Does leaving the EU also mean leaving the Single Market?

On the 23rd of June 2016, the British electorate were asked a question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

That question has now been answered. The important debate now is what will Britain look like going forward.

The first big debate that must take place is wether or not the UK maintains its free trade arrangements with European nations who subscribe to what is called the "Single Market" - a free trade area where companies can move goods, capital and labour across borders without tariffs or customs charges.

We are now being told, however, that this has already been decided, by implication of the referendum on the 23rd of June. That somehow we all missed the small print somewhere on the back of the ballot paper that a vote to Leave the European Union - a political institution - was automatically a vote to also leave each of it’s satellite institutions.

Of course, this is nonsense. If it’s not on the ballot paper, you cannot argue that it is the will of the people.

But we are told that “out means out”, that you cannot subscribe to the EU’s satellite institutions if you are not a full member. This is also incorrect. Both Switzerland and Norway have access to the Single Market, neither of which are members of the EU.

The debate on Britain’s membership of the Single Market, the European Court of Justice, the Customs Union, and so on, must be debated properly in Parliament, and opinions from all sides must be heard and respected. These issues were not addressed in the referendum.

It is, in my opinion, extremely presumptuous to say, based solely on interpretations of the subtext of the ballot paper, that these issues should not be contested or challenged, and that to do so is to "defy the will of the people." I believe that such a proposition will only encourage the alarmingly fanatical spirit of intolerance which has already polluted the political debate in the country at large, and so further damage our increasingly fragile democracy.

I have come to accept that Britain is going to leave the EU. Brexit is the most important political issue facing Britain in my lifetime. I suspect that history will remember this event as one of the biggest political mistakes in recent years, but once the cow has been milked there is no squirting the cream back up her udder, so here we are to see things through.

I therefore am proud to remain a pro-European. My ideal would be, firstly, that the EU will be forced to recognise that it has to change in order to survive; no one wants a United States of Europe, a modern Tower of Babel, other than the political elite. European citizens do want some boundaries to be respected, in the same way that everyone wants privacy in their own home.

Secondly, that Britain will be able to maintain its unrestricted access to the economic community of Europe, and the benefits of.

And most importantly, that this government will commit itself to strengthening the British economy now, before we leave, so as to counter any potential economic shockwave that may come about when we eventually exit.

Brexit High Court Ruling: What Does This All Mean?

Above: A snapshot of recent headlines in the UK press. Last month the British High Court ruled that the UK Parliament must be consulted before the Government is allowed to trigger Article 50 - starting Britain's exit from the European Union.

Britain's bizarre year in politics continues as the British High Court and Supreme Court get involved in this Brexit business. To anyone feeling a little confused by what's happening, you're not alone, but perhaps this explanation will help.

It's ironic that these judges are now being labelled by the British tabloids as "enemies of the people." In reality, all that's happened is that the Conservative Government has been ordered to comply with the rules of British democracy.

In simple terms, here's how the UK system of government works:

• 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected by the British public.
• The political party with a majority of MPs forms a Government, and
• The leader of that winning party gets to be Prime Minister.

     [Some time later]

• The Government makes a proposal on something it wants to do, and
• The House of Commons (the same 650 MPs) vote on it - yes or no,
• If yes, then the House of Lords votes on it,
• If yes, then the Queen rubber-stamps it,
• Then it becomes law.

That's how stuff gets done in UK Government.

The EU Referendum is a slightly more sticky subject. This is because (1) the former Prime Minster (now resigned) promised to honour the result, and (2) leaving the EU is very complicated - it's not like quitting your job where you give notice, you get a P45, you're free. It's more like uprooting and replanting a very big, very old tree. The UK and EU are in a kind of symbiosis with each other on many complex levels.

Shortly after the UK voted to Leave the EU in the June referendum, there was some controversy after a number of MPs said they would oppose Brexit, pending a parliamentary vote to confirm or annul the result. Others were outraged by these statements, asserting that such an action would be undemocratic. In actual fact, for MPs to vote in favour or against the result of a referendum is more a question of morality and conscience. If you understand how parliamentary sovereignty works, it would in reality be undemocratic for the Houses not to get to vote on the issue - as the Supreme Court have now confirmed. Why?

A referendum in the United Kingdom is - and always has been - a formal public opinion poll. It is advisory, it is not legally binding. For this reason, any result, even by a clear margin, cannot be held in the same standing as a general election.

Therefore, an elected Government is not legally obliged to implement the result of any referendum unless the result it is also backed by Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, power lies with Parliament, not the Government, with the latter only acting as the majority of the former. This means that although they won the referendum campaign, the Brexiteers within the Conservative party are still accountable to, and subject to the rules of parliamentary democracy. The referendum does not put them above that fact. Similarly, a US President cannot do as he pleases without the approval of Congress. It's essentially the same principle.

The current upheaval is happening because the Government seems to be keeping other MPs and the public in the dark about their Brexit plans, even implying that they can do it without the approval of parliament all together. It went to the High Court, and they said that parliament must be allowed to vote. The press have since decided that the courts are corrupt.

As for my personal take this, I recently wrote to my MP, who campaigned for the Remain side. He wrote back to me saying that while he was disappointed by the result, he felt he had a duty to uphold it regardless. I can respect that. I do believe strongly, however, that this Government has a duty to put this issue to the Houses of Commons in a parliamentary vote. To try to circumvent this would be a betrayal of the democracy they claim to be upholding. Equally, for ministers to cite the "public mandate" of the referendum result as an excuse to exclude the other 322 elected MPs is not democratic, it is self-righteous and it is illegal.

As for the campaign for a second referendum (a campaign that, ironically, seems to have been started by a Leave campaigner prior to the vote) I was initially a supporter, but now I must concede that I don't think that a second referendum it is realistic.

If there is one thing that is clear, it is that the country remains bitterly divided on this issue, and nobody seems to have any idea what Brexit actually means.