Britons did not vote over what type of relationship or association the UK should have with the EU post-Brexit. The UK should hold a second referendum over the final deal of the negotiations with the EU. In this blog, Erik O. Eriksen (ARENA Centre for European Studies) draws on Norwegian experiences in arguing that there should be a second referendum on Brexit. After all, he argues, the UK is a parliamentary democracy and referenda are only advisory

Eriksen, Erik O.

LSE Research Online

Lessons	from	Norway:	The	case	for	a	secondreferendum	on	BrexitBritons	did	not	vote	over	what	type	of	relationship	or	association	the	UK	should	have	with	the	EU	post-Brexit.	The	UK	should	hold	a	second	referendum	over	the	final	deal	of	the	negotiations	with	the	EU.	Inthis	blog,	Erik	O.	Eriksen	(ARENA	Centre	for	European	Studies)	draws	on	Norwegian	experiences	inarguing	that	there	should	be	a	second	referendum	on	Brexit.	After	all,	he	argues,	the	UK	is	aparliamentary	democracy	and	referenda	are	only	advisory.The	main	problem	in	the	Brexit	negotiations	is	that	the	EU	does	not	accept	the	UK’s	wish	to	stay	in	thesingle	market	without	also	accepting	its	rules	and	obligations.	There	should	be	no	cherry-picking,	it	maintains.	In	thedebate	on	forms	of	association	with	the	EU,	Michel	Barnier,	the	European	Union’s	Brexit	negotiator,	recently	statedthat	‘the	British	have	a	choice.	They	could	stay	in	the	single	market,	like	Norway,	which	is	also	not	a	member	of	theEU	–	but	they	would	then	have	to	take	over	all	the	associated	rules	and	contributions	to	European	solidarity.	It	is	yourchoice’.	In	the	UK,	however,	there	is	no	agreement	on	what	Brexit	really	means.	Two	pro-Brexit	ministers	have	leftthe	government	and	Prime	Minister	May	only	has	a	slight	majority	in	Parliament.	A	debate	on	a	second	referendumhas	emerged.	Many	people	disagree	with	the	suggestion	to	hold	a	second	referendum,	arguing	that	it	is	only	anattempt	by	sore	losers	to	get	a	second	chance.	Apart	from	practical	difficulties	with	arranging	a	referendum	beforethe	UK	is	set	to	leave	the	EU	in	March	next	year,	there	are	no	good	reasons	not	to	hold	a	new	referendum.	After	all,the	UK	is	a	parliamentary	democracy	and	referenda	are	only	advisory.The	unknowns	of	Brexit	–	lessons	from	NorwayBritons	did	not	vote	over	what	type	of	relationship	or	association	the	UK	should	have	with	the	EU	post-Brexit.	Whatexactly	Brexit	would	entail	was	not	debated	and	the	alternatives	were	not	clear.	In	contrast,	Norway	in	1994	votedover	the	final	results	of	the	negotiations	with	the	EU.	It	was	rejected	by	a	slight	majority.	The	Norwegian	parliamentthen	voted	to	join	the	already	existing	European	Economic	Area	Agreement	(EEA),	which	gave	Norway	access	to	thesingle	market.	Since	then,	the	EEA	has	become	a	‘blueprint’	for	the	EU’s	relations	with	its	neighbours;	the	‘second-best’	model	after	full	EU	membership.	Would	this	model	meet	the	UK’s	request	of	taking	back	control?The	EEA	Agreement	comes	with	its	own	court	(the	EFTA	Court),	and	its	own	surveillance	authority.	The	decision-making	process	under	the	EEA	Agreement	is	characterised	by	a	two-pillar	structure.	Since	EEA	member	states	havenot	transferred	legislative	competencies	to	the	EEA	institutions,	they	cannot	accept	direct	decisions	of	the	EU.	TheEEA	Agreement,	therefore,	established	the	EEA	EFTA	bodies	to	match	those	of	the	EU.	The	joint	EEA	bodies	bindthe	two	pillars	together.	The	EEA	Committee	transposes	the	relevant	legal	acts	from	EU	to	the	EEA	law.	Decisions	inthe	Committee	are	unanimous,	and	if	agreement	is	not	reached	on	the	implementation	of	a	legal	act,	the	EEAcountries	can	reserve	themselves	collectively	against	the	inclusion	of	the	act	in	the	Agreement.	However,	this	right	isvery	difficult	to	apply	in	practice.	If	it	were	to	be	used,	the	entire	EEA	arrangement	would	come	under	threat.	Suchreservations	would	create	an	imbalance	in	the	single	market,	which	could	lead	to	counter-reactions	from	the	EU	inthe	form	of	protective	measures.	The	reservation	right	has	therefore	remained	latent	in	the	24	years	that	the	EEAAgreement	has	been	in	force,	and	it	is	doubtful	whether	any	government	would	be	willing	to	risk	the	uncertainconsequences	of	using	it.	In	reality,	Norway	is	subjected	to	EU	law	like	EU	members.	It	must	pay	and	obey	but	hasno	say!	The	Norwegian	prime	minister,	Erna	Solberg,	warned	the	Brits	before	the	referendum	on	EU	membership:‘don’t	leave,	you’ll	hate	it’.The	question	is	how	close	to	this	status	the	UK	will	come	after	Brexit,	even	if	they	succeed	in	putting	up	an	EEA-likeagreement	of	their	own	(or	a	Canada	plus	model,	for	that	matter).	The	experiences	with	the	EEA	Agreement	fromNorway	show	that	being	outside	the	Union	but	inside	the	single	market	entails	being	subjected	to	EU-law	like	the	EUmembers.	Is	this	what	the	Brexiteers	voted	for?	The	UK	should,	therefore,	hold	a	second	referendum	over	the	finaldeal	of	the	negotiations	with	the	EU.LSE Brexit: Lessons from Norway: The case for a second referendum on Brexit Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-04Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/10/04/the-case-for-a-second-referendum-on-brexit-lessons-from-norway/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/Image	by	KonstantinLübeck,	CC	Attribution-Share	Alike	4.0	International.Violations	of	the	spirit	and	the	letter	of	the	lawThe	Brexit	campaign	has	been	accused	of	breaking	the	electoral	law	by	exceeding	spending	limits.	Two	peopleworking	on	the	‘Vote	Leave’-	campaign	have	already	been	penalised	for	violating	these	rules.	More	than	50	membersof	the	UK	Parliament,	including	some	Conservatives,	have	reported	the	Vote	Leave	campaign	to	the	MetropolitanPolice	and	the	National	Crime	Agency	asking	them	to	investigate	the	campaign	activities.	Former	Labour	CabinetMinister	Ben	Bradshaw,	who	did	the	reporting	said	that	‘there	has	been	no	bigger	decision	–	beyond	questions	of	warand	peace	–	before	the	British	people	in	the	last	half	century’	and	that	the	Vote	Leave	campaign	violated	both	thespirit	and	the	letter	of	the	law.	There	was,	after	all,	only	a	slight	majority	of	votes	cast	for	Brexit	and,	for	example,many	British	people	living	abroad	were	not	allowed	to	vote.	Furthermore,	there	was	a	majority	voting	to	remain	inboth	Scotland	and	Northern	Ireland.	The	electoral	commission	has	already	found	that	the	Vote	Leave	campaignviolated	electoral	law,	and	a	group	of	British	expats	living	in	France,	Italy	and	Spain	has	launched	a	legal	challengeagainst	the	Brexit	referendum,	arguing	that	the	vote	was	unconstitutional.Have	one’s	cake	and	eat	itIt	has	become	clear	that	the	conditions	set	by	the	UK	in	the	negotiations	cannot	be	accepted	without	undermining	theEU.	The	UK	negotiators	would	like	to	have	their	cake	and	eat	it.	They	want	access	to	the	single	market,	but	do	notwant	the	rules	and	regulations	that	it	entails.	They	do	not	want	to	accept	the	jurisdiction	of	the	European	Court	ofJustice	or	the	four	freedoms	of	the	single	market,	especially	not	those	pertaining	to	labour	immigration.	As,	MichaelBarnier,	has	stated:	‘the	UK	wants	to	take	back	sovereignty	and	control	of	its	own	laws,	which	we	respect,	but	itcannot	ask	the	EU	to	lose	control	of	its	borders	and	laws’.	However,	the	issues	relating	to	the	UK’s	commitments	toEurope	or	to	European	integration	were	not	a	part	of	the	debate	before	the	Brexit	referendum.	Would	the	peoplehave	voted	differently	if	they	knew	what	the	consequences	were?	The	UK	has	played	an	important	role	in	shapingthe	EU	that	we	know	today,	and	therefore	has	a	responsibility	for	its	future	functioning.	Do	the	British	people	want	theEU	to	dissolve?	Is	this	really	in	the	UK’s	best	interest?Only	a	new	referendum	can	overrule	an	old	oneReferenda	are	not	well	suited	to	handle	complicated	questions,	and	are	often	misused	and	exploited	to	serve	otherpurposes.	It	were	the	concerns	of	the	Conservative	party	that	pushed	former	Prime	Minister	Cameron	to	hold	thereferendum	on	EU	membership	in	the	first	place.	Referenda	are	not	good	measures	of	the	people’s	will,	but	the	onlyway	to	solve	the	conflicts	that	we	see	in	the	UK	is	by	holding	a	new	referendum.	Only	a	new	referendum	canlegitimately	overrule	an	old	one.	It	is	far	from	certain	that	the	result	of	a	second	referendum	on	the	UK’s	membershipin	the	EU	will	be	any	different,	but	at	least	the	citizens	are	in	the	position	to	make	a	more	qualified	choice.This	post	represents	the	views	of	the	authors	and	not	those	of	the	Brexit	blog,	nor	the	LSE.LSE Brexit: Lessons from Norway: The case for a second referendum on Brexit Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-04Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/10/04/the-case-for-a-second-referendum-on-brexit-lessons-from-norway/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/Erik	O	Eriksen	is	the	Director	of	ARENA	and	Professor	of	Political	Science	at	the	University	of	Oslo.LSE Brexit: Lessons from Norway: The case for a second referendum on Brexit Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-04Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/10/04/the-case-for-a-second-referendum-on-brexit-lessons-from-norway/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/

Lessons from Norway: the case for a second referendum on Brexit

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/91936/1/Eriksen_Lessons-from-Norway_Author.pdf

Lessons from Norway: the case for a second referendum on Brexit

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online