Could the June 8th British vote keep the country IN the European Union?…

Negociations are apparently still on going?….

The president of the European parliament has said Britain would be welcomed back with open arms if voters change their minds about Brexit on 8 June, challenging Theresa May’s claim that “there is no turning back” after article 50.

Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election and would not even require a court case.

“If the UK, after the election, wants to withdraw [Article 50], then the procedure is very clear,” he said in an interview. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.”

He also threatened to veto any Brexit deal if it does not guarantee in full the existing rights of EU citizens in Britain and said this protection would forever be subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice (ECJ).

Lawyers are divided on whether the UK can unilaterally change its mind about leaving and are bringing a test case to establish the legal reversibility of article 50, but the parliament president spelled out a process by which a simple political decision by other member states would be sufficient.

“If tomorrow, the new UK government decides to change its position, it is possible to do,” said Tajani. “The final decision is for the 27 member states, but everybody will be in favour if the UK [decides to reverse article 50].”…..

More….

Share on Facebook

3 thoughts on “Could the June 8th British vote keep the country IN the European Union?…”

  1. PM’s rarely ask for an election if they expect to lose.

    It does happen however.

    Just look up Winston Churchill.

  2. Actually, CG, 1945 is a rather poor example of what is sometimes true (often PM’s in trouble wait until their term is up and they have no choice.)

    A better example might be Ted Heath’s losing gamble on a “Who Governs ?” election in February 1974 during the miners’ strike and the 3-day week, accompanied at one point by a dustmen’s strike. His Tory Party’s candidates actually won more votes (11.87 million or 37.9%) than Labour (11.64 million or 37.1%) but Labour elected 301 MP’s out of 635 and the Conservatives only 297.

    Unlike Heath, Wilson was able to win the external support of most of the remaining MP’s (Liberals, nationalists, et al.)—that is, they didn’t join in a coalition government but agreed, in return for various understandings, undertakings and promises, not to oppose Wilson’s minority Labour government on a motion of confidence (which is what most major policy votes are considered to be). The Cabinet and government included no other parties.

    Nearly the reverse situation had occurred in October 1951. Clement Attlee’s 1950 Labour Government, on the point of losing a working majority, was forced to call another election, winning 13.95 million votes or 48.8%, for its candidates, while Churchill’s Conservatives won 13.72 million or 48.0%. But the Tories elected 321 out of 635 MP’s (an absolute majority) and Labour only 295.

    ¶ In 1945, however, it was Labour—under great pressure from its base who had no desire to return to the National Governments of the 1930’s *—who insisted on breaking up the Wartime Coalition (with Conservatives, Liberals, a few independents, and some Natl Govt fringe parties like National Labour) and had every right to do so, since the last General Election had been in 1935 and the election which would otherwise have had to occur no later than 1940 was postponed only by the threat of imminent invasion.

    * led successively by J. Ramsay MacDonald (ex-Labour), Stanley Baldwin (C) and Neville Chamberlain (C), but dominated by the Tories

    In the relevant chapters of Triumph and Tragedy, the 6th and last volume of Churchill’s History of the Second World War (especially Book Two, chapter 16, “The End of the Coalition”), he declares that he very much wanted to maintain the unified national spirit and united talents (ranging from Nye Bevan on the Left to Lord Beaverbrook and Leopold Amery on the imperialist Right) of the Wartime Coalition, at least until the defeat of Japan. (V-E Day had been on May 8th.)

    However, he says his Deputy P.M. Attlee (Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party) and his Labour colleagues, representing their party’s M.P.’s, were adamant about insisting on their right to a fresh election, which occurred in July.

    (Few knew of the Atomic Bomb, or that V-J Day would occur the very next month; instead nearly everyone foresaw a long, gruelling, bloody campaign on the Japanese mainland lasting into 1946 or 1947.)

  3. It might surprise some that the diehard Imperialist and pugnacious English patriot Winston Churchill (born, it is true, to an American mother née Jennie Jerome) was also an ardent Europeanist, as well as an architect of the United Nations.

    At the height of the Battle of France in 1940 when it looked as if France might be forced to seek an armistice from the Germans, Churchill (and, perhaps equally surprisingly, the equally-nationalist Gen. Charles de Gaulle) vigorously supported an Anglo-French union drafted by jointly by British and French leaders, which declared in part that “The two Governments declare that France and Great Britain will no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union.”

    [ However, by this time, the French premier, Paul Reynaud, had been beaten down into resigning in favour of more defeatist members of the French government such as Marshal Philippe Pétain and Gen. Maxime Weygand. (I take most of this from Vol. 2 of Churchill’s History, Their Finest Hour, Book One, chap. 10, “The Bordeaux Armistice”. — And, no, I haven’t read even a whole single volume in this history; I just own all six of them in hardback or cheap used paperback.) ]

    ¶ Had the archetypical British patriot Sir Winston Churchill (born on St Andrew’s Day, 30 November 1874) lived to the age of 142, he might well have been a vigorous campaigner against Brexit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *