Of the many reasons British Prime Minister Theresa May supplied for calling a general election, the Conservative leader provided one particularly important one. She believes she still needs to convince her European counterparts that Brexit does indeed mean Brexit.
A Brexit mandate, delivering a large Conservative Commons majority, would sweep away the last hope that that the UK’s referendum decision in June last year could be reversed.
On this basis, a resounding majority for May would remove any motive for the EU negotiators to make the UK’s Brexit terms as unpalatable as possible in the belief that it would help UK voters realize the terms of Brexit are just too painful to accept.
It is true that among parts of the EU leadership and the European public, there remains a lingering belief — something more than wistful regret — that the British people can be helped to change their mind.
Even though Article 50 has been triggered, many EU lawyers believe a legal route is available for Britain to revoke Brexit, probably through a Commons vote in the winter of next year.
This belief that the UK made the wrong decision and can yet be persuaded not to go through with it, gripped Europe’s leadership from the start.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, in the immediate wake of the referendum said that politicians in London “should have the possibility to reconsider the consequences of an exit.”
There is, after all, a long European history of second EU referendums in the wake of “incorrect results,” including in Ireland and France.
As recently as last month, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he hoped the UK would rejoin the EU.
“The day will come when the UK will re-enter the EU boat,” he said.
The European Parliament’s chief negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, in a speech in Brussels predicted that young Britons would come to see the referendum as a “catfight in the Conservative Party that got out of hand” and described Brexit as “a loss of time, a waste of energy, stupidity.”
EU Council President Donald Tusk has said he would be the happiest man alive if Britain decided to think again.
“After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum,” he said. “If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands. I would be the happiest one if it [reversed], but we now have to start our formal works.”
Even France, the country most willing to impose tough Brexit terms, believes the UK only voted as it did due to the “lies of Brexiteers.”
French Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Marc Ayrault was blunt enough about British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson.
“You know very well what his style and method are,” Ayrault said of his British counterpart. “During the [Brexit] campaign, you know he told a lot of lies to the British people and now it is him who has his back against the wall.”
In response, former British commissioner to the EU Lord Hill said: “I think there is a surprisingly widely held view that Britain might still decide to stay in. And I think that partly explains why previously Donald Tusk has talked about it as hard Brexit or no exit.”
“I think they also believe when people start to look at the practical consequences of disentangling ourselves from this very complicated relationship, then maybe we will think again,” he said.
The European media coverage of the UK’s Brexit debate fuels the belief that the UK could change its mind. That coverage often focuses on the pro-European demonstrations, the divisions between the Brexiters and any spotty signs that the UK economy is being damaged.
Lengthy interviews with figures such as Nick Clegg appear in the German press, such as Handelsblatt, or with Sadiq Khan in Le Monde.
The speeches by former British prime minister Tony Blair explicitly calling for the remain camp to keep open the options of the UK remaining in the EU have been given generous coverage.
UK negotiators, including some in the Cabinet, believe this European mindset could make the negotiations more difficult, and this lurking, hidden agenda would reduce the EU’s will to compromise.
If May wins a large Commons majority, the lingering hope that Britain will change its mind will be dashed. There will instead be a double democratic lock — a narrow referendum decision affirmed in a comprehensive general election verdict.
UK officials believe this double mandate will lead the EU not to play games, but accept the best solution is to reach a mutually agreeable, long-term trading relationship.
Any EU motive to erect artificial roadblocks over the sequencing of the talks, the Brexit divorce costs, or passporting rights would be reduced.
The initial signs suggested Europe had got the message.
Norbert Rottgen, a member of Merkel’s conservatives and head of the German Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said the decision to go for an election meant the chances of a reversal of the UK decision would be reduced.
“Hopes for an exit from Brexit are completely unfounded. For the first time the prime minister is programmatically committing the Tories to Brexit,” he said.
However, Britain’s hope that it will change the European view might prove wrong. Experience shows the EU does not necessarily crumble when faced by negotiators armed with a fresh mandate from their people.
In 2015, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tspiras, leader of the leftist SYRIZA party, called a referendum and a snap election in a bid to give himself extra bargaining clout in the bailout talks, and little good it did him.
The overwhelming EU view remains that the UK must not be seen to benefit from any decision to leave the EU, whether that decision is taken by referendum or by an election.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
Taiwan’s rampant thesis and dissertation plagiarism has reduced the value of degrees, bringing the academic system’s public credibility to the brink of collapse. Data published on Retraction Watch — a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers — showed that 73 papers written by Taiwanese researchers were retracted from international journals between 2012 and 2016 due to fake peer reviews, the second-highest in the world behind China. Based on the size of the academic population, Taiwan was the highest in the world, making it academically a pirate nation. Academic fraud in Taiwan can be divided into several types: the listing of coauthors;