chancers we all along knew they were. Gambling with the country’s future, driving it into a crisis, just to fulfil some personal ambitions. How anybody can think that Johnson could be PM is beyond me.
Invoking article 50 means in effect (mainly) cancelling the common market area, the ability to sell goods free of any hindrance. After two years it is then whatever is on offer.
The German Finance Minister has already said that an association agreement would be on the table for GB. Just as Turkey has.
I suppose that is what Gove said is the Albanian option.
If anybody thinks that the Norwegian EEA is better, that would be presumably on offer, too. However, expect to make higher net contributions into the EU in future. And Free Movement to continue.
Matt, that future has already been gambled with over the last 40 years. I suspect that many pole voted for leave in the spirit of: ‘Please let my vote do something, anything, as long as it has some effect.’
Quite a few people are suggesting this will happen, but I do not think that the rest of the EU will play ball on this. Why would they want to negotiate before article 50? Either the UK wants to leave or it wants to remain. There is nothing in it for the rest of the EU to agree to further negotiations.
If the EU will not negotiate then we remain
They say they do not want that
But i suspect that while remaining we will also not comply with the rules in certain ways
That they could also not stand
People will end up around a table
I wonder what we will negotiate for?
We are about as far on the edge of the EU as it is possible to be, and still be in it.
Maybe people are thinking we can be out, but still have the advantages of being in?
In which case, there are plenty of others who will jump onto that: Portugal/Italy/Spain/Greece.
I note one economist seems to think we could join the EEA. Which is part-and-parcel of EU membership anyway…presumably he means the EFTA, which carries attachment to the EEA…
Since the largest hit on google after the referendum was belated requests from the UK “what is the eu”, I tend to think those those who never think, started thinking after acting: how very English.
Hard to imagine, but his legacy may be worse than Blair’s.
I’d like to see an iraqi and a libyan discuss that.
Steeling myself, I watched as much of the jug eared, press gagging philanderer’s morning show today to see, at a time of unique disarray in an extremist and vindictive ruling party, hillary benn focus on the opposition and declare his lack of confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
Typical Mandelabour, thinking only of the country rather than themselves.
So basically you advocate ignoring the first referendum because it was not the ” right” outcome yes?
Democracy has been abrogated before of course — vide the Commissar s ( sorry Commiission s) instructions to Eire Holland and France to invoke second preferendums.
Wish you luck with that one . You re dealing with Britishers this time not spineless malleable continentals/bogtrotters.
Not at all
I am saying that politicians will not act on it
The only chance of anyone doing so was Cameron by 9am on Friday
He did not do so before falling on his sword
And no one else will do so either for all the reasons he could not and would not
Advocacy does not come into this: unlike you I ma offering reasoned analysis of what might happen
If you had any understanding of how the EU operates and it’s history, you would have been aware that the second referendums for Sweden (once) and Ireland (twice) had been after the leaders of those countries returning to the EU after the first referendum with the concerns identified during the vote, negotiating additional terms/legal guarantees that address those concerns, then returning to their electorate for the second referendum to confirm their voters were happy with the terms/legal guarantees.
Only individuals so blinkered that their knowledge of such things comes only from the Murdoch press still believe it was a “vote again until you get the right answer” second referendum.
Ukipper are you William? Your idiotic racist tone suggests it. Typical arrogant ‘we’ll show the continentals etc etc……..’ Farage level blustering nonsense that isn’t going to survive a prolonged exposure to the reality of the mess we’re now in.
Which patently will not ( happen).
As far as I can see the best grounds for avoiding Brexit is keeping the UK together. It surely must be argued that that is of greater national significance than being in or out of the E.U.
I’m sure that the UK remaining together is also extremely high on the emotional priorities of most English leave voters.
A majority of four percent is by no means unanimous, and Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.
This is the grounds for rejecting the result.. It was not a unified result across the UK and leaving will end the UK as we know it.
Therefore it takes a politician with guts and vision to stand up now, acknowledge but reject the result in favour of keeping the UK together.
This was not a referendum on the breakup up the UK.
The first part of Article 50 says “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” Two questions are whether the referendum result is a “decision” by the UK and whether the UK’s “own constitutional requirements” involve more than an advisory referendum. My understanding is that the legislation for the Scottish referendum would have made that decision binding whereas the EU referendum was not so maybe someone did think about this at the time.
Neither the Scottish referendum or this are binding
The ATV one was
So specifically not binding
It does not invoke Article 50
Im not hearing much of a European perspective here – its as though the England and Wales alone can shape how and when negotiations proceed and somehow they have the whip hand in negotiations.
After receiving months of dishonest abuse and years of whinging, Germany, France, Italy and the other 24 countries have now been told that they can stuff the European project that they have worked so hard to develop. England’s actions are and will be deeply damaging to the European countries, economically and politically. They have every reason to get England and Wales out as fast as possible, and to offer as little as possible in return. They too can find markets elsewhere and have already shown that they are a lot better at it than the English. Trading off some short term costs to get through the political problems will seem well worthwhile.
And at long last they can do what they have wanted to do, and tackle England’s rotten financial systems and the tax avoidance its supports – which English MEPs have been blocking.
Richard, Corey Pein’s articles lightened my day against the backdrop of dreary propaganda by other ‘Journalists’.
“Neither Great Nor British. The Brexit debacle belongs to England alone.” [1] As neither of us claims to be English we might enjoy!
