Brexit

Page 2 of 306

Walk by Faith; Serve with Abandon
Expect to Win!
Page 3 of 306

Page 4 of 306

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP).
The stated objectives are:
1. Community Mobilization;
2. Social Intervention;
3. Provision of Opportunities;
4. Organizational Change and Development;
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and
internationally.
www.Advocacy.Foundation
ISBN: ......... ../2017
......... Printed in the USA
Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Philadelphia, PA
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS
Page 5 of 306

Page 6 of 306

Dedication
______
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,
professional, familial, and other challenges.
We pray that you will bear in mind:
Matthew 19:26 (NLT)
Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible.
But with God everything is possible.” (Emphasis added)
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will
accomplish:
Blessings!!
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Page 7 of 306

Page 8 of 306

The Transformative Justice Project
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly
overloaded, and Solutions-Based programs are
woefully underfunded. Our precious children,
therefore, particularly young people of color, often
get the “swift” version of justice whenever they
come into contact with the law.
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based
on elementary school test results, and our country
incarcerates more of its young than any other
nation on earth. So we at The Foundation labor to
pull our young people out of the “school to prison”
pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts of the
legal, psychological, governmental and
educational professionals needed to bring an end
to delinquency.
We also educate families, police, local businesses,
elected officials, clergy, schools and other
stakeholders about transforming whole communities, and we labor to change their
thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal of helping them embrace the
idea of restoration for the young people in our care who demonstrate repentance for
their mistakes.
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the
adjudicatory (court) process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in
order to maximize the chances for our clients to graduate high school and
progress into college, military service or the workforce without the stigma of a
criminal record;
2. We then endeavor to enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-
Driven Transformative Justice program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation
and subsequent reintegration back into the community;
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-
ReEngineering seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice
to Parental Rights, to Domestic issues to Police friendly contacts, to Mental
Health intervention, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;
Page 9 of 306

4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact
between all parties;
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers
designed to facilitate collaboration among professionals and community
stakeholders; and finally
6. 1 We disseminate Monthly and Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series
Newsletter and our e-Advocate Monthly and Quarterly Electronic Compilations to
all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process on the everevolving
developments in both the Adult and Juvenile Justice systems.
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also
facilitate Community Engagement through the Transformative Justice process,
thereby balancing the interests of local businesses, schools, clergy, social
organizations, elected officials, law enforcement entities, and other interested
stakeholders. Through these efforts, relationships are built, rebuilt and strengthened,
local businesses and communities are enhanced & protected from victimization, young
careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out of the prison
pipeline.
Additionally, we develop Transformative “Void Resistance” (TVR) initiatives to elevate
concerns of our successes resulting in economic hardship for those employed by the
penal system.
TVR is an innovative-comprehensive process that works in conjunction with our
Transformative Justice initiatives to transition the original use and purpose of current
systems into positive social impact operations, which systematically retrains current
staff, renovates facilities, creates new employment opportunities, increases salaries and
is data-proven to enhance employee’s mental wellbeing and overall quality of life – an
exponential Transformative Social Impact benefit for ALL community stakeholders.
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can
give! We plan to help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250
per year) in each jurisdiction we serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client,
per year. *
Thank you in advance for your support!
* FYI:
1 In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.
Page 10 of 306

1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration,
is around $43,000.00 per child, per year.
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximum-security youth incarceration
is well over $148,000.00 per child, per year.
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargaining rate is above 99%.
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these
matters, seeking to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and
Judicial Economy, and, although the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive
outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced where people of color are involved.
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best
interests of our young.
Our young people do not belong behind bars.
- Jack Johnson
Page 11 of 306

Page 12 of 306

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
…a compendium of works on
International Incidents Series
Brexit
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”
Atlanta
Philadelphia
______
John C Johnson III
Founding Partner & CEO
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Data | SMS
www.Advocacy.Foundation
Page 13 of 306

Page 14 of 306

Biblical Authority
Deuteronomy 20:1-4 (NIV)
Going to War
1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army
greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought
you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest
shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are
going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or
be terrified by them. 4 For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for
you against your enemies to give you victory.”
Isaiah 2:4
4
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will
beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not
take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Isaiah 19:2
2
“I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian—brother will fight against brother, neighbor
against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom.
Jeremiah 46:16
16
They will stumble repeatedly; they will fall over each other. They will say, ‘Get up, let
us go back to our own people and our native lands, away from the sword of the
oppressor.’
Jeremiah 51:20
20
“You are my war club, my weapon for battle—with you I shatter nations, with you I
destroy kingdoms,
Micah 7:8
Israel Will Rise
8
Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will rise.
Though I sit in darkness, the Lord will be my light.
Page 15 of 306

Zechariah 10:5
5
Together they will be like warriors in battle trampling their enemy into the mud of the
streets. They will fight because the Lord is with them, and they will put the enemy
horsemen to shame.
Zechariah 14:2
2
I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the
houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest
of the people will not be taken from the city.
________
Matthew 24:6
6
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such
things must happen, but the end is still to come.
Romans 8:37
37
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
Romans 12:19
19
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written:
“It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
Romans 13:4
4
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid,
for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath
to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
2 Corinthians 10:4
4
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they
have divine power to demolish strongholds.
Ephesians 6:10-17
The [Whole] Armor of God
10
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of
God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is
Page 16 of 306

not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the
powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly
realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes,
you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to
stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the
breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that
comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with
which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of
salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
James 4:1-2
Submit Yourselves to God
1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that
battle within you? 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get
what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.
Page 17 of 306

Page 18 of 306

Table of Contents
…a compilation of works on
International Incidents Series
Brexit
________
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction: Brexit……………………………………………………….. 21
II. Causes of The Vote in Favor of Brexit……………….……………….. 71
III. The European Union Withdrawal Agreement…..………..…………. 87
IV. International Reactions………………………………………….......... 113
V. Opposition to Brexit in The UK.………………………………………. 137
VI. EU Referendums Since 1972………………………………………… 147
VII. References……………………………………………………….......... 159
________
Attachments
A. Divided Kingdom: How Brexit is Remaking The Constitutional Order
B. The Economics of International Disintegration
C. Brexit and Public Opinion: The UK in a Changing Europe
Copyright © 2003 – 2019 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 19 of 306

This work is not meant to be a piece of original academic
analysis, but rather draws very heavily on the work of
scholars in a diverse range of fields. All material drawn upon
is referenced appropriately.
Page 20 of 306

I. Introduction
What Is The European Union?
by Kimberly Amadeo | Updated July 04, 2019
The European Union is a unified trade and monetary body of 28 member countries.
It eliminates all border controls between members. That allows the free flow of goods
and people, except for random spot checks for crime and drugs. The EU transmits
state-of-the-art technologies to its members. The areas that benefit are environmental
protection, research and development, and energy.
Public contracts are open to bidders from any member country. Any product
manufactured in one country can be sold to any other member without tariffs or duties.
Taxes are all standardized. Practitioners of most services, such as law, medicine,
tourism, banking, and insurance, can operate in all member countries. As a result, the
cost of airfares, the internet, and phone calls have fallen dramatically.
Purpose
Its purpose is to be more competitive in the global marketplace. At the same time, it
must balance the needs of its independent fiscal and political members.
What Countries Are EU Members
The EU's 28 member countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. That will drop to 27
after Brexit causes the United Kingdom to leave the EU in 2019.
How It Is Governed
Three bodies run the EU. The EU Council represents national governments. The
Parliament is elected by the people. The European Commission is the EU staff. They
make sure all members act consistently in regional, agricultural, and social policies.
Contributions of 120 billion euros a year from member states fund the EU.
Here's how the three bodies uphold the laws governing the EU. These are spelled out in
a series of treaties and supporting regulations:
1. The EU Council sets the policies and proposes new legislation. The political
leadership, or Presidency of the EU, is held by a different leader every six
months.
2. The European Parliament debates and approves the laws proposed by the
Council. Its members are elected every five years.
Page 21 of 306

3. The European Commission staffs and executes the laws. Jean-Claude Juncker is
the president until October 2019.
Currency
The euro is the common currency for the EU area. It is the second most commonly held
currency in the world, after the U.S. dollar. It replaced the Italian lira, the French franc,
and the German deutschmark, among others.
The value of the euro is free-floating instead of a fixed exchange rate. As a
result, foreign exchange traders determine its value each day. The most widely-watched
value is how much the euro's value is compared to the U.S. dollar. The dollar is the
unofficial world currency.
The Difference Between the Eurozone and the EU
The eurozone consists of all countries that use the euro. All EU members pledge to
convert to the euro, but only 19 have so far. They are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. The eurozone was created in
2005.
The European Central Bank is the EU's central bank. It sets monetary policy and
manages bank lending rates and foreign exchange reserves. Its target inflation rate is
less than 2%.
The Schengen Area
The Schengen Area guarantees free movement to those legally residing within its
boundaries. Residents and visitors can cross borders without getting visas or showing
their passports. In total, there are 26 members of the Schengen Area. They are Austria,
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and
Switzerland.
Two EU countries, Ireland and the United Kingdom, have declined the Schengen
benefits. Four non-EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland have
adopted the Schengen Agreement. Three territories are special members of the EU and
part of the Schengen Area: the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands. Three
countries have open borders with the Schengen Area: Monaco, San Marino, and
Vatican City.
This chart shows which countries are members of the EU, the eurozone, and the
Schengen Area.
Page 22 of 306

Countries
EU
Member
Schengen Euro
Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands,
Yes Yes Yes
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain
Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Sweden Yes Yes No
Ireland Yes No Yes
Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania Yes Pending No
Cyprus Yes Pending Yes
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland No Yes No
United Kingdom Exiting No No
History
In 1950, the concept of a European trade area was first established. The European Coal
and Steel Community had six founding members: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome established a common
market.
It eliminated customs duties in 1968. It put in place standard policies, particularly in
trade and agriculture. In 1973, the ECSC added Denmark, Ireland, and the United
Kingdom. It created its first Parliament in 1979. Greece joined in 1981, followed by
Spain and Portugal in 1986.
In 1993, the Treaty of Maastricht established the European Union common market. Two
years later, the EU added Austria, Sweden, and Finland. In 2004, twelve more countries
joined: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon increased the powers of the European Parliament. It gave
the EU the legal authority to negotiate and sign international treaties. It increased EU
powers, border control, immigration, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters,
and police cooperation. It abandoned the idea of a European Constitution. European
law is still established by international treaties.
Economy
The EU's trade structure has propelled it to become the world's second-largest
economy after China. In 2018, its gross domestic product was $22 trillion, while China's
was $25.3 trillion. These measurements use purchasing power parity to account for the
discrepancy between each country's standard of living.
The United States was third, producing $20.5 trillion, according to estimates by
the International Monetary Fund.
But the EU's success is not evenly distributed. Italy, Greece, and Cyprus have high
levels of public and private debt, including bad bank loans. Italy also has high
Page 23 of 306

unemployment while France suffers from low productivity. Germany has a large trade
surplus. Many countries need reforms of their pension systems and labor markets.
News
Brexit. On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. It
could take two years to negotiate the terms of the exit. Some EU members asked for an
earlier withdrawal. The uncertainty dampened business growth for companies that
operate in Europe.
U.S. companies are the largest investors in Great Britain. As of 2016, the U.S. had
invested $588 billion in Britain, while British companies employed more than a million
people in the States.
Britain's investment in the United States is at the same level. That could impact up to 2
million U.S. / U.K. jobs. It's unknown exactly how many are held by U.S. citizens.
What caused Brexit? Many in the United Kingdom, as in other EU nations, worried
about the free movement of immigrants and refugees. They don't like the budgetary
constraints and regulations imposed by the EU.
They want to enjoy the benefits of free movement of capital and trade but not the costs.
Immigration Crisis. In 2015, 1.2 million refugees from Africa and the Middle East poured
through Europe's borders. On New Year's Eve 2016, gangs of young refugees across
Germany robbed, injured, and sexually assaulted more than 1,200 people, primarily
women.
As a result, many EU countries sealed off their borders. That stranded
8,000 immigrants in Greece. The EU signed an agreement with Turkey to take back
refugees who had reached Greece.
In return, the EU would pay Turkey 6 billion euros. In the September 2017 election,
opposition to the refugees cost Merkel's party its majority in the government.
Immigration is the main reason the U.K. majority voted for Brexit.
Greek Debt Crisis. In 2011, Greece's debt crisis threatened the concept of the
eurozone itself. It almost triggered sovereign debt crises in Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and
Spain. EU leaders assured investors that it would stand behind its members' debts. At
the same time, they imposed austerity measures to restrain the countries' spending.
They wanted all members to honor the debt limits imposed by the Maastricht Treaty
requirements.
Page 24 of 306

Brexit
Brexit is an abbreviation for "British Exit", referring to the U.K.'s decision in a June 23,
2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU). The vote's result defied
expectations and roiled global markets, causing the British pound to fall to its lowest
level against the dollar in 30 years. Former Prime Minister David Cameron, who called
the referendum and campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU, announced his
resignation the following day.
Theresa May, who replaced Cameron as leader of the Conservative party and prime
minister, stepped down as party leader voluntarily on June 7, 2019, after facing severe
pressure to resign. She will remain as prime minister, until the Tories declare a new
leader July 22. Britain has to ratify a withdrawal agreement with the EU before leaving if
it wants to avoid a chaotic "no-deal" exit.
The deal May negotiated with the EU was rejected by the House of Commons three
times, and she shelved plans to put it to a vote a fourth time after the changes and
compromises she was willing to make angered many senior members of her party.
The new Brexit deadline is October 31, 2019.
Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/; a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") is the withdrawal of
the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). Following a referendum held
on 23 June 2016 in which 51.9 percent of those voting supported leaving the EU, the
Page 25 of 306

