The momentous decision by British voters to leave the European Union continues to send shockwaves through the UK political establishment and the country as a whole.
Both of the country’s main political parties are in turmoil. In the ruling Conservative Party a leadership election is now under way after Prime Minister David Cameron stepped down on June 24. The main opposition Labour Party is in an even more febrile state, with around a third of the shadow cabinet jumping ship or being pushed on June 26 after losing confidence in the lacklustre leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Further north, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is grabbing the chance to launch another independence referendum as soon as possible.
In all of this, the one thing that is becoming less likely is the country’s exit from the EU.
The formal act of leaving the EU begins with a member state requesting the start of exit negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron has declined to do this, saying it's a job that should be left to his successor, who should be in place by October. But there are a growing number of voices who suggest that may not happen anytime soon, if at all, including respected legal commentator Jack of Kent who says it could be delayed indefinitely.
One plausible scenario under which that could happen is if the new Conservative Party leader decided to seek a fresh mandate from the country before triggering the start of Article 50 talks, by calling a fresh general election once he takes over from Cameron. The European question would inevitably be the central issue in that campaign, but should it be won by a pro-European party – perhaps the Labour Party under a new leader such as Chuka Umunna – then the prospect of an exit would be off the agenda.
All this might appear rather undemocratic, but pro-European politicians don't need to argue for the referendum vote to be ignored; they just need to make the case for allowing the country to review its decision before it is finalised. Another referendum would be expensive, divisive and more than most people would want to stomach, but if it was done via a general election it might work.
Should the leaders of the Brexit campaign complain too vociferously about that, their opponents will have some useful ammunition with which to respond. Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, suggested a month ago that he would push for a second referendum if his side lost narrowly.
And the way in which he and some other senior figures in the Brexit camp have blithely rowed back on key elements of their campaign also provides grounds for saying the people were duped in a campaign that appeared designed to confuse rather than illuminate.
Farage said in a television interview on June 24 that a campaign promise that leaving the EU would mean the country could spend an extra £350m a week on the National Health Service was “a mistake.” Iain Duncan Smith, an ineffective former leader of the Conservative Party, has denied ever making that particular promise, although he seemed happy enough to be interviewed in front of a battlebus emblazoned with those words. MEP Daniel Hannan has said anyone who expected a vote to leave would mean lower immigration will be “disappointed.”
With the Brexit leaders appearing to have no plan for what to do next, there is at least a chance in the coming weeks and months for pro-EU politicians to make up some lost ground. That task will become easier as the ramifications of the referendum decision become clear.
The sharp fall in the value of sterling and the stock market the day after the vote was unnerving to many observers, but the real costs will take longer to emerge. To take just a few examples, banks have said they will move some of their staff to other parts of Europe, international companies are likely to hold off making big investment decisions until there is a clearer idea of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU's single market, and farming leaders have warned of higher food prices if more tariffs are imposed on imports.
Such factors could well take their toll on popular support for leaving the EU. But in any case, the divisions over the issue of EU membership may not be as bad as some suppose. At first glance, the referendum result exposed sharp divides between young and old; between university graduates and those with few qualifications; and between London, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and rural England and Wales on the other. But that is partly a symptom of the process. Whether or not they cared greatly about EU membership, when forced to choose between two options in a referendum, everyone had to cast a vote for one side or the other. Now that process is over, people can start to repopulate the middle ground between the two sides.
All this might be too little, too late for voters in Scotland, who may well vote for independence come what may. At the time of the last independence referendum in 2014, the status quo won the day in part because of a big question mark over whether Scotland would be able to maintain its membership of the EU when it left the UK. Brussels failed to offer much encouragement, and the risk of having to start a long, slow accession process helped to convince many north of the border to stick with what they had.
Continental European leaders may take a more sympathetic view of the Caledonian question next time around, in order to prove that the European project still has momentum. How much momentum can be created in the rest of the UK is an open question.