“Primary Lessons in Propaganda.” [2]
[1] http://thebaffler.com/blog/neither-great-british-pein
[2] http://thebaffler.com/blog/primary-lessons-propaganda-pein
I completely agree with Robin Stafford.Why on earth should Europe stand idly by while the British prevaricate.play political games and drag out a process which may suit British needs but which causes instability and uncertainty on the continent. At the end of this charade we might even decide not to invoke article 50!It is absurd to imagine that Europe will sit meekly by.I would not be surprised if Europe suspended all grants and future payments to better focus the actions of the British Government.
Europe will determine events more so than Britain.
I think you have to consider on what legal grounds the EU may do that
There is only one – Article 7 – and it is not at all clear how it could be used
I think you are unrealistic unless you are anticipating that de facto Lisbon can be overturned at will – and that is a precedent no one in the EU will want to set for all sorts of other reasons
So let’s be realistic on this
Richard, I think you may be wrong on this, for the reasons jpm and Robin Stafford advocate. They are, rightly, furious with us, and concerned that the nationalism that produced this result will spill over into their countries. So the emphasis will be on them getting shot of us ASAP.
If, for its own selfish reasons the UK (assuming the Scots don’t go as soon as they can) seeks to avoid triggering Article 50 and tries to stay in the Single Market for as long as possible, I can imagine the rest of the EU being so enraged that they will seek to bypass article 50 and kick us out by some means e.g the Article 7 you mention.
You can say that’s unprecedented, but so is a country seeking to exit the EU in the way we’re doing. What right has the UK got to expect others to behave reasonably and in a predictable manner in negociating it’s departure, when the UK has taken such a leap in the dark itself!? They’ll see typical British (or should that be English?) arrogance and selfishness, and they’d be right.
Personally, even though the consequences for myself living in the UK would be severe, I wouldn’t blame them. We’ve told the EU to get lost, so why shouldn’t they do the same to us?
I’ve done a lot of negotiations in my life
And when dealing with something like the EU the chance that a line like ‘we won’t talk’ when back door discussion with 27 states can take place has not a hope of holding
It’s just noise right now but very unlikely to actually be what happens
Rather a good summary of why Britain, with its notoriously malleable and unwritten constitution should not be changing it when not a lot more than a third of the electorate voted in favour of that change.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-democratic-failure-for-uk-by-kenneth-rogoff-2016-06?utm_source=mail2friend&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mail2friend
I’m left agreeing with a French friend who says this referendum is typical of the UK’s hasty and piecemeal approach to most things. (And I’d also add that is an especially Conservative trait.)
Though it is arguable whether membership of the EU is part of the UK constitution, I think, because EU law is in many circumstances precedent over UK law, it amounts to a constitutional change.
So this is the perfect reason to enshrine a significant majority of the electorate to be required to vote in favour of constitutional change.
Quite similar to the Parliamentary petition ( now almost at 3.5million ) in fact.
And probably the only way to extract ourselves from this current mess is, ironically, to build on the piecemeal approach and say that the referendum has advised Parliament and now Parliament will decide.
“After all, once Article 50 is invoked the EU can say no to absolutely anything the UK suggests, wait two years and see the UK leave empty handed and there would be literally nothing the UK could do about it.”
I’m so glad to see someone putting this so clearly. Article 50 was written to suit the EU not the leaving country. Given 27 governments have to agree it seems unlikely to me that moderates who want to make a deal with the UK could do so. If we invoke Article 50 we might as well leave there and then.
As you say, Article 7 is unclear, but what has happened is unprecedented.
So given the severe threats to the European countries who need to look after their own interests, there is at least the possibility that they will come up tactics that are not in the current ‘rule book’. Or at least interpretations of fuzzy rules that protect their interests.
As others have said, this is going to be like a pretty acrimonious divorce. The Brexiters’ idea that somehow the Europeans will allow England to set the timetable and agenda seems to be wishful thinking in the extreme.
Exactly the combination of nationalistic arrogance and stupidity that one expects from the Brexit crowd. Being British (before the Scots ‘take back their country!) they believe they can treat everybody else with contempt, yet they expect to be treated with grovelling respect themselves.
One thing we DO know a big bonanza for the lawyers of the ‘Big Four’
“Most of the calls are simply seeking advice and do not translate into instant fees. But they suggest the “Big Four” professional firms could be in for a potential financial bonanza when companies start reorganising to cope with the new political landscape.” (F.T)
What recession..recession anyone?
Another point that occurs to me is that, as far as article 50 is concerned, we may be looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
The UK Parliament is supreme.
Britain joined the EU by Act of Parliament so it can leave by the same method. It would have to undo the initial supremacy of EU law then enact a Bill to leave. I would suggest it could do this without negotiation.
The negotiations could follow thus removing the article 50 two year ‘sword of Damocles’ timescale. If Britain at the same time continued to pay in to the budget and abided by the existing rules nothing would change and it transfers much negotiation pressure from the UK to the EU. It could well be messy but then so could Article 50. It could even then provide the excuse for another referendum. Could this be Boris’s secret weapon?
That is game playing
We would be in breach of contract with Europe and that’s a game of the mightiest folly
I agree. It’s just that Boris and Gove a journalists and wordsmiths so we should read what they say/write very carefully.
It’s certainly game playing – but that seems to what Boris is good at.
And breaching a contract is really the definition of tearing up a treaty.
I’m sure Parliament could but that would be a surefire way to isolation. If we did it, we would stop making contributions to the EU as there would be no authority to pay them and that would be met with the immediate end of all engagement in Brussels, etc. without any terms of a settlement about access to the single market without tariffs etc. The only good thing is all out MEPs would be immediately out of work including Farage.
Two basic points on negotiation:
1. You need to be absolutely clear on what you want, what is non-negotiable and what might be traded off
2. You need to have thought through the same things for the other side
From what we have seen, do we think the Brexit team have thought through either?
No