Government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, starting a two-year
process which was due to conclude with the UK's exit on 29 March 2019—a deadline
which has since been extended to 31 October 2019.
Withdrawal from the EU has been advocated by both left-wing and rightwing
Eurosceptics, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have
advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single
market. The UK joined the European Communities (EC) in 1973 under
the Conservative government of Edward Heath, with continued membership endorsed
by a referendum in 1975. In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the EC was
advocated mainly by the political left, with the Labor Party's 1983 election manifesto
advocating full withdrawal. From the 1990s, opposition to further European
integration came mainly from the right, and divisions within the Conservative Party led
to rebellion over the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The growth of the UK Independence
Party (UKIP) in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People's
Pledge campaign have been described as influential in bringing about a referendum.
The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for
the 2015 general election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in
2016 following pressure from the Euroscepticwing of his party. Cameron, who had
campaigned to remain, resigned after the result and was succeeded by Theresa May,
his former Home Secretary. She called a snap general election less than a year later
but lost her overall majority. Her minority government is supported in key votes by
the Democratic Unionist Party.
On 29 March 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom invoked Article 50 of the
Treaty on European Union. Theresa May announced the government's intention not to
seek permanent membership of the European single market or the EU customs
union after leaving the EU and promised to repeal the European Communities Act of
1972 and incorporate existing European Union law into UK domestic law. Negotiations
with the EU officially started in June 2017. In November 2018, the Draft Withdrawal
Agreement, negotiated between the UK Government and the EU, was published.
The House of Commons voted against the agreement by a margin of 432 to 202 (the
largest parliamentary defeat in history for a sitting UK government) on 15 January 2019,
and again on 12 March with a margin of 391 to 242 against the agreement. On 14 March
2019, the House of Commons voted for the Prime Minister, Theresa May, to ask the EU
for such an extension of the period allowed for the negotiation. Members from across the
House of Commons rejected the agreement, with the leadership of the Labor Party
stating in the House of Commons that any deal must maintain a customs union and
single market, and with a large percentage of its members rejecting the Irish backstop as
it is currently drafted in the EU withdrawal agreement. Opponents of the EU Withdrawal
Agreement cited concerns that the agreement as drafted could plunge Northern Ireland
into a conflict and spark a return of The Troubles as a result of Brexit.
The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's
real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit
referendum itself damaged the economy. Studies on effects since the referendum show
a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased
inflation. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA)
countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic
Page 26 of 306

esearch. As of May 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing
EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains
uncertain.
The precise impact on the UK depends on whether the process will be a "hard" or "soft"
Brexit.
Terminology and Etymology
In the wake of the referendum of 23 June 2016, many new pieces of Brexit-related
jargon have entered popular use.
Article 50
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a procedure in the treaty that sets out how
member states can leave the Union, with a two-year timetable for leaving. Article 50
was triggered by Prime Minister Theresa May at the end of March 2017.
Backstop
A term referring to the government's proposal to keep Northern Ireland in some aspects
of the European Union Customs Union and of the European Single Market to prevent
a hard border in Ireland, so as not to compromise the Good Friday Agreement.
Blind / Blindfold Brexit
Coined in September 2018 to describe a scenario where the UK leaves the EU without
clarity on the terms of a future trade deal. EU and British negotiators would then have
Page 27 of 306

until 31 December 2020 to sign off on a future trade deal, during which time the UK will
effectively remain a member of the EU, but with no voting rights.
Brexit
Brexit (like its early variant, Brixit) is a portmanteau of "British" and "exit".
Grammatically, it has been called a complex nominal. The first attestation in the Oxford
English Dictionary is a Euractiv blog post by Peter Wilding on 15 May 2012. It was
coined by analogy with "Grexit", attested on 6 February 2012 to refer to a hypothetical
withdrawal of Greece from the eurozone (and possibly also the EU altogether, although
there was never a clear popular mandate for it). At present, Brexit is impending under
the EU Treaties and the UK Acts of Parliament, and the current negotiations pursuant
thereto.
Canada plus / Canada model
This is shorthand for a model where the United Kingdom leaves the European Union
and signs a free trade agreement. This would allow the UK to control its own trade
policy as opposed to jointly negotiating alongside the European Union, but would
require rules of origin agreements to be reached for UK–EU trade. It is likely this would
lead to trade being less "free" than joining the EFTA, and result in additional border
controls being required, which is an issue of contention, particularly on the island
of Ireland.
The Canadian–European Union deal took seven years to negotiate, but Brexiteers
argue it would take much less time between the UK and EU as the two participants
already align on regulatory standards.
Chequers plan
The short name given by the media to The framework for the future relationship
between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the government's white
paper drawn up at Chequers and published on 12 July 2018 which set out the sort of
relationship the UK government wanted with the EU after Brexit. On 22 November 2018
the government published the updated draft.
Clean break Brexit
This means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement.
Customs Union
A customs union is an agreement under which two or more countries agree not to
impose taxes on imported goods from one another and to apply a common tariff on
goods imported from countries not party to the agreement. For more information.
Page 28 of 306

Divorce Bill
It is expected that the UK will make a contribution toward financial commitments that it
approved while still a member of the EU, but are still outstanding. The amount owed is
officially referred to as the financial settlement but has informally been referred to as
an exit bill or divorce bill. While serving as Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab said the UK
will not pay the full financial settlement to the EU in a no-deal scenario but would
instead pay a significantly lower amount to cover the UK's "strict legal obligations". The
UK Government's estimate of the financial settlement in March 2019 is £38 billion.
Hard and Soft Brexit
"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are
unofficial terms that are commonly
used by news media to describe the
prospective relationship between the
UK and the EU after withdrawal.
A hard Brexit (also called a no-deal
Brexit) usually refers to the UK
leaving the EU and the European Single Market with few or no deals (trade or
otherwise) in place, meaning that trade will be conducted under the World Trade
Organization's rules, and services will no longer be provided by agencies of the
European Union (such as aviation safety). Soft Brexit encompasses any deal that
involves retaining membership in the European Single Market and at least some free
movement of people according to European Economic Area (EEA) rules.
Theresa May's "Chequers plan" embraced some aspects of a "soft" Brexit. Note that the
EEA and the deal with Switzerland contain fully free movement of people, and that the
EU has wanted that to be included in a deal with UK on fully free trade.
Hard Border
Because of Brexit, a physical border could be erected between Northern Ireland, a
constituent part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member
state. This raises concerns about the future of the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast
Agreement), a peace deal signed in 1998 which helped to end the Northern Ireland
conflict (The Troubles).
Indicative Vote
Indicative votes are votes by members of parliament on a series of non-binding
resolutions. They are a means of testing the will of the House of Commons on different
options relating to one issue. MPs have voted on eight different options for the next
steps in the Brexit process on 27 March 2019; however, none of the proposals earned a
Page 29 of 306

majority in the indicative votes. MPs also voted on four options on 1 April 2019 in the
second round of indicative votes. Still, none of the proposals earned a majority.
Leaver
Those supporting Brexit are sometimes referred to as "Leavers". Alternatively the term
"Brexiteers", or "Brexiters" has been used to describe adherents of the Leave campaign.
Likewise, the pejorative term "Brextremist", a portmanteau of "Brexiter" and "Extremist"
has been used by some outlets to describe Leavers of an overzealous, uncompromising
disposition.
Lexit
Also Lexiter. A portmanteau of 'left-wing' and 'Brexit', referring to left-wing advocacy of
EU withdrawal.
Meaningful Vote
A meaningful vote is a vote under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act
2018, requiring the government to arrange for a motion proposing approval of the
outcome of negotiations with the EU to be debated and voted on by the House of
Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the
withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article
50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
Managed No-Deal
"Managed no-deal Brexit" or "managed no deal Brexit" was increasingly used near the
end of 2018, in respect of the complex series of political, legal and technical decisions
needed if there is no withdrawal agreement treaty with the EU when the UK exits under
the Article 50 withdrawal notice.
No deal Brexit
This means the UK would leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement.
Norway Model/ Norway Plus
This is shorthand for a model where the United Kingdom leaves the European Union but
becomes a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European
Economic Area, possibly with the addition of a customs union ("plus"). EFTA and EEA
membership would allow the UK to remain in the single market but without having to be
subject to the Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy, and the European
Court of Justice.
Page 30 of 306

The UK would be subject to the EFTA court, which largely shadows the ECJ, have to
transfer a large amount of EU law into UK law, and have little say on shaping EU rules
(some of which the UK will be compelled to take on). The UK would also have to allow
freedom of movement between the EU and UK, something that was seen as a key issue
of contention in the referendum.
People's Vote
People's Vote is an advocacy group launched in April 2018, who calls for a public vote
on the final Brexit deal. The People's Vote march is part of a series of
demonstrations against Brexit.
Remainer
Those in favor of the UK remaining in the EU are sometimes referred to as
"Remainers". The derogatory term "Remoaner" (a blend of "remainer" and "moan") is
sometimes used by Brexiters to describe adherents of the Remain campaign.
Second Referendum
A second referendum (otherwise known as People's vote) has been proposed by a
number of politicians and pressure groups. The Electoral Commission of UK has the
Page 31 of 306

esponsibility for nominating lead campaign groups for each possible referendum
outcome.
Slow Brexit
The term ‘slow Brexit’ was first coined by British Prime Minister Theresa May on 25
March 2019 as she spoke to Parliament, warning MPs that Article 50 could be extended
beyond 22 May, slowing down the Brexit process. A ‘slow Brexit’ implies a longer period
of political uncertainty in which members of Parliament will debate the next steps of
Britain's departure from the European Union.
Background: The United Kingdom and Europe
Brexit
Articles on The British Exit From The European Union
Main Topics
Brexit Negotiations
Impact of Brexit on
the European Union
Brexit and Arrangements
for Science and Technology
Economic effects of Brexit
Opposition to Brexit
in the United Kingdom
Secondary Topics
Withdrawal from the European Union
Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom
Referendum
European Union Referendum
Act 2015
Campaigning in the United Kingdom
European Union membership referendum
European Union Act 2016 (Gibraltar)
Issues in the United Kingdom European
Union membership referendum
Opinion polling for the United
Kingdom European Union
membership referendum
Endorsements in the United Kingdom
European Union membership referendum
International reactions to the
2016 United Kingdom European Union
membership referendum
Activism
Britain Stronger in Europe
Labor In for Britain
Page 32 of 306

Vote Leave
Campaign for an Independent Britain
Get Britain Out
Better Off Out
The European Union: In or Out
Brexit: The Movie
People's Vote
Postcards from the 48%
Wooferendum
Proposed second Scottish
independence referendum
Higher categories: European politics, United Kingdom, Category:Brexit
The "Inner Six" European countries signed the Treaty of Paris in 1951, establishing
the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The 1955 Messina
Conference deemed that the ECSC was a success, and resolved to extend the concept
further, thereby leading to the 1957 Treaties of Rome establishing the European
Economic Community(EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
In 1967, these became known as the European Communities (EC). The UK attempted
to join in 1963 and 1967, but these applications were vetoed by the President of
France, Charles de Gaulle.
Accession and Period of European Union Membership
After de Gaulle relinquished the French presidency, the UK successfully applied for
membership and the Conservative prime minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of
Accession in 1972. Parliament passed the European Communities Act later that
year and the UK joined Denmark and Ireland in becoming a member of the EC on 1
January 1973.
The opposition Labor Party won the February 1974 general election without a majority
and then contested the subsequent October 1974 general election with a commitment
to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the EC, believing them to be
unfavorable, and then hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EC on the new
terms. Labor again won the election (this time with a small majority), and in 1975 the
United Kingdom held its first ever national referendum, asking whether the UK should
remain in the European Communities. Despite significant division within the ruling Labor
Party, all major political parties and the mainstream press supported continuing
membership of the EC. On 5 June 1975, 67.2 per cent of the electorate and all but
two UK counties and regions voted to stay in; support for the UK to leave the EC in
1975 appears unrelated to the support for Leave in the 2016 referendum.
Comparison of Results of 1975 and 2016 Referendums
Page 33 of 306

The Labor Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw
from the EC without a referendum, although after a heavy defeat Labor changed its
policy. In 1985, the Thatcher government ratified the Single European Act—the first
major revision to the Treaty of Rome—without a referendum.
In October 1990, under pressure from senior ministers and despite Margaret Thatcher's
deep reservations, the United Kingdom joined the European Exchange Rate
Mechanism (ERM), with the pound sterling pegged to the deutschmark. Thatcher
resigned as Prime Minister the following month, amid Conservative Party divisions
arising partly from her increasingly Euroscepticviews. The United Kingdom and Italy
were forced to withdraw from the ERM in September 1992, after the pound sterling and
the lira came under pressure from currency speculation ("Black Wednesday").
Under the Maastricht Treaty, the European Communities became the European
Union on 1 November 1993, reflecting the evolution of the organization from an
economic union into a political union. Denmark, France, and Ireland held referendums
to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. In accordance with British constitutional convention,
specifically that of parliamentary sovereignty, ratification in the UK was not subject to
approval by referendum. Despite this, the British constitutional historian Vernon
Bogdanor wrote at the time that there was "a clear constitutional rationale for requiring a
referendum" because although MPs are entrusted with legislative power by the
electorate, they are not given authority to transfer that power (the UK's previous three
referendums all concerned the transfer of parliamentary powers). Further, as the
ratification of the treaty was in the manifestos of the three major political parties, voters
opposed to ratification had no way to express that opposition. For Bogdanor, while the
ratification of the treaty by the House of Commons might be legal, it would not be
legitimate—which requires popular consent. The way in which the treaty was ratified, he
judged, was "likely to have fundamental consequences both for British politics and for
Britain's relationship with the European Community." This perceived democratic
deficit directly led to the formation of the Referendum Party and the United Kingdom
Independence Party.
Euroscepticism, Opt-Outs and 'Outers'
Thatcher, who had supported the common market and the Single European Act, in
the Bruges speech of 1988 warned against "a European super-state exercising a new
dominance from Brussels". She influenced Daniel Hannan, who in 1990 founded the
Oxford Campaign for Independent Britain; "With hindsight, some see this as the start of
the campaign for Brexit", Financial Times later wrote. In 1994, Sir James
Goldsmith formed the Referendum Party to contest the 1997 general election on a
platform of providing a referendum on the nature of the United Kingdom's relationship
with the rest of the European Union. The party fielded candidates in 547 constituencies
at that election, and won 810,860 votes—2.6 per cent of the total votes cast—but failed
to win a parliamentary seat due to the vote being spread across the country. The
Referendum Party disbanded after Goldsmith's death in 1997.
Page 34 of 306

