The Debate Over Referendums and Brexit in the House of Commons
The ongoing debate in the House of Commons over the final say on Brexit reflects a complex interplay of historical context, legal frameworks, and public sentiment. This article delves into the nuances of why the House of Commons having the final say on Brexit has drawn criticism. With the notable exception of no referendums accompanying the initial steps of joining the EU, the circumstances surrounding Brexit have become a central political and legal issue. This article will explore the reasons why a second referendum might be necessary, despite the existing referendum that resulted in a majority vote to leave.
The Historical Context and EU Integration
The UK's journey towards joining the European Union (EU) and its subsequent negotiations have been marked by significant changes in the political and legal landscape. When the UK initially considered joining, it was not the EU as it stands today, but the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). EFTA was a primarily economic area that emphasized free trade, unlike the EU, which had a more comprehensive appendage of governance and rules. In contrast to the robust institutions of the EU, EFTA was a less restrictive association, with the UK enjoying more autonomy in its trade policies.
Fast-forwarding to today, the situation is markedly different. The UK is now debating its relationship with the EU under the framework of the European Union, with its extensive institutions and governance structures. The EU's governing body, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has significant influence over national laws, a reality that the UK aims to break free from.
The Constitutional Principles and the Role of Referendums
A key issue is whether the House of Commons should have the final say on Brexit, or if a second referendum should be held. The initial vote was an unexpected Leave majority, with no referendum during the pre-Brexit period. The question now is whether a second referendum is justified, especially when the precise conditions of leaving the EU are on the table.
Parliament has a constitutionally promised to enforce the will of the people as indicated by the referendum vote, which was a majority to leave. However, this decision has been under constant scrutiny, with critics arguing that PMs and MPs have attempted to keep the UK in the EU through backdoor policies. This political maneuvering has led to a lack of trust among the public, with predictions of a mass deselection of MPs in the upcoming election, indicating widespread dissatisfaction.
The Legal and Political Implications
The context of the initial EU membership and subsequent referendums has significantly shaped the current debate. When the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, there was a national vote, which the author voted against. However, subsequent treaties like Maastricht and Lisbon were slid in by the back door and were not subject to popular review. These treaties were imposed on the UK without public consultation, which has left many voters feeling disenfranchised for years.
David Cameron's decision to open up a referendum was misguided, as many people were unaware of the implications of these treaties. The Leave vote, though resulting in a majority, has now faced backtracking from some MPs and governments who initially supported the result. This has brought into question the integrity of Parliament, both domestically and internationally, as the rest of the world watches and waits.
The Implications of Backtracking and Parliament's Integrity
The current political climate is characterized by a series of contradictions and uncertainty. Theresa May's deal for Brexit was designed to ensure a continued tie to the EU, which many argue is not true Brexit. For a deal to be considered Brexit, it must include a legally binding leave date from the EU. Any deviation from this can be seen as a failure to uphold the original mandate from the referendum.
Parliament's role in ensuring legal compliance is paramount. The UK has put into law the decision to leave the EU, and any attempt to backtrack on this decision through another referendum could be seen as undermining the rule of law. The author predicts a significant backlash in the upcoming election, with many constituencies likely to deselection MPs who are seen as failing to uphold the original referendum promise.
In conclusion, the historical context of EU integration, the legal implications of the current negotiations, and the public's sense of disenfranchisement all weigh heavily in the debate over the final say on Brexit. The House of Commons must weigh the risks of losing its integrity against the need to uphold the democratic mandate of the initial referendum. Only time will tell how this complex and politically charged debate will be resolved.