The UK Independence Party (UKIP), a Eurosceptic political party, was formed in 1993.
It achieved third place in the UK during the 2004 European elections, second place in
the 2009 European elections and first place in the 2014 European elections, with 27.5
per cent of the total vote. This was the first time since the 1910 general election that any
party other than Labor or the Conservatives had taken the largest share of the vote in a
nationwide election. UKIP's electoral success in the 2014 European election is
documented as the strongest correlate of the support for the leave campaign in the
2016 referendum.
UKIP won two by-elections (triggered by defecting Conservative MPs) in 2014; in
the 2015 general election, the party took 12.6 per cent of the total vote and held one of
the two seats won in 2014.
Policy Opt-Outs of European Union Member States
Country
Denm
ark
d
d
Irelan
Polan
Unite
d
Kingdom
#
of
opt
-
out
s
Scheng
en Area
Economi
c and
Montetar
y
Union(EM
U)
Security
and
Defence
Policy(CS
DP)
Policy Area
Area of
freedom,
security
and
justice(AF
SJ)
Charter of
Fundamen
tal Rights
Social
Chapt
er
3 INT O O O NO NO
2
NO NO O (opt-in) NO NO
1 NO NO NO NO O NO
4
(opt-
O
in)
(opt-
O
in)
O – opt-out in place
F – former opt-out that was
subsequently abolished
INT – participates on an
intergovernmental basis, but not
under EU law
NO – fully participating in policy area
Opinion Polls 1977–2015
O NO O (opt-in) O F
Legend
"opt-in" – possibility to opt in on a case-by-case basis.
Both pro- and anti-EU views have had majority support at different times since 1977. In
the European Communities membership referendum of 1975, two-thirds of British voters
Page 35 of 306

favored continued EC membership. There is Euroscepticism both on the left and right of
British politics.
According to a statistical analysis published in April 2016 by Professor John
Curtice of Strathclyde University, surveys showed an increase in Euroscepticism
(defined as a wish to sever or reduce the powers of the EU) from 38% in 1993 to 65% in
2015. Euroscepticism should, however, not be confused with the wish to leave the EU:
the BSA survey for the period July–November 2015 showed that 60 per cent backed the
option to continue as an EU member and 30 per cent backed the option to withdraw.
Negotiations for Membership Reform
Referendum of 2016
In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron initially rejected calls for a referendum on the
UK's EU membership, but then suggested the possibility of a future referendum to
endorse his proposed renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the rest of the
EU. According to the BBC, "The prime minister acknowledged the need to ensure the
UK's [renegotiated] position within the European Union had 'the full-hearted support of
the British people' but they needed to show 'tactical and strategic patience'." On 23
January 2013, under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP,
Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in-or-out
referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a renegotiated package, if
elected in the 7 May 2015 general election. This was included in the Conservative Party
manifesto for the election.
The Conservative Party won the election with a majority. Soon afterwards,
the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced into Parliament to enable the
referendum. Cameron favored remaining in a reformed European Union, and sought to
renegotiate on four key points: protection of the single market for non-eurozone
countries, reduction of "red tape", exempting Britain from "ever-closer union", and
restricting immigration from the rest of the European Union.
In December 2015, opinion polls showed a clear majority in favor of remaining in the
EU; they also showed support would drop if Cameron did not negotiate adequate
safeguards for non-eurozone member states, and restrictions on benefits for non-British
EU citizens.
The outcome of the renegotiations was announced in February 2016. Some limits to inwork
benefits for new EU immigrants were agreed, but before they could be applied, a
member state such as the UK would have to get permission from the European
Commission and then from the European Council, which is composed of the heads of
government of every member state.
In a speech to the House of Commons on 22 February 2016, Cameron announced a
referendum date of 23 June 2016, and commented on the renegotiation settlement. He
Page 36 of 306

spoke of an intention to trigger the Article 50 process immediately following a leave
vote, and of the "two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit."
After the original wording for the referendum question was challenged, the government
agreed to change the official referendum question to "Should the United Kingdom
remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Campaign Groups
The official campaign group for leaving the EU was Vote Leave after a contest for the
designation with Leave.EU. Vote Leave was later found to have exceeded its allowed
spending limit during the campaign.
The official campaign to stay in the EU, chaired by Stuart Rose, was known as Britain
Stronger in Europe, or informally as 'Remain'. Other campaigns supporting remaining in
the EU included Conservatives In, Labor in for Britain, #INtogether (Liberal
Democrats), Greens for a Better Europe, Scientists for EU, Environmentalists For
Europe, Universities for Europe and Another Europe is Possible.
Referendum Result
The result was announced on the morning of 24 June: 51.89 per cent voted in favor of
leaving the European Union, and 48.11 per cent voted in favor of remaining a member
of the European Union. Comprehensive results are available from the UK Electoral
Commission Referendum Results site. A petition calling for a second
referendum attracted more than four million signatures, but was rejected by the
government on 9 July.
United Kingdom European Union
Membership Referendum, 2016 National Result
Choice Votes %
Leave the European Union 17,410,742 51.89%
Remain a member of the European Union 16,141,241 48.11%
Valid votes 33,551,983 99.92%
Invalid or blank votes 25,359 0.08%
Total votes 33,577,342 100.00%
Registered voters and turnout 46,500,001 72.21%
Voting age population and turnout 51,356,768 65.38%
Source: Electoral Commission
▲
National Referendum Results (Without Spoiled Ballots)
Leave:
17,410,742 (51.9%)
Remain:
16,141,241 (48.1%)
Page 37 of 306

Voter Demographics and Trends
According to researchers based at the University of Warwick, areas with "deprivation in
terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave". The
Leave vote tended to be greater in areas which had lower incomes and
high unemployment, a strong tradition of manufacturing employment, and in which the
population had fewer qualifications. It also tended to be greater where there was a large
flow of Eastern European migrants (mainly low-skilled workers) into areas with a large
share of native low-skilled workers. Those in lower social grades (especially the
'working class') were more likely to vote Leave, while those in higher social grades
(especially the 'upper middle class') more likely to vote Remain.
According to Thomas Sampson, an economist at the London School of Economics,
"Older and less-educated voters were more likely to vote 'leave' [...] A majority of white
voters wanted to leave, but only 33 per cent of Asian voters and 27 per cent of black
voters chose leave. There was no gender split in the vote [...] Leaving the European
Union received support from across the political spectrum [...] Voting to leave the
European Union was strongly associated with holding socially conservative political
beliefs, opposing cosmopolitanism, and thinking life in Britain is getting
worse". Econometric studies show that "education and, to a lesser extent, age were the
strongest demographic predictors of voting behavior". Support for leaving was linked
with "poor economic outcomes at the individual or area level" and with "self-reported
opposition to immigration, but not with exposure to immigration".
Opinion polls found that Leave voters believed leaving the EU was "more likely to bring
about a better immigration system, improved border controls, a fairer welfare system,
better quality of life, and the ability to control our own laws", while Remain voters
believed EU membership "would be better for the economy, international investment,
and the UK's influence in the world". Polls found that the main reasons people voted
Leave were "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK", and
that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and
its own borders". The main reason people voted Remain was that "the risks of voting to
leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and
prices".
Resignations, Contests, and Appointments
After the result was declared, Cameron announced that he would resign by October. He
stood down on 13 July 2016, with Theresa May becoming Prime Minister after
a leadership contest. George Osborne was replaced as Chancellor of the
Exchequer by Philip Hammond, former Mayor of London Boris Johnson was
appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and David Davis
became Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Labor leader Jeremy
Corbyn lost a vote of confidence among his parliamentary party, and an unsuccessful
leadership challenge was launched. On 4 July, Nigel Farage announced his resignation
as leader of UKIP.
Page 38 of 306

Irregularities
Irregularities have been alleged in the conduct of the referendum campaign.
On 11 May 2018, the UK Electoral Commission found against Leave.EU, which ran a
separate campaign to the official pro-Brexit group Vote Leave, following its
investigations into alleged irregularities during the referendum campaign. Leave. EU's
co-founder Arron Banks has stated that he rejects the outcome of the investigation and
will be challenging it in court.
In July 2018, the UK Electoral Commission found Vote Leave to have broken electoral
law, spending over its limit. Also, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee released an interim report on Disinformation and ‘fake news’, stating
that the largest donor in the Brexit campaign, Arron Banks, had "failed to satisfy" the
Committee that his donations came from UK sources, and may have been financed by
the Russian government.
Litigation
There has been litigation to explore the constitutional footings on which Brexit stands
after the Miller case and the 2017 Notification Act:
In R. (Webster) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the High
Court of Justice determined that the decision to leave the EU was an executive
decision of the Prime Minister using a statutory power of decision found to have
Page 39 of 306

een delegated to her by the Notification Act. This case was criticized
academically, and it is also subject to an appeal.
The confirmation that the decision was an executive act was part of the basis
of R. (Wilson) v. Prime Minister the impact irregularities in the referendum, which
is the basis for the executive decision to leave, is being challenged, with a
hearing on 7 December 2018.
Regarding the reversibility of a notification under Article 50, Wightman and others
v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was referred to Court of
Justice of the European Union; the UK government sought to block this referral,
taking the matter on appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but was unsuccessful. On
10 December 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the UK
could unilaterally revoke its Article 50 notification.
Timeline
Below is the timeline of major events concerning Brexit.
2016
23 June: The UK holds a referendum on whether to leave the European Union. 51.9%
of voters vote to leave.
24 June: David Cameron announces his resignation as Prime Minister.
13 July: Theresa May accepts the Queen's invitation to form a government. David
Davis is appointed the newly created Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union to oversee withdrawal negotiations.
27 July: The European Commission nominates French politician Michel Barnier as
European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union.
7 December: The UK House of Commons votes 461 to 89 in favor of Theresa May's
plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017.
2017
24 January: The UK Supreme Court rules in the Miller case that Parliament must pass
legislation to authorize the triggering of Article 50.
26 January: The UK Government introduces a 137-word bill in Parliament to empower
Theresa May to initiate Brexit by triggering Article 50. Labor leader Jeremy
Corbyn instructs his MPs to support it.
16 March: The bill receives Royal Assent.
Page 40 of 306

29 March: A letter from Theresa May is handed to President of the European
Council Donald Tusk to invoke Article 50, starting a two-year process with the UK due to
leave the EU on 29 March 2019.
18 April: Theresa May announces that a general election is to take place on 8 June.
8 June: A general election is held in the UK. The Conservative Party remains the
largest single party in the House of Commons but loses its majority, resulting in the
formation of a minority government with a confidence-and-supply arrangement with
the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland.
19 June: Brexit negotiations commence.
2018
6 July: A UK White paper on The future relationship between the United Kingdom and
the European Union is finalized.
8 July: Davis resigns as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Dominic
Raab is appointed as his successor the following day.
Page 41 of 306

21 September: EU reject the UK white paper.
14 November: Brexit withdrawal agreement published.
15 November: Raab resigns as Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union. Stephen Barclay is appointed as his successor the following day.
25 November: Other 27 EU Member States endorse the Withdrawal Agreement.
2019
15 January: First meaningful vote held on the Withdrawal Agreement in the UK House
of Commons. The UK Government is defeated by 432 votes to 202.
12 March: Second meaningful vote on the Withdrawal Agreement with the UK
Government defeated again by 391 votes to 242.
14 March: UK Government motion passes 412 to 202 to extend the Article 50 period.
20 March: Theresa May requests the EU extend the Article 50 period until 30 June
2019.
21 March: The European Council offers to extend the Article 50 period until 22 May
2019 if the Withdrawal Agreement is passed by 29 March 2019 but, if it does not, then
the UK has until 12 April 2019 to indicate a way forward. The extension is formally
agreed the following day.
29 March: The original end of the Article 50 period and the original planned date for
Brexit. Third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement after being separated from the Political
Declaration. UK Government defeated again by 344 votes to 286.
5 April: Theresa May requests for a second time that the EU extend the Article 50
period until 30 June 2019.
10 April: The European Council grants another extension to the Article 50 period to 31
October 2019, or the first day of the month after that in which the Withdrawal Agreement
is passed, whichever comes first. However, the UK must hold European Parliament
elections in May 2019; otherwise it will leave on 1 June 2019.
24 May: Theresa May announces that she will resign as Conservative Party leader,
effective 7 June, due to being unable to pass her Brexit plans through parliament and
several votes of no-confidence, while continuing as prime minister while a Conservative
leadership contest takes place.
Page 42 of 306

The Article 50 Process
Invocation
Withdrawal from the European Union is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union. Under the Article 50 invocation procedure, a member notifies
the European Council, whereupon the EU is required to "negotiate and conclude an
agreement with [the leaving] State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal,
taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the [European] Union".
The negotiation period is limited to two years unless extended, after which the treaties
cease to apply. There was a discussion on whether parallel negotiation of withdrawal
terms and future relationships under Article 50 are appropriate (Chancellor Merkel's
initial view) or whether Britain did not have the right to negotiate future trade with the
Page 43 of 306

EU27 as this power is arguably reserved to the EU as long as the UK is a member (the
view of a European Commission lawyer).
Although the 2015 Referendum Act did not expressly require Article 50 to be
invoked, the UK government stated that it would expect a leave vote to be followed by
withdrawal. Following the referendum result, Cameron resigned and said that it would
be for the incoming Prime Minister to invoke Article 50.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case in January 2017 that the government
needed parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50. Subsequently, the House of
Commons overwhelmingly voted, on 1 February 2017, for a government bill authorising
the prime minister to notify an intention to leave under Article 50, and the bill passed
into law as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Theresa May then
signed a letter invoking Article 50 on 28 March 2017, which was delivered on 29 March
by Tim Barrow, the UK's ambassador to the EU, to European Council President Donald
Tusk.
It had been argued that the Article 50 withdrawal process could be halted unilaterally by
the British government, with which opinion the author of Article 50 itself, Lord Kerr,
expressed agreement. The European Parliament's Brexit committee said that unilateral
revocation, regardless of its legality, poses a substantial moral hazard, with an EU
member state potentially able to abuse it to blackmail the Union.
The reversibility of notifications under Article 50 was subject to litigation, which a crossparty
group of Scottish politicians and the Good Law Project referred to the Court of
Justice of the European Union. The UK government sought to block this referral,
ultimately in the UK Supreme Court, but it was unsuccessful in this attempt.
On 10 December 2018, the ECJ ruled that a country could unilaterally cancel its
withdrawal from the EU, by simple notice, provided that it did so prior to actual
departure, unconditionally and in good faith. However the Government's immediate
response was that it had no intention of exercising that right.
Both parties to the withdrawal negotiation are bound by Article 50 (3) of the Treaty,
which states explicitly that the EU treaties will cease to apply "from the date of entry into
force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after" the withdrawal
notification unless the EU Council and the UK agree to extend the two-year period.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by a UK Statutory
Instrument on 11 April 2019), in section 20 (1), defines 'exit day' as 11:00 p.m. on 31
October 2019. Originally, 'exit day' was defined as 11:00 p.m. on 29 March
2019 GMT (UTC+0).
Page 44 of 306

First Phase
The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
Negotiations
The European Commission said that they would not start any negotiation before the UK
formally invokes Article 50. In October 2016, European Commission President Juncker
said the EU should not negotiate in such a way that Britain would have to hold a second
referendum. On 28 June 2016, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, and on the
following day European Council President Tusk, stated that the UK could remain in
the European Single Market (ESM) only if the UK accepted its four freedoms of
movement: for goods, capital, services, and labor. In October, Prime Minister Theresa
May emphasized that ending the jurisdiction of EU law and free movement from Europe
were the UK's priorities, along with British and EU companies having maximum freedom
to trade in the UK and the ESM.
In November 2016,
May proposed that
Britain and the other
EU member states
mutually guarantee
the residency rights
of the 3.3 million non-
British EU citizens in
the UK and those of
the 1.2 million British
citizens living in the
rest of the European
Union, in order to
exclude their fates
being bargained
during Brexit negotiations. Despite initial approval from a majority of EU states, May's
proposal was blocked by Council President Tusk alongside member state Germany.
In January 2017, the Prime Minister presented 12 negotiating objectives and confirmed
that the UK government would not seek permanent single market membership. She
also called for an end to European Court of Justice jurisdiction, a new customs
agreement excluding the common external tariff and the EU's common commercial
policy, an end to free movement of people, co-operation in crime and terrorism,
collaboration in areas of science and technology, engagement with devolved
administrations, maintaining the Common Travel Area with Ireland, and preserving
existing workers' rights. She also confirmed, "that the Government will put the final deal
that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a meaningful vote in both Houses of
Parliament, before it comes into force." The European Parliament's lead negotiator Guy
Verhofstadt responded that there could be no "cherry-picking" by the UK in the talks.
Page 45 of 306

The statutory period for negotiation began on 29 March 2017, when the UK formally
submitted a letter notifying withdrawal. The letter called for a "deep and special
relationship" between the UK and the EU, and warned that failure to reach an
agreement would result in EU-UK trade under World Trade Organization terms, and a
weakening of the UK's co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. The letter
suggested prioritizing an early deal on the rights of EU citizens in the UK and vice
versa, and stated that the UK would not seek to remain within the ESM. Instead, the UK
would seek a free trade agreement with the EU. In response, Merkel insisted that the
EU would not discuss future co-operation without first settling the terms of leaving the
EU; Verhofstadt referred to the letter as "blackmail" with regard to the point on security
and terrorism, and EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said the UK's
decision to no longer be a part of the Union was a "choice they will regret one day".
The UK and EU negotiators agreed that initial negotiations, relating especially to
residency rights, would commence in June 2017 (immediately after the French
presidential and parliamentary elections), and full negotiations, relating especially to
trading agreements, could commence in October 2017 (immediately after the 2017
German federal election). The first day of talks was 19 June.
On 29 April 2017, immediately after the first round of French presidential elections, the
remaining 27 member state heads of government accepted negotiating guidelines
prepared by Tusk. The guidelines took the view that Article 50 permitted a two-phased
negotiation, in which the UK first agrees to a financial commitment and to lifelong
benefits for EU citizens in Britain, and then negotiations on a future relationship could
begin. In the first phase, the member states would demand the UK pay a "divorce bill",
initially estimated as amounting to £52bn and then, after additional financial demands
from Germany, France, and Poland, to £92bn. A report of the European Union
Committee of the British House of Lords, published on 4 March 2017, stated that if there
were to be no post-Brexit deal at the end of the negotiating period, the UK could
withdraw without payment.
On 22 May 2017, the European Council authorized its negotiators to start the Brexit
talks and it adopted its negotiating directives. The first day of talks took place on 19
June, where Davis and Michel Barnier, European Chief Negotiator for Brexit, agreed to
prioritize the question of residency rights, while Davis conceded that a discussion of the
Northern Irish border would have to await future trade agreements.
On 22 June 2017, Prime Minister May guaranteed that no EU citizen living legally in the
UK would be forced to leave, and offered that any EU citizen who lived in the UK for
more than five years until an unspecified deadline between March 2017 and March
2019 would enjoy the same rights as a UK citizen, conditional on the EU providing the
same offer to British citizens living legally in the EU. The Prime Minister detailed her
residency proposals on 26 June, but drew no concessions from EU negotiators, who
had declined to expedite agreement on expatriates by the end of June 2017, and who
Page 46 of 306

are hoping for European courts to continue to have jurisdiction in the UK with regards to
EU citizens, according to their negotiation aims published in May 2017.
The second round of negotiations began in mid-July 2017. Progress was made on the
Northern Irish border question; UK negotiators requested a detailed breakdown of the
"divorce bill" demand; and the EU negotiators criticized the UK's citizenship rights
offer. David Davis did not commit to a net payment by the UK to the EU with regards to
the requested divorce bill, while Michel Barnier would not compromise on his demand
for the European Court of Justice to have continuing jurisdiction over the rights of EU
citizens living in the UK after Brexit, rejecting the compromise proposal of a new
international body made up of UK and EU judges.
On 16 August 2017, the UK government disclosed the first of several papers detailing
British ambitions following Brexit, discussing trade and customs arrangements. On 23
August Theresa May announced that Britain would leave the EU Court of Justice's
direct jurisdiction when the planned transition period ended, but that both the British
courts and the EU Court of Justice would also keep "half an eye" on each other's rulings
afterwards as well. One of the UK government's position papers published in August
called for no additional restrictions for goods already on the market in the UK and EU.
The third round of negotiations began on 28 August 2017. There was disagreement
over the financial settlement; The Irish Times explained that British negotiators referred
Page 47 of 306

to the seven-year Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF or Maff) for the period 2014–
2020 agreed by member states and the European parliament as a "planning tool" for the
next period rather than a legally-binding financial obligation on member states. The
British case is that the MFF sets ceilings on spending under various headings and is
later radically revised during the annual budget process when real legal obligations on
each state arises. This contrasts with the EU Commission's methodology for calculating
the UK Brexit bill which involves dividing the MFF into the shares historically agreed by
each member state. On the Irish border question there was a "breakthrough", with the
British side guaranteeing free movement of EU citizens within the Common travel
area constituting Ireland and the United Kingdom.
On 5 September 2017, Davis said that "concrete progress" had been made over the
summer in areas such as protecting the rights of British expats in the EU to access
healthcare and over the future of the Irish border, while significant differences over the
"divorce bill" remained. On 9 September, the EU Commission published several
negotiating papers, including one in which the EU concedes/declares that it is the
responsibility of the UK to propose solutions for the post-Brexit Irish border. The paper
envisages that a "unique" solution would be permissible here; in other words, any such
exceptional Irish solution would not necessarily be a template for post-Brexit
relationships with the other EU member states.
On 22 September 2017, May announced further details of her Brexit proposal. In
addition to offering 20 billion euros over a two-year transition period and continued
acceptance of European immigrants, she also offered a "bold new security relationship"
with the EU which would be "unprecedented in its depth" and to continue to make "an
ongoing contribution" to projects considered greatly to the EU and UK's advantage,
such as science and security projects. She also confirmed that the UK would not "stand
in the way" of Juncker's proposals for further EU integration. Barnier welcomed May's
proposal as "constructive," but that it also "must be translated into negotiating positions
to make meaningful progress". Similarly, President of France Emmanuel Macron was
adamant that the EU would not begin negotiations on future EU-UK relationships until
"the regulation of European citizens, the financial terms of the exit, and the questions of
Ireland" were "clarified" by the UK.
The fourth round of talks began on 25 September, with Barnier declaring he had no
mandate from the EU27 to discuss a transition deal suggested by Prime Minister May.
Davis reiterated that the UK could honour commitments made during its EU
membership only in the context of a future "special partnership" deal with the EU.
At the European Council meeting of 19/20 October 2017, the 27 leaders of the EU
states were to decide whether or not to start trade negotiations with the UK. However,
Davis has conceded that so soon after the German elections on 24 September, a
German coalition government may not be in place in time for making this decision in
October, delaying any European Council decision until their December meeting.
Page 48 of 306

EU negotiators have stated that an agreement must be reached between Britain and the
EU by October 2018 in order to leave time for national parliaments to endorse Brexit.
On 9 October 2017, May announced to the British Parliament that Britain could operate
as an "independent trading nation" after Brexit if no trade deal is reached with the EU.
Second Phase
In December 2017, EU leaders announced an agreement to begin the next phase of
negotiations, with talks on a transition period after March 2019 to begin in early 2018
and discussions on the future UK–EU relationship, including trade and security, to begin
in March.
On 10 June
2018, the
Irish Prime
Minister Leo
Varadkar
cleared the
path for the
June
negotiations
by
postponing
the Irish
border
question until
the final
Brexit deal in
October
2018.
On 19 June 2018, the UK and the EU published a joint statement outlining agreements
at the negotiators' level. Michel Barnier praised the "dedication and commitment" of the
negotiating teams, and said progress had been made in issues like customs, VAT and
the European nuclear agreement, Euratom.
On 12 July 2018, Prime Minister May and part of the cabinet published a proposal for an
agreement on future relations between the UK and EU. Its nickname came to be known
by various British media outlets as the Chequers plan.
Signature
On 14 November 2018, a lengthy meeting of the Cabinet approved a Draft Withdrawal
Agreement. The following day, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, his Cabinet
colleague Esther McVey and several junior ministers resigned their posts because of
their disagreement with the contents of the document.
Page 49 of 306

On 19 December 2018, the EU Commission announced its "no-deal" Contingency
Action Plan in specific sectors, in respect of the UK leaving the European Union "in 100
days' time."
In the wake of the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, the Department
for International Trade (DIT) for striking and extending trade agreements between the
UK and non-EU states was created by Prime Minister Theresa May, shortly after she
took office on 13 July 2016. By 2017, it employed about 200 trade negotiators and was
overseen by the Secretary of State for International Trade, currently Liam Fox. In March
2019, the UK government announced that it would cut many import tariffs to zero, in the
event of a no-deal Brexit. The Confederation of British Industry said the move would be
a "sledgehammer for our economy", and the National Farmer's Union was also highly
critical. Additionally, the plan appears to breach standard WTO rules.
UK Government's Legal Advice
Ratification
Following an unprecedented vote on 4 December 2018, MPs ruled that the UK
government was in contempt of parliament for refusing to provide to Parliament, the full
legal advice it had been given on the effect of its proposed terms for withdrawal. The
key point within the advice covered the legal effect of the "backstop" agreement
governing Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK, in regard to
the customs border between the EU and UK, and its implications for the Good Friday
agreement which had led to the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and
specifically, whether the UK would be certain of being able to leave the EU in a practical
sense, under the draft proposals.
The following day, the advice was published. The question asked was, "What is the
legal effect of the UK agreeing to the Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement on Ireland
and Northern Ireland in particular its effect in conjunction with Articles 5 and 184 of the
main Withdrawal Agreement?" The advice given was that:
The Protocol is binding on the UK and EU [para 3], and anticipates a final future
resolution of the border and customs issues being reached [para 5,12,13]. But "the
Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down" [para
16] and "In conclusion, the current drafting of the Protocol ... does not provide for a
mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union
without a subsequent agreement. This remains the case even if parties are still
negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly
broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement." [para 30]
Delay of Vote on Withdrawal Agreement
On 10 December 2018, the Prime Minister postponed the vote in the House of
Commons on her Brexit deal. The announcement came minutes after the Prime
Minister's Office confirmed the vote would be going ahead. Faced with the prospect of a
Page 50 of 306

defeat in the House of Commons, this option gave May more time to negotiate with
Conservative backbenchers and the EU, even though they had ruled out further
discussions. The decision was met with calls from many Welsh Labor MPs for a motion
of no confidence in the Government. The Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn,
described the government as being in "disarray".
The European Research Group, the segment of the Conservative Party that favors a
"hard" Brexit, opposes the Prime Minister's proposed Withdrawal Agreement treaty. Its
members strongly object to the Withdrawal Agreement's inclusion of the Irish
backstop. ERG members also object to the proposed £39 billion financial settlement
with the European Union and state that the agreement would result in the UK's
agreement to continuing to follow EU regulations in major policy areas; and to the
continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over interpretation of the
agreement and of European law still applicable to the UK.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK ambassador to the EU at the time of the 2016 referendum,
publicly commented on 13 December 2018 that the EU was always adroit at reframing
things that have already been agreed, such as the Irish backstop, in ways that "make
the medicine slip down".
Vote on Withdrawal Agreement
On 15 January 2019, the House of Commons voted 432 to 202 against the deal, which
was the largest majority against a United Kingdom government ever. Soon after, a
motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government was tabled by the
opposition, [254] which was rejected by 325 votes to 306.
Page 51 of 306

Second Vote on Withdrawal Agreement
Main article: Parliamentary votes on Brexit § Second "meaningful vote" (12 March 2019)
On 24 February, Theresa May announced that the next vote on the withdrawal
agreement would be on 12 March 2019, 17 days away from Brexit. The deal was voted
against 391 to 242, a loss of 149 votes down from 230 from when the deal was
proposed in January.
First
Extensions
On 20 March 2019, the Prime Minister Theresa May wrote to European Council
President Donald Tusk requesting that Brexit be postponed until 30 June 2019. On 21
March 2019, May presented her case to a European Council summit meeting in
Brussels. After May left the meeting, a discussion amongst the remaining EU leaders
resulted in the rejection of 30 June date and offered instead a choice of two new
alternative Brexit dates.
On 22 March 2019, the extension options were agreed between the UK government
and the European Council. The first alternative offered was that if MPs rejected May's
deal in the next week, Brexit would be due to occur by 12 April 2019, with, or without, a
deal—or alternatively another extension be asked for and a commitment to participate in
the 2019 European Parliament elections given. The second alternative offered was that
if MPs approved May's deal, Brexit would be due to occur on 22 May 2019.
The later date was the day before the start of European Parliament elections. After the
government deemed unwarranted the concerns over the legality of the proposed
change (due to its containing two possible exit dates) the previous day, on 27 March
2019 both the Lords (without a vote) and the Commons (by 441 to 105) approved the
statutory instrument changing the exit date to 22 May 2019 if a withdrawal deal is
approved, or 12 April 2019 if it is not. The amendment was then signed into law at
12:40 p.m. the next day.
Third Vote on Withdrawal Agreement
On 18 March 2019, the Speaker informed the House of Commons that a third
meaningful vote could only be held on a motion that was significantly different from the
previous one, citing parliamentary precedents going back to 1604.
The Withdrawal Agreement was brought back to the House without the attached
understandings on 29 March. The Government's motion of support for the Withdrawal
Agreement was lost by 344 votes to 286, a loss of 58 votes down from 149 from when
the deal was proposed on 12 March.
Page 52 of 306

Second
Following the failure of UK Parliament to approve the Withdrawal Agreement by 29
March, the UK was now legally due to leave the EU on 12 April 2019. On 10 April 2019,
late-night talks in Brussels resulted in another extension to 31 October 2019; Theresa
May had again only requested an extension until 30 June. Under the terms of this new
extension, if the Withdrawal Agreement is passed before October, Brexit would occur on
the first day of the subsequent month. However, the UK would now be obligated to hold
European Parliament elections in May, or leave the EU on 1 June without a deal.
Other Post-Referendum Political Developments
Domestic Legislation After Article 50 Notification
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
In October 2016, Theresa May promised a "Great Repeal Bill", which would repeal
the European Communities Act 1972 and restate in UK law all enactments previously in
force under EU law. Subsequently renamed the European Union (Withdrawal) bill, it
was introduced to the House of Commons on 13 July 2017.
On 12 September 2017, the bill passed its first vote and second reading by a margin of
326 votes to 290 votes in the House of Commons. The bill was further amended on a
series of votes in both Houses of Parliament. After the Act became law on 26 June
Page 53 of 306

2018, the European Council decided on 29 June to renew its call on Member States and
Union institutions to step up their work on preparedness at all levels and for all
outcomes.
The Withdrawal Act fixed the period ending 21 January 2019 for the government to
decide on how to proceed if the negotiations have not reached agreement in principle
on both the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship
between the UK and EU; while, alternatively, making future ratification of the withdrawal
agreement as a treaty between the UK and EU depend upon the prior enactment of
another act of Parliament for approving the final terms of withdrawal when the
current Brexit negotiations are completed. In any event, the act does not alter the twoyear
period for negotiating allowed by Article 50 that ends at the latest on 29 March
2019 if the UK has not by then ratified a withdrawal agreement or agreed a prolongation
of the negotiating period.
The Withdrawal Act which became law in June 2018 allows for various outcomes
including no negotiated settlement. It authorizes the government to bring into force,
by order made under section 25, the provisions that fix "exit day" and the repeal of the
European Communities Act 1972, but exit day must be the same day and time as when
the EU Treaties are to cease to apply to the UK.
Additional Government Bills
A report published in March 2017 by the Institute for Government commented that, in
addition to the European Union (Withdrawal) bill, primary and secondary legislation will
be needed to cover the gaps in policy areas such as customs, immigration and
agriculture. The report also commented that the role of the devolved legislatures was
unclear, and could cause problems, and as many as 15 new additional Brexit Bills may
be required, which would involve strict prioritization and limiting Parliamentary time for
in-depth examination of new legislation.
In 2016 and 2017, the House of Lords published a series of reports on Brexit-related
subjects, including:
Brexit: the options
for trade
Brexit: UK-Irish
relations
Brexit: future UK-
EU security and
police cooperation
Brexit: fisheries
Brexit:
environment and
climate change
Brexit: the Crown
Dependencies
Brexit: justice for
families,
individuals and
businesses?
Brexit: trade in
non-financial
services
Euratom
The Nuclear Safeguards Bill 2017–19, relating to withdrawal from Euratom, was
presented to Parliament in October 2017 and began its Report Stage in January 2018.
Page 54 of 306

Voting on The Final Outcome
Replying to questions at a parliamentary committee about Parliament's involvement in
voting on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister said that
"delivering on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union" was her
priority. The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, commented that the government did
not want a vote at the beginning of the process, to trigger Article 50, nor a vote at the
end.
2017 British General Election
A general election was held on 8 June 2017, announced at short notice by the new
Prime Minister Theresa May. The Conservative Party, Labor and UKIP made manifesto
pledges to implement the referendum, although the Labor manifesto differed in its
approach to Brexit negotiations, such as unilaterally offering permanent residence to EU
immigrants. The Liberal Democrat Party and the Green Party manifestos proposed a
policy of remaining in the EU via a second referendum. The Scottish National Party
manifesto proposed a policy of waiting for the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and
then holding a referendum on Scottish independence. Compared to the 2015 general
election, the Conservatives gained votes (but nevertheless lost seats and their majority
in the House of Commons). Labor gained significantly on votes and seats, retaining its
position as the second-largest party. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn
Féin also made gains in votes and seats. Parties losing votes included the SNP,
Liberals, Greens, and especially UKIP.
On 26 June 2017, Conservatives and the DUP reached a confidence and
supply agreement whereby the DUP would back the Conservatives in key votes in the
Page 55 of 306

House of Commons over the course of the parliament. The agreement included
additional funding of £1 billion for Northern Ireland, highlighted mutual support for Brexit
and national security, expressed commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, and
indicated that policies such as the state pension triple lock and Winter Fuel
Payments would be maintained.
Public Opinion
Opinion polling tended to show a plurality of support for Brexit after the referendum and
until the 2017 General Election. Since then, opinion polls have tended to show a
plurality of support for remaining in the EU or for the view that Brexit was a mistake.
This seems to be largely due to a preference for remaining in the EU among those who
did not vote in 2016's referendum (an estimated 2 million of whom, as of March 2019,
were too young to vote at the time). In March 2019, a petition submitted to the UK
Parliament petitions website, calling on the government to revoke Article 50 and stay in
the European Union, reached a record-level of six million signatures.
Post-Referendum Opinion Polling
Opinion polling on whether the UK should leave or remain in the EU, excluding
"Neither" responses and normalized
Impacts
Whether the UK leaves with a withdrawal agreement or alternatively without any
withdrawal agreement ("no deal" Brexit) will affect future impacts, particularly in
connection with the location of EU agencies and the regulation and control of crossborder
outward and inward movements of persons and animals, of goods for export and
import, and of financial and other transactions.
Academia
According to a 2016 study by Ken Mayhew, Emeritus Professor of Education and
Economic Performance at Oxford University, Brexit posed the following threats to higher
education: "loss of research funding from EU sources; loss of students from other EU
member states; the impact on the ability of the sector to hire academic staff from EU
member states; and the impact on the ability of UK students to study abroad." The UK
received more from the European agencies and institutions for research than it
financially contributed with universities getting just over 10% of their research income
from the European agencies and institutions. All funding for net beneficiaries from
European agencies and institutions, including universities, was guaranteed by the
British government in August 2016. Before the funding announcement, a newspaper
investigation reported that some research projects were reluctant to include British
researchers due to uncertainties over funding. Currently the UK is part of the European
Research Area and the UK is likely to wish to remain an associated member.
Page 56 of 306

Border Between the UK and Republic of Ireland
There is concern about whether the border between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland becomes a "hard border" with customs and passport checks on the
border, and whether this could affect the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to
Northern Ireland. In order to forestall this the European Union proposed a "backstop
agreement" within the Withdrawal Agreement that would put Northern Ireland under a
range of EU rules in order to forestall the need for border checks. Although the UK
government has signed off on proposals including the backstop, it regards the idea of
having EU rules applying in Northern Ireland only as a threat to the integrity of the UK,
and also does not want the UK as a whole to be subject to EU rules and the customs
union indefinitely.
Until October 2019, both the UK and Ireland will be members of the EU, and therefore
both are in the Customs Union and the Single Market. There is freedom of movement
for all EU nationals within the Common Travel Area and there are no customs or fixed
immigration controls at the border. Since 2005, the border has been essentially
invisible. Following Brexit, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland will become a land border between the EU and a non-EU state which may entail
checks on goods at the border or at Irish ports, depending on the co-operation and
alignment of regulations between the two sides. It is therefore possible that the border
will return to being a "hard" one, with fewer, controlled, crossing posts and a customs
Page 57 of 306

infrastructure. Both the EU and the UK have agreed this should be avoided. A February
2019 report by Irish Senator Mark Daly and two UNESCO chairmen indicated that
reinstating a hard border would result in the return of violence.
In March 2019, the UK government announced that it would not perform customs
checks at the Irish border after a no-deal Brexit and acknowledged that that might
present a smuggling risk. On 17 March the President of Ireland signed into law the
Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions)
Act 2019.
Border with France
The President of the Regional Council of Hauts-de-France, Xavier Bertrand, stated in
February 2016 that "If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and
go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it's no longer in the
European Union," indicating that the juxtaposed controls would end with a leave vote.
French Finance Minister Emmanuel Macron also suggested the agreement would be
"threatened" by a leave vote. These claims have been disputed, as the Le Touquet
2003 treaty enabling juxtaposed controls was not an EU treaty, and would not be legally
void upon leaving.
After the Brexit vote, Xavier Bertrand asked François Hollande to renegotiate the Le
Touquet agreement, which can be terminated by either party with two years'
notice. Hollande rejected the suggestion, and Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Interior
Minister, confirmed there would be "no changes to the accord."
Economic Effects
Economists expect that Brexit will have damaging immediate and longer term effects on
the economies of the UK and at least part of the 27 other EU member states. In
particular, there is a broad consensus among economists and in the economic literature
that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium and long
term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy. Studies on effects
since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as
household losses from increased inflation.
Immediate
According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7
percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British
household. Studies published in 2018, estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit
vote were 2.1% of GDP, or 2.5% of GDP. According to a December 2017 Financial
Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by
between 0.6% and 1.3%. A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham
University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by
businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction
Page 58 of 306

y 1.5 percentage points. A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty
about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016
onwards. A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to
the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new
investments in the UK.
In The Long Term
There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving
the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and longterm.
Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit
would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level. 2019 and 2017 surveys of
existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP
losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK, and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per
capita. These estimates differ depending on whether the UK exits the EU with a hard
Brexit or soft Brexit. In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was
leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15
years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.
According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade
and as a result the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU. According to a study
by University of Cambridge economists, under a "hard Brexit" whereby the UK reverts to
Page 59 of 306

WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would
face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%. A 2017
study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit
than regions in any other country." A 2017 study examining the economic impact of
Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant
negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on
wages in the low-skill service sector." It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign
investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.
With Brexit, the EU would lose its second-largest economy, the country with the thirdlargest
population and "the financial capital of the world", as the German
newspaper Münchner Merkur put it. Furthermore, the EU would lose its second-largest
net contributor to the EU budget (2015: Germany €14.3 billion, United Kingdom
€11.5 billion, France €5.5 billion).
Thus, the departure of Britain would result in an additional financial burden for the
remaining net contributors, unless the budget is reduced accordingly: Germany, for
example, would have to pay an additional €4.5 billion for 2019 and again for 2020; in
addition, the UK would no longer be a shareholder in the European Investment Bank, in
which only EU members can participate. Britain's share amounts to 16%, €39.2 billion
(2013), which Britain would withdraw unless there is an EU treaty change.
All the remaining EU members (as well as Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) will also
likely experience adverse effects (albeit smaller effects than the UK), in particular
Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium.
In The Short Term
Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what
would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic. The
assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in
markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did. A number of economists
noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable and
that they are something that academic economists do not do, unlike banks. Economists
have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the longterm
economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in longterm
forecasts are "well-established and robust".
Regional Inequality In The UK
Studies on the economic impact that different forms of Brexit will have on different parts
of the country indicate that Brexit will exacerbate regional economic inequality in the
UK, as already struggling regions will be hardest hit by Brexit.
Page 60 of 306

UK Financial Sector
Economists have warned that London's future as an international financial center
depends on whether the UK will obtain passporting rights for British banks from the
European Union. If banks located in the UK cannot obtain passporting rights, they have
strong incentives to relocate to financial centers within the EU.
According to John Armor, Professor of Law and Finance at Oxford University, "a 'soft'
Brexit, whereby the UK leaves the EU but remains in the single market, would be a
lower-risk option for the British financial industry than other Brexit options, because it
would enable financial services firms to continue to rely on regulatory passporting
rights."
Energy
According to a 2017 study by the University of Exeter and Chatham House researchers,
there are considerable benefits for the UK to be integrated into the European energy
market.
The study notes, "if the UK wants to enjoy the economic benefits of remaining part of
what is an increasingly integrated European electricity market then, as European
legislation is currently drafted, it will not only have to forgo an element of autonomy
through accepting legislation and regulations made collectively at the EU level, but it will
also lose much of its voice in that decision making process, effectively becoming a ruletaker
rather than a rule-maker."
Page 61 of 306

Council of The European Union
European Union institutions
Analyses indicate that the departure of the relatively economically liberal UK will reduce
the ability of remaining economically liberal countries to block measures in the Council
of the European Union. According to the Lisbon Treaty (2009), decisions of the Council
are made by qualified majority voting, which means that a majority view can be blocked
should at least four members of the Council, representing at least 35% of the population
of the Union, choose to do so. In many policy votes, Britain, allied with other northern
EU allies (Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian and the Baltic states),
had a blocking minority of 35%.
European Parliament
UK MEPs are expected to retain full rights to participate in the European Parliament up
to the Article 50 deadline. However, there have been discussions about excluding UK
MEPs from key committee positions.
The EU will need to decide on the revised apportionment of seats in the European
Parliament in time for the next European Parliament election to be held in May 2019
(with the parliamentary term starting in June), when the United Kingdom's 73 MEPs will
have vacated their seats. In April 2017, a group of European lawmakers discussed what
should be done about the vacated seats. One plan, supported by Gianni
Pittella and Emmanuel Macron, is to replace the 73 seats with a pan-European
constituency list; other options which were considered include dropping the British seats
without replacement, and reassigning some or all of the existing seats from other
countries to reduce inequality of representation.
Fisheries
The combined EU fishing fleets land about 6 million tons of fish per year, of which about
3 million tons are from UK waters. The UK's share of the overall EU fishing catch is only
750,000 tons (830,000 tons). This proportion is determined by the London Fisheries
Convention of 1964 and by the EU's Common Fisheries Policy. The UK government
announced in July 2017 that it would end the 1964 convention in 2019. Loss of access
to UK waters will particularly affect the Irish fishing industry which obtains a third of its
catch there.
According to an analysis by researchers at Wageningen University and Research,
Brexit would lead to higher prices in seafood for consumers (because the UK imports
most of its seafood). British fishermen would be able to catch more fish, but the price for
UK fish would decline. As a result, the analysis found that Brexit would result in a "loselose
situation" for both the UK and the EU, and for both British consumers and the
fishing industry. According to a 2018 study, "Brexit poses a major challenge to the
stability of European fisheries management. Until now, neighboring EU Member States
have shared the bounty of the living resources of the seas around Britain. Taking full
Page 62 of 306

esponsibility for the regulation of fisheries within the UK's Exclusive Economic Zone will
cut across longstanding relationships, potentially putting at risk recent recovery and
future sustainability of shared fish stocks."
Gibraltar and Spain
Cars crossing into Gibraltar clearing customs formalities. Gibraltar is outside the
customs union, VAT area and Schengen Zone.
Gibraltar is outside the European Union's common customs area and common
commercial policy and so has a customs border with Spain. Nevertheless, the territory
remains within the European Union until Brexit is complete.
During the Brexit referendum campaign, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar warned that
Brexit posed a threat to Gibraltar's safety. Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly (96 per cent)
to remain in the EU. After the result, Spain's Foreign Minister renewed calls for joint
Spanish–British control of the peninsula. These calls were strongly rebuffed by
Gibraltar's Chief Minister and questions were raised over the future of free-flowing traffic
at the Gibraltar–Spain border. The UK government states it will only negotiate on the
sovereignty of Gibraltar with the consent of its people.
In February 2018, Sir Joe Bossano, Gibraltar's Minister for Enterprise, Training,
Employment and Health and Safety (and former Chief Minister) expressed frustration at
the EU's attitude, suggesting that Spain was being offered a veto, adding "It's enough to
convert me from a supporter of the European Union into a Brexiteer".
Page 63 of 306

In April 2018, Spanish Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis said that the Spanish had a longterm
aim of "recovering" Gibraltar, but that Spain would not hold Gibraltar as a
"hostage" to the EU negotiations. In 2018, a new Spanish government stated that its
policy on the issue remained unchanged.
Health
A 2019 study in the Lancet suggested that Brexit would have an adverse impact on
health in the UK under every Brexit scenario, but that a No-Deal Brexit would have the
worst impact. The study found that Brexit would deplete the National Health Service
(NHS) workforce, create uncertainties regarding care for British nationals living in the
EU, and put at risk access to vaccines, equipment, and medicines.
Legal System
The UK's exit from the European Union will leave Ireland and Cyprus as the only two
remaining common law jurisdictions in the EU. Paul Gallagher, a former Attorney
General of Ireland, has suggested this will isolate those countries and deprive them of a
powerful partner that shared a common interest in ensuring that EU legislation was not
drafted or interpreted in a way that would be contrary to the principles of the common
law. Lucinda Creighton, a former Irish government minister for legal affairs, has said
that Ireland relies on the "bureaucratic capacity of the UK" to understand, influence and
implement EU legislation.
Migration
Studies estimating the long-term impact of Brexit on immigration note that many factors
affect future migration flows but that Brexit and the end of free movement will likely
result in a large decline in immigration from EEA countries to the UK. Will Somerville of
the Migration Policy Institute estimated immediately after the referendum that the UK
"would continue to receive 500,000 or more immigrants (from EU and non-EU countries
taken together) per year, with annual net migration around 200,000". The decline in
EEA immigration is likely to have an adverse impact on the British health
sector. According to the New York Times, Brexit "seems certain" to make it harder and
costlier for the NHS, which already suffers from chronic understaffing, to recruit nurses,
midwives and doctors from the rest of Europe.
Official figures for June 2017 (published in February 2018) showed that net non-British
EU immigration to the UK slowed to about 100,000 immigrants per year (corresponding
to the immigration level of 2014) while immigration from outside the European Union
increased. Taken together, the two inflows into the UK resulted in an only slightly
reduced net immigration of 230,000 newcomers in the year to June 2017. The Head of
the Office of National Statistics suggested that Brexit could well be a factor for the
slowdown in EU immigration, but cautioned there might be other reasons. The number
of non-British EU nurses registering with the NHS fell from 1,304 in July 2016 to 46 in
April 2017.
Page 64 of 306

Since the referendum, British citizens have attempted to ensure their retention of EU
citizenship via a number of different mechanisms, including applying to other EU
member states for citizenship, and petitioning the European Commission.
Currently, EEA sportspersons face minimal bureaucracy to play or perform in the UK.
After Brexit, any foreigner wanting to do so more than temporarily could need a work
permit.
Such work permits can be tricky to obtain, especially for young or lower ranked players.
Conversely, British nationals playing in EEA states may encounter similar obstacles
where none exist today.
Relocation of Agencies
Brexit requires relocating the offices and staff of the European Medicines
Agency and European Banking Authority, currently based in London. The agencies
together employ more than 1,000 people and will respectively relocate
to Amsterdam and Paris. The EU is also considering restricting the clearing of eurodenominated
trades to eurozone jurisdictions, which would end London's dominance in
this sector.
Page 65 of 306

Transport
Aviation
Flights between the UK and the 27 EU countries are enshrined into the European
Common Aviation Area. The UK Government's aviation guidance document states that
post-Brexit: "UK and EU licensed airlines would lose the automatic right to operate air
services between the UK and the EU without seeking advance permission. This would
mean that airlines operating between the UK and the EU would need to seek individual
permissions to operate." The loss of automatic access to the European Common
Aviation Area will affect airlines; for instance a British registered airline cannot operate
intra-EU flights, nor can a European registered airline operate domestic UK flights.
Some British airlines created European divisions to resolve the issue. The European
Aviation Safety Agency will no longer cover UK airlines. In the event of a No Deal Brexit,
UK aviation would seriously impaired, with higher fares and less options for British
flyers.
The UK has sought to replace the existing ECAA partnerships that the EU has with 17
non-EU countries. By the end of 2018, the UK had concluded individual air service
agreements (ASA) with the United
States, Canada Switzerland, Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kosovo, Montenegro and
Morocco. Flights to and from these countries will continue as scheduled post-Brexit.
The UK has separate bilateral air service agreements (ASA) with 111 countries, which
permit flights to and from the country. As a result, there will be no change post-Brexit for
airlines operating in these countries.
Rail
The French minister for European Affairs, Nathalie Loiseau, said in September 2018
that trains in the Channel Tunnel may no longer be allowed into France in the event of
a no-deal Brexit. Discussions were carried out in October between the
British Department for Transport and the rail transport authorities of France, Belgium
and the Netherlands. A temporary authorization for three months was agreed in
February 2019, ensuring transport continuity in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Road Traffic
The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic is written by the UN, not the EU, allowing road
traffic between the UK and EU even without a deal.
The UK will remain in the European Common Transit Convention (CTC) after
Brexit. This would apply to any new trading relationship with the EU, including after exit
with no Withdrawal Agreement treaty. The CTC applies to moving goods between the
EU member states, the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and
Switzerland) as well as Turkey, Macedonia and Serbia. The CTC, with its
Page 66 of 306

supplementary Convention on the Simplification of Formalities in the Trade of Goods,
reduces administrative burdens on traders by removing the need for additional
import/export declarations when transiting customs territories, and provides cash flow
benefits by allowing the movement of goods across a customs territory without the
payment of duties until the final destination.
In the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, the number of permits available to haulage drivers will
be "severely limited": the Department for Transport proposes to allocate these by
lottery. Even with a customs union, the experience of Turkish haulers suggests that
significant difficulties and delays will occur both at the border and within some countries.
Shipping
Ferries will continue, but with obstacles such as customs checks. New ferry departures
between Ireland and the continent will emerge.
Scotland
As suggested by the Scottish Government before the referendum, [402] the First Minister
of Scotland announced that officials were planning an independence referendum due to
the result of Scotland voting to remain in the European Union when England and Wales
voted to leave. In March 2017, the SNP leader and First Minister Nicola
Sturgeon requested a second Scottish independence referendum in 2018 or 2019
(before Britain's formal exit from the EU). The UK Prime Minister immediately rejected
Page 67 of 306

the requested timing, but not the referendum itself. The referendum was approved by
the Scottish Parliament on 28 March 2017. Sturgeon called for a "phased return" of an
independent Scotland back to the EU.
After the referendum, First Minister Sturgeon suggested that Scotland might
refuse consent for legislation required to leave the EU, though some lawyers argued
that Scotland cannot block Brexit.
On 21 March 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the Scottish Continuity Bill. This was
passed due to stalling negotiations between the Scottish Government and the British
Government on where powers within devolved policy areas should lie after exit day from
the European Union. This Act allows for all devolved policy areas to remain within the
remit of the Scottish Parliament and reduces the executive power upon exit day that the
UK Withdrawal Bill provides for Ministers of the Crown. The Bill gained Royal Assent on
28 April 2018.
Security
Concerns have been raised that Brexit might create security problems for the UK. In
particular in law enforcement and counterterrorism where the UK could use the
European Union's databases on individuals crossing the British border. Security experts
have credited the EU's information-sharing databases with helping to foil terrorist plots.
British leaders have expressed support for retaining access to those information-sharing
databases, but it could be complicated to obtain that access as a non-member of the
EU. Brexit would also complicate extradition requests. Under a hard Brexit scenario, the
UK would lose access to basic law enforcement tools, such as databases comprising
European plane travel records, vehicle registrations, fingerprints and DNA profiles.
UK Bilateral International Agreements
The Financial Times said that there were approximately 759 international agreements,
spanning 168 non-EU countries, that the UK would no longer be a party to upon leaving
the EU. This figure does not include World Trade Organization or United Nations opt-in
accords, and excludes "narrow agreements", which may also have to be renegotiated.
UK-EU Relationship Post-Brexit
The UK's post-Brexit relationship with the European Union could take several forms. A
research paper presented to the UK Parliament in July 2013 proposed a number of
alternatives to being a member state which would continue to allow access to the EU
internal market. These include remaining in the European Economic Area, negotiating
deep bilateral agreements on the Swiss model, [413] or exit from the EU without EEA
membership or a trade agreement under the WTO Option. There may be an interim
deal between the time the UK leaves the EU and when the final relationship comes in
force.
Page 68 of 306

UK Relations with CANZUK Countries
Pro-Brexit activists and politicians have argued for negotiating trade and migration
agreements with the "CANZUK" countries—those of Canada, Australia, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom. Numerous academics have criticized this alternative
for EU membership as "post-imperial nostalgia". Economists note that distance reduces
trade, a key aspect of the gravity model of trade, which means that even if the UK could
obtain similar trade terms with the CANZUK countries as it had as part of the Single
Market, it would be far less valuable to the UK.
World Trade Organization
Questions have arisen over how existing international arrangements with the EU
under World Trade Organization (WTO) terms should evolve. Some countries—such as
Australia and the United States—wish to challenge the basis for division (i.e., division
between the UK and the continuing European Union) of the trade schedules previously
agreed between them and the EU, because it reduces their flexibility.
Cultural References
Brexit has inspired many creative works, such
as murals, sculptures, novels, plays, movies and video games. The response of British
artists and writers to Brexit has in general been negative, reflecting a reported
overwhelming percentage of people involved in Britain's creative industries voting
against leaving the European Union.
Page 69 of 306

Page 70 of 306

II. Causes of The Vote
in Favor of Brexit
The result of the United Kingdom European Union Referendum of 2016 was a victory
for the "Leave" campaign, amassing a total of 51.9% of the vote. This meant that the
outcome was in favor of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, a decision
and process that is commonly referred to as "Brexit". Consequently, UK Prime
Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, starting the process of
British withdrawal from the European Union.
The result provoked
considerable debate as to the
factors that contributed to the
victory, with various theories
and explanations being put
forth. This page provides an
overview of the different
claims being made.
'Leave' Focused on More
Popular Positions
The 'Leave' campaign campaigned primarily on issues relating to sovereignty and
migration, whereas the remain campaign focused on the economic impacts of leaving
the EU. This choice of key positions is significant since Ipsos MORI survey data on
which issues Britons felt to be 'important issues facing Britain today' shows that
immediately prior to the vote, more people cited both the EU (32%) and migration (48%)
as important issues than cited the economy (27%).
Sovereignty
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people
who had completed voting. This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%)
of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European
Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". The
sense that EU membership took decision making further away from 'the people' in favor
of domination by regulatory bodies – in particular the European Commission, seen as
the supposed key decision-taking body, is said to have been a strong motivating factor
for leave voters wanting to end or reverse the process of EU influence in the UK.
Immediately prior to the vote, Ipsos MORI data showed that Europe was the third most
highly ranked problem by Britons who were asked to name the most important issues
facing the country, with 32% of respondents naming it as an issue.
Page 71 of 306

Immigration
Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%)
[of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the
UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." This despite the fact that
most migration to Britain was from outside the EU, and entirely under the remit and
control of UK authorities.
Immediately prior to the referendum, data from Ipsos-Mori showed that
immigration/migration was the most cited issue when Britons were asked 'What do you
see as the most/other important issue facing Britain today?', with 48% of respondents
mentioning it when surveyed.
In the decade before the Brexit referendum there was a significant increase in migration
from EU countries, as outlined by the Migration Observatory: 'Inflows of EU nationals
migrating to the UK stood at 268,000 in 2014, up from 201,000 in 2013. EU inflows were
mainly flat for the 1991–2003 period, averaging close to 61,000 per year.'
According to The Economist, areas that saw increases of over 200% in foreign-born
population between 2001 and 2014 saw a majority of voters back leave in 94% of
cases. The Economist concluded 'High numbers of migrants don't bother Britons; high
rates of change do.' Consistent with that notion, research suggests that areas that saw
significant influx of migration from Eastern Europe following the accession of 12 mainly
Eastern European countries to the European Union in 2004 saw significant growth in
support for UKIP and more likely to vote to leave the European Union. Academic
research investigating differences in Brexit vote among local authorities concluded that
the Brexit vote was bigger in areas that had seen a large rise in the proportion of
immigrants between 2004 and 2011.
Goodwin and Milazzo say that "in areas where there were previously few migrants,
increases in immigration will have a more noticeable effect – and will be more likely to
influence political behavior" whereas ethnically diverse areas will perceive additional
immigration as having little effect. They go on to explain that the non-British population
of Boston in Lincolnshire became 16 times larger between 2005 and 2015, rising from
1,000 to 16,000. Boston also had the highest vote in favour of 'leave' in the UK, at just
over 75% in favour of leaving the EU, which they believe is due to the effects of
immigration seeming sudden and intense. They also argue that their data suggests that
if Boston had experienced the UK average level of demographic change then the vote in
favour of 'leave' would have been reduced by nearly 15% and they even suggest that
areas such as West Lancashire may have had a majority for 'remain' if residents had
experienced the average rate of demographic change. Their research demonstrates
why it is believed that the issue of immigration strongly affected voters' decisions.
Furthermore, immigration has long been a contentious issue in Britain, with scepticism
over the inherent value of immigration going back to well before the UK joined even
the EEC in 1973 (which would later be incorporated into the EU in 1993). Britain had
Page 72 of 306

faced a surge in immigration in the post war period due to the influx of people arriving
from former British colonies (immigration rules had been relaxed as a way of increasing
the labor supply after the war). However, by the mid to late 1960s, there was concern
from some people that the new immigrant population were arriving in too larger
numbers and were not integrating into British society sufficiently well. This concern is
most widely recognised in former British MP Enoch Powell's famous Rivers of
Blood speech made in 1968, in which he warns of the dangers of mass immigration.
Powell's subsequent surge in popularity is often seen as a contributing factor in
the Conservative party's surprise victory in the 1970 general election. Powell was
influential on prominent Brexiteer Nigel Farage, who lists the politician as one of his
political heroes.
Age of Voters
Demographic and Cultural Factors
It has been argued that the result was caused by differential voting patterns among
younger and older people. According to Opinium, 64% of eligible people aged 18–24
voted, whereas 90% of eligible individuals over 65 voted. It is argued that older voters
were more likely to vote 'leave' due to having experienced life in the UK prior to
1973, when the UK joined the European Economic Community which later became
the EU, and this memory as well as any potential nostalgia may have influenced their
decision. Furthermore, polls by Ipsos-Mori, YouGov and Lord Ashcroft all assert that
Page 73 of 306

70–75% of under 25s voted 'remain'. Therefore, it has been argued that a higher turnout
of older people and a lower turnout of younger people affected the overall result of the
referendum as the older generation was more in favor of 'leave' than the 'remain'
favoring younger voters. Additionally according to YouGov, only 54% of 25–49 year olds
voted 'remain', whilst 60% of 50–64 year olds and 64% of over 65s voted 'leave'
meaning that the support for 'remain' was not as strong outside the youngest
demographic.
Education Level
Multiple sources have found a correlation between having a higher level of education
and voting 'remain', as well as a correlation between having lower educational level and
voting 'leave'. YouGov found that, among those who voted in the referendum, 68% of
voters with a university degree voted 'remain', whereas 70% of voters educated only
to GCSE level or lower voted 'leave'. Similarly, Curtice reports that "university graduates
voted by around three to one in favor of Remain, whereas nearly four in five of those
without any educational qualifications voted to Leave".
It is proposed that those with higher education and higher occupational skills are more
likely to value the economic benefits of globalization, the Single Market and European
membership, and so would be more inclined to vote 'remain'. Additionally, studies have
shown that those with lower educational qualifications are more likely be socially
conservative and feel that European membership brings about constant and dramatic
change to the UK, which would be an incentive to vote 'leave'. More information relating
to this is explained in the rest of the "Demographic and cultural factors" section.
The 'Order Versus Openness' Divide
Academic Eric Kaufman notes the relatively strong positive correlation between a
voter's support for the death penalty and their choice to vote 'leave'. He says that this
highlights a social division that he calls 'order versus openness'. He further argues that
'The order-openness divide is emerging as the key political cleavage, overshadowing
the left-right economic dimension'.
It is argued that data from the British Election Study suggests that support for the death
penalty is an example of how valuing 'order' over 'openness' could have affected voting
behaviour in the referendum. Those who valued 'order' were more likely to support the
death penalty and vote 'leave' than those who were 'pro-remain' and against the death
penalty, which are stances considered to value 'openness' more.
The 'Left Behind'
Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford coined the term 'The Left Behind' to refer to 'older,
white, socially conservative voters in more economically marginal
neighborhoods'. Analyzing data the day after the Referendum, Ford concluded that
'Such voters had turned against a political class they saw as dominated by socially
Page 74 of 306

liberal university graduates with values fundamentally opposed to theirs, on identity,
Europe – and particularly immigration.' This was described in as "if you've got money,
you vote in... if you haven't got money, you vote out". In looser terms, these groups'
wider dissatisfaction with the major political parties also had a significant impact on the
vote – with a particular focus placed on Labor's decline in support in the working class
heartlands where it saw a significant number of votes lost to UKIP and the
Conservatives in 2015.
Many other academics have also suggested the link between voting 'leave' and a
rejection of neoliberalism and globalization and the sense of economic insecurity that
some members of society have felt as a result of these economic processes. Bateman
suggests that today's globalized world has contributed to the feeling of fast-paced
changes in society and the economy, leading to the sense of being 'left behind', which
she argues motivated some voters to vote 'leave'. In a similar manner to the arguments
of Goodwin, Ford and Bateman it has also been suggested that both economically and
socially 'left behind' groups "are united by a general sense of insecurity, pessimism and
marginalization", increasingly feeling as though liberalized society as well as the UK and
European establishments do not represent their interests or share their concerns.
The left-behind hypothesis is furthered using data on the EU referendum result across
electoral wards level as well as across local authorities, suggesting that especially areas
with high degrees of social deprivation and low educational attainment strongly voted in
favor of leaving the EU.
Page 75 of 306

Britons Felt Less Integrated with The EU Than Other European Citizens
Academics James Dennison and Noah Carl argue that "the most important
phenomenon to be explained vis-à-vis the referendum result in our view is that a sizable
Euroscepticfaction has remained extant in Britain over the last four decades". Using
data from the Eurobarometer survey they showed that fewer Britons considered
themselves European than any other EU nationality. Furthermore, they show that British
trading patterns, capital flows and emigration patterns were the least Europeanized of
any EU member state.
John Curtice says that if voters "felt that membership of the EU undermined Britain's
distinctive identity were more likely to vote for Leave" and goes on to report that the
same was true for voters "with a weak sense of European identity". Such research
implies that how attached voters felt to either Britain or to the EU influenced their
decision, voting in favour of whichever identity they felt more strongly attached to.
Furthermore, in terms of integration, Britain had developed a reputation of being "an
awkward partner" in Europe. Britain's reluctance to integrate itself with Europe was
reaffirmed by the position it was in following the conclusion of the Second World War.
Its distinct sense of 'otherness' was reinforced by the fact that it was one of the only
European states not to be occupied during the war. Its empire, while exhausted,
remained intact, and senior civil servants still regarded Britain as a major global power.
A Foreign Office assessment following the war's end noted that "Great Britain must be
regarded as world power of the second rank and not merely as a unit in a federated
Europe". Once Britain joined the EEC, this reluctance towards integration was seen
further. The UK had the most opt-outs of any member state, and along with Ireland was
the only member to acquire an opt-out of the Schengen Area agreement. It has notable
opt-outs from the European monetary union, and individual pieces of European
legislation regarding Justice and Home Affairs. It has been suggested that Britain's
reservations about European integration, as well as its unique historical position within
Europe and stance of remaining less integrated than other EU states, laid the
groundwork for the potential that Britain would decide to exit the bloc.
Identity and Change
The widening of the north-south divide and the increased concentration of wealth held
by (usually London based) financial and educated elites, is also thought to have played
a role in the referendum outcome. De-industrialization in Northern England left many
feeling economically left behind and forgotten about compared to the South East in
particular, a feeling intensified by the globalization associated with EU membership. It is
believed that this feeling of change happening elsewhere in the country whilst there was
economic stagnation in the North was an incentive for many to vote 'leave' and indeed
much of Northern England voted strongly in favor of Brexit. A more nuanced analysis
shows that a North-South division is too simplistic, as many great northern cities
(Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, York) voted 'remain' whereas many small
towns and rural areas in the South voted 'leave'.
Page 76 of 306

Feeling as though the UK has been rapidly changing and feeling negatively towards that
change is considered to have been a reason that many voters backed 'leave'. Goodwin
and Milazzo report that identity and preventing a loss of national identity as a result of
national change, were highly important to many leave voters. Furthermore, they assert
that 73% of people that thought Britain had gotten "a lot worse" over the 10 years
leading up to the referendum had voted 'leave', whereas only 40% of people who
thought that the country had gotten "a lot better" in this time voted 'leave'.
Additionally, it is thought that the rise in liberal social movements and an increase in
social change played a role in leading some voters to vote 'leave' as a rejection of such
change. Bateman explains that polls conducted by Lord Ashcroft showed that "of those
who think that feminism, the internet and the Green Movement are bad for us,
respectively 74%, 71% and 78% are Leave voters".
English National Identity
The World Economic Forum 2017 acknowledged in its Global Risks Report that "the
Brexit and President-elect Trump victories featured (...) appeals to sovereignty rooted in
national identity and pride" and that it would "be challenging to find political narratives
and policies that can repair decades-long cultural fault-lines".
English Nationalism played a key role in shaping the result of the referendum. As the
largest constituent country within the United Kingdom, England provided the largest
share of 'Leave' voters, 15,188,406 to 'Remain's' 13,266,996, and saw the largest
Page 77 of 306

margin of victory for 'Leave' at 53.4% to 46.6%. Scotland and Northern Ireland, on the
other hand, produced 'Remain' supporting majorities, whilst Wales produces a slim
'Leave' majority; however its population is significantly smaller than that of England.
Some academics have argued that "England's choice for Brexit was driven
disproportionately by those prioritizing the English national identity", and that English
nationalism is a "cluster point" for other attitudes and concerns, such as "hostility to
European integration, the sense of absence of political voice, concern about
immigration, and support for parties of the right". Ultimately, English nationalism made
many English voters predisposed to the arguments the 'Leave' campaign made during
the referendum, such as concerns about immigration.
This contrasts with, for example, Scottish nationalism, which influences voters in a less
Euroscepticmanner. In order for 'Leave' to win the referendum, England needed to
decisively vote for Brexit. Because of English nationalism and its effect on the voting
behaviors of the English electorate, this became possible.
Economic Opportunity
There were some advocates of Brexit who saw leaving the EU as an economic
opportunity for Britain. This was in contradiction to the Remain campaign's warnings of
economic damage as a result of Brexit and differed slightly from voters feeling
economically left behind by EU membership. Those who saw economic opportunity
tended to be sympathetic towards free market and free trade ideas, viewing the
regulatory nature of the EU as imposing on personal market freedom. Proponents of
free trade post-Brexit hope to strike trade deals with nations outside of the EU away
from EU regulations, believing this will boost Britain as a market, benefit the economy
and lead to less government expenditure in GDP. Politicians such as Boris
Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg have become associated with this point of view.
Additionally, the 2008 financial crash and the Eurozone crisis of late 2009 may have
encouraged others to want to move the UK's economy further away from Europe's
increasingly integrated economy as a means of protecting it.
Anti-Establishment Populism
The idea of voting in favor of Brexit was seen by many as a way to protest against the
Establishment and the elite who were seen to have ignored "the will of the people" for
too long. The result of the referendum was branded as such by Nigel Farage, who
claimed it to be a victory against "big merchant banks" and "big politics". Many voters
saw the referendum itself as an example of power being given back to the citizens to
make decisions and not the elites, with many voters harboring discontent for these elites
and the power they hold. For some voters, voting 'leave' defied the Establishment that
was seen to be pro-Remain. The populist nature of the referendum was an incentive for
many to take the opportunity they felt that had to have their voices heard over those of
the elite and vote 'leave'.
Page 78 of 306

Decision to Call Referendum
Role and Influence of Politicians
The referendum was first announced by then-Prime Minister David Cameron on 23
January 2013. Cameron announced that he would attempt to re-negotiate Britain's
terms with the EU before holding an in-out referendum no later than two years after the
next general election – should he still be Prime Minister. This was seen as a move to
appease Eurosceptics within his own party as well as an attempt to regain voters who
had been switching allegiance to UKIP since the previous election. Upon the
Conservatives surprise majority victory in the 2015 general election, Cameron upheld
his pledge and announced the date for the referendum to be 23 June 2016.
Effect on Voters
Boris Johnson and cabinet minister Michael Gove became leading figures in the Leave
Campaign is a factor considered to have given the pro-Brexit side a wider appeal and
greater credibility. Johnson is believed to have been heavily influential during the
Page 79 of 306

campaign, with polling results revealing that the public trusted the words of Boris
Johnson on Brexit more than any other politician, including David Cameron.
In regard to the Labor Party, there was some perceived ambiguity as to the party's
stance with only 52% of voters believing Labor MPs were in favor of Remain, according
to polling. In actuality it is thought that as many as 96% of Labor MPs backed remain,
however, party leader Jeremy Corbyn is known to have been a longtime Eurosceptic,
having voted against staying in the Common Market. Furthermore, the chair of
the official Leave campaign was Labor MP Gisela Stuart. It is thought that the perceived
lack of clear direction from the party may have played a role in some Labor voters
backing 'leave' despite most of its MPs backing 'remain'.
Establishment Euroscepticism
Despite many perceiving the Establishment as being pro-Remain, the British
Establishment has historically contained a significant Eurosceptic faction that has cut
across both the Labor and Conservative parties. It is thought that the existence of such
Euroscepticism within Britain's elite has helped ensure that Eurosceptic thoughts,
voices, opinions and sometimes policies have had somewhat of a platform,
consequently influencing public opinion. During the 2016 EU referendum campaign 45%
of Conservative MPs were in favour of leaving the European Union, a considerable
amount which ensued significant influence over public opinion. Historical examples of
Euroscepticism within the Labor party include the 1975 referendum on European
membership, the position and influence of Tony Benn and Hugh Gaitskell's famous
1962 speech in which he said joining the EEC would be "the end of a thousand years of
history".
Misleading Information
Presentational Factors During The Campaign
Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law at the University of Liverpool, in a viral
video of one of his lectures prior to the referendum, described the Leave campaign as
peddling "dishonesty on an industrial scale".
Perhaps the most commonly criticized claim by the Leave campaign was that voting to
leave the EU would allow for increased spending on the NHS of £350m a week. Vote
Leave claimed that the UK sends £350 million to the EU every week. The Treasury's
own statement of the UK's contribution to the EU is that the net amount is £6.27 billion
per annum. Divided by 52, this is approximately £120 million per week (net amount),
much of which then comes back to Britain or saves Britain money by pooling resources
on things like research programs and technical agencies.
Sir John Major claimed that Vote Leave had deliberately misled voters by using the
gross contribution to the EU before the automatically deducted UK Rebate. The gross
contribution is the amount the UK would pay under the standard formula before any
Page 80 of 306

discounts and rebates. The UK currently gets a 40% discount from the gross
contribution which was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s (worth about £144
million) – but reduced by a new formula agreed by Tony Blair in the early 2000s – plus
various agricultural, economic development and scientific research 'rebates' (worth
approximately a further £96 million).
Elements of the Leave campaign have been identified as exemplifying "post-truth
politics", in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion rather than the details
of policy or objective factual analysis.
Branding and Wording Choices
It has been argued that the 'Leave' brand was stronger and more effective than the
'Remain' brand. According to Mike Hind, a marketing professional, "The Britain Stronger
In Europe brand was stillborn. On the basis of preparation, presentation and messaging,
it deserved the kicking it got." Additionally behavioral practitioner Warren Hatter argues
that 'Leave' as a word places a lower cognitive load on observers than 'Remain a
member of'.
Prospect Theory
Economics writer Chris Dillow has argued that, among other factors, Prospect
Theory may explain the surprising willingness of many voters to take a path widely
viewed as the more risky of two (change vs status quo). In his words Prospect Theory
'Tells us that people who feel they've lost want to gamble to break even. This is why
they back longshots on the last race of the day or why they hold onto badly performing
Page 81 of 306

stocks. People who had lost out from globalization, or felt discomforted by immigration,
voted Leave because they felt they had little to lose from doing so.'
Vote Leave Analysis
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in
January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won".
He wrote: "Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008
financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was
competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND
3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is
very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living
standards’. They did not realize that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the
economy and living standards – that's why it was so effective. It was clearly the most
effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every
demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we
have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our
research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked
'Turkey/NHS/£350 million' with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been
lost."
Shortcomings of The Remain Campaign
Whilst the Leave side may have made good tactical decisions during the campaign, part
of its success came from the Remain campaign failing to provide convincing enough
counter arguments or arguments of their own. A lot of the Remain campaign was built
around spreading the notion that Brexit would weaken Britain, yet Curtice notes that the
campaign offered little explanation as to "how the UK economy might be strengthened
further by continued EU membership". He goes on to argue that the Leave
campaign were offering such explanations, exemplified by the claim that £350 million a
week could be spent on the NHS, regardless of whether or not this was a valid claim. [26]
One analysis of the Remain campaign has concluded that the campaign did little to
counter Vote Leave's arguments surrounding immigration, an area that was considered
one of Leave's biggest pulling factors in attracting voters. Furthermore, the official leaflet
supplied by the government to make the case for remaining in the EU failed to address
the issue of sovereignty, which was another area that Vote Leave was gaining a lot of
support. In addition, the remain campaign focused very heavily on the 'risk' posed by
Brexit, but analysis in the time since shows this may have been a mistake. Analysis
carried out by Harold D. Clarke, Matthew Godwin and Paul Whiteley, appears to show
that those who had an unfavorable view of immigration and felt that too much decision
Page 82 of 306

making had been taken away from the UK government, were much more likely to
minimize the risk of Brexit, partially because they perceived they had little to lose.
Historic Policy Decisions
Decision Not to Impose Tougher Migration Restrictions
It has been claimed that the role of migration as a key factor in driving voting behavior at
the referendum originates from the relatively high levels of net migration into the UK in
the last decade. In particular it is claimed that the decision not to impose restrictions on
EU migrants after the addition of the 'A8' (Eastern European) countries to the EU in
2004 (at a time when other European countries did impose such restrictions)
contributed to a spike in migration levels that underpins contemporary voter attitudes.
European Migrant Crisis
U.S. President Donald Trump stated that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision
to open her country's borders for more than a million refugees and illegal immigrants
was a "catastrophic mistake" and "the final straw that broke the camel's back", allowing
the Leave campaign to win. Whilst campaigning for the Republican Party nomination for
the upcoming 2016 U.S. presidential election, Trump already made similar statements
prior to the EU referendum and immediately afterwards. For example, at a rally
Page 83 of 306

in Ashburn, Virginia, US he also suggested that more countries would leave the EU
because of Merkel's decision.
Whilst this is an example of Trump stating his opinion, there is evidence that the migrant
crisis played a role in the outcome of the referendum. As already stated in this article
immigration concerns were influential in voters' decisions and Goodwin and Milazzo
assert that such concerns were "likely sharpened by the continuation of historically
unprecedented levels of net migration and the arrival, albeit not in Britain, of a pan-
European refugee crisis in 2015". Therefore, the migration crisis may have influenced
the referendum result by intensifying a factor (immigration concerns) that was already
seen as a motivation to vote 'leave'.
Furthermore, Nigel Farage and long-term Eurosceptic party UKIP used images from the
refugee crisis during their campaign to increase the anxiety about immigration that the
crisis caused, prompting criticism from some "Leave" and "Remain" supporters. Leading
Leave campaigner Michael Gove said that it was "the wrong thing to do", whilst then-
Chancellor George Osborne of the Remain side stated that the poster "had echoes of
literature used in the 1930s" in Germany. Criticism aside, the decision to use the
migrant crisis to win votes for 'leave', suggests that the crisis was at the very least seen
as something that had the potential to affect the referendum outcome.
The Role of The Media
The Guardian journalist Jane Martinson noted that many of the UK's biggest selling
newspapers, The Sun and the Daily Mail in particular, but also including The Daily
Telegraph and Daily Express, have been Eurosceptic for many years. The implication of
this is that the political stance of the print media could have shaped the public's opinion
before the referendum.
The BBC was also criticized by many remain-supporting pundits for false balance which
helped give the leave campaign credibility. Leading up to and during the EU referendum
campaign, Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and The Sun were all pro-
Leave. Curtice argues that as these were "more popular" newspapers, their support not
only provided credibility to the Leave campaign but also meant that there would be
"sympathetic coverage" for its pro-Brexit arguments.
Seaton explains that long-term anti-EU reporting, demonization of foreign nationals and
the working class in mainstream media could have made the public more susceptible to
pro-Brexit arguments, as well as having "shaped the debate". Seaton also comments on
the effect of social media on the referendum, which played a much more prominent role
in the campaign and the vote than in previous votes in the UK. Seaton argues that
social media was highly influential in shaping voters' opinions as social media enables
users to "get more of what you like" whilst being able to "avoid exposure to what you
disagree with" on a platform that is "driven by popularity".
Page 84 of 306

Another element of media which has yet to be mentioned is the role of social media
which arguably was the most effective platform. Media democracy is the way journalists
were more concerned by the entertainment factor of news content, rather than being
informative. Some accused printed media of being too "politically correct", whereas the
same limitations were not shared by social media.
Twitter was the most utilized social media platform and the campaigns were led through
the use of 'hashtags'. Llewellyn and Cram conducted a study that involved tallying how
often certain 'hashtags' were used and concluded by noting that overall there were more
‘leave’ hashtags than ‘stay’ even though ‘stay’ equated to the largest percentage. This
referendum also saw the intense use of 'twitter bots'. Gorodnichenko et al. analyzed two
types of social media agents – real (human users and bots) and social bots (composed
of algorithm). Social media platforms such as Twitter supported ideas such as ‘echo
chambers’ and therefore enhanced ideological segmentation and made information
more fragmented to separate rather than unite people. In turn Twitter became known as
the best platform for spreading 'fake news'. On the other hand, others claim that the
sentiment results always indicated a likely 'Leave' result but it is not pinned down to bots
or any dark loitering propaganda systems, instead it was lack of ‘Remainers online
mobility’ that caused the outcome. On the day of the referendum, ‘remain’ activity
reached an all-time high of 38.5% on Twitter, but also Instagram came into play almost
as much as Twitter did but due to it being a less direct platform, was not as noticed.
In order to connect both printed and social media, Hanska and Bauchowitz saw how the
predominance of Euroscepticism on social media mirrored these same thoughts into its
dominance in the press. The Reuters Institute's Digital News Report found that in 2016
social media's rise as a news sources pulled even with the popularity of printed media's
decline and 43% of people who get their media online, receive it from social media
Page 85 of 306

according to Ofcom. If one were to read a newspaper, there would be one article on a
certain topic. With social media, once one article has been read or perhaps searched
one hashtag, it is harder to figuratively ‘turn the page’ and see another story or side
therefore social media gave rise to an abundance of propaganda on either side.
Page 86 of 306

III. The European Union
Withdrawal Agreement
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2017–19 is the planned name of a
future bill of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that proposes to enshrine
any Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU in domestic law. The
Withdrawal Agreement is the subject of ongoing and future Brexit negotiations and will
not be detailed until the negotiations are completed.
On 24 July 2018 the Government produced a white paper on the proposed bill and how
the legislation would work.
Objectives
Enshrine the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU in domestic law
including any financial settlement and agreement on citizens’ rights
Legislate the details of an implementation period
Page 87 of 306

Allow for changes to EU law to be legally binding in the UK
Allow for Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process via primary
legislation, instead of secondary legislation via the European Union (Withdrawal)
Bill
Amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to save the effect of
the European Communities Act 1972 during the transition period.
Legislative History
On 13 November 2017, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, announced plans for a new
Bill to enshrine the Withdrawal Agreement, if any, between the UK and the EU in
domestic law by primary legislation. Upon further questioning in the House of
Commons, Davis clarified that if MPs chose not to pass the bill, the UK would remain on
course to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal as a consequence of invoking
Article 50 in March 2017, after the passing of the European Union (Notification of
Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Described by The Independent as the government "caving in" to Tory rebels, the new
bill would allow MPs to scrutinize any agreement "line-by-line", as well as make
amendments. Conservative MP, Steve Baker, writing for The Times, claimed the new
bill "gives whatever deal we strike with the EU proper standing in British law" and that it
was consistent with the referendum result, in proving "more control over how we are
governed to the UK Parliament."
________
The European Union Withdrawal Act of 2018
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16) is an Act of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom that provides for repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and
for Parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement being negotiated between HM
Government and the European Union.
This will enable "cutting off the source of EU law in the UK... and remove the
competence of EU institutions to legislate for the UK." [1] As such, It is the most
significant constitutional legislation that has been introduced by the Government since
the European Communities Act itself in 1972.
To provide legal continuity, it will enable the transposition of directly-applicable alreadyexisting
EU law into UK law, [2] and so "create a new category of domestic law for the
United Kingdom: retained EU law." It will also give the government some restricted
power to adapt and remove laws that are no longer relevant.
Page 88 of 306

The bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament was completed on 20 June 2018
and it became law by Royal Assent on 26 June. It makes future ratification of the
withdrawal agreement as a treaty between the UK and EU depend upon the prior
enactment of another act of Parliament for approving the final terms of withdrawal when
the current Brexit negotiations are completed; and fixes 21 January 2019, at the latest,
when the government must decide on how to proceed if the negotiations have not
reached agreement in principle on both the withdrawal arrangements and the
framework for the future relationship between the UK and EU, for Parliamentary debate.
The act is one of a number of current and projected pieces of legislation affecting
international transactions and control of borders, including movement of goods.
The Act
For Repealing ECA 1972 and Ratifying Withdrawal Agreement
The Act is made in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from
the European Union on 29 March 2019, the second anniversary of notice of
withdrawal under Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union. The Act provides for
ratifying and implementing the agreement setting out the withdrawal arrangements. The
mandatory period for negotiating the agreement is stated in the EU negotiating
directives as ending "at the latest on 30 March 2019 at 00:00 (Brussels time)," —
i.e. Central European Time — "unless the European Council, in agreement with the
United Kingdom, unanimously decides to extend this period in accordance with Article
50(3) of the Treaty on European Union".
The Act legislates for the following:
repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.
fixing “exit day”, naming the hour for this as 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019
(subject to possible modification due to a withdrawal agreement or agreed
extension of the negotiating period).
Page 89 of 306

formal incorporation and adaptation ("copying") of up to 20,000 pieces of EU law
onto the UK statute book by:
conversion of directly-applicable EU law (EU regulations) into UK law.
preservation of all laws that have been made in the UK to implement EU
obligations.
continuing to make available in UK law the rights in EU treaties, that are relied on
directly in court by an individual.
ending the supremacy of EU law in the United Kingdom.
creating powers to make commencement orders and other secondary
legislation under statutory instrument procedures.
Parliamentary approval of the outcome of the government's negotiations with the
EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
Parliamentary Approval: Section 13
The Act's section 13 contains a set of mandatory procedures for Parliament's approval
to the various possible outcomes of the government's negotiations with the EU. One
outcome is that there will be an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU
under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for
the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU. In the Act the agreement is called the
withdrawal agreement. The Act provides (section 13) that before the withdrawal
agreement can be ratified, as a treaty between the United Kingdom and the European
Union, an act of Parliament must have been passed which provides for its
implementation. The Act allows (section 9) regulations to be made and in force on or
before exit day for the purpose of implementing the withdrawal agreement, but only if by
then an act of Parliament has been enacted "approving the final terms of withdrawal of
the United Kingdom from the EU".
An analysis of the process set out in the Act published by the Institute for
Government discusses the procedure for approving treaties that is set out in
the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) which may apply to the
withdrawal agreement and the framework agreement for future relations, depending on
what they contain. The procedure could prevent ratification, but in exceptional cases a
government may ratify a treaty without consulting Parliament.
Alternatively (section 13 (10)), if by Monday 21 January 2019 – less than eleven weeks
before the mandatory negotiating period ends on Friday 29 March – there is no
agreement in principle in the negotiations on the substance of the withdrawal
arrangements and the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the
United Kingdom, the government must publish a statement setting out how the
Page 90 of 306

government proposes to proceed, and must arrange for debate about that in Parliament
within days.
"Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons it will be for the Speaker to
determine whether a motion when it is introduced by the Government under the
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or is not in fact cast in neutral terms and hence
whether the motion is or is not amendable. The Government recognises that it is open
for Ministers and members of the House of Commons to table motions on and debate
matters of concern and that, as is the convention, parliamentary time will be provided for
this."
Ministerial Statement HCWS781, 21 June 2018
The approval provisions use certain words in special ways:
"a motion in neutral terms" is used three times in section 13 and is not defined in
the Act, but a document dated 21 June 2018 setting out the government's
understanding stated "Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons it
will be for the Speaker to determine whether a motion when it is introduced by
the Government under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or is not in fact
cast in neutral terms and hence whether the motion is or is not amendable. The
Government recognises that it is open for Ministers and members of the House
of Commons to table motions on and debate matters of concern and that, as is
the convention, parliamentary time will be provided for this."
Page 91 of 306

"a statement that political agreement has been reached" is used three times in
section 13, and defined (section 13 (16)) as a Minister's written statement that, in
the Minister's opinion, "an agreement in principle has been reached in
negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the
substance of (i) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the
EU, and (ii) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the
United Kingdom after withdrawal".
Coming Into Force: Section 25
The sections of the Act that came into force immediately when the Act passed into law
on 26 June 2018, as listed in section 25 (1), include:
8 Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal
9 Implementing the withdrawal agreement
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation in Ireland and the prevention of new
border arrangements
11 Powers involving devolved authorities corresponding to sections 8 and 9
16 Maintenance of environmental principles etc.
17 Family unity for those seeking asylum or other protection in Europe
18 Customs arrangement as part of the framework for the future relationship
20 Interpretation
21 Index of defined expressions
22 Regulations
23 Consequential and transitional provision, except subsection (5)
24 Extent.
25 Commencement and short title.
Subsections (2) and (3) relate to the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales. Subsection (4) provides for bringing into force by government
regulation the remaining provisions of the Act, including:
1 Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
2 Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation
3 Incorporation of direct EU legislation
4 Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA
5 Exceptions to savings and incorporation
6 Interpretation of retained EU law
7 Status of retained EU law
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
14 Financial provision
15 Publication and rules of evidence
19 Future interaction with the law and agencies of the EU.
No regulation for bringing any of those provisions into force was made before the end of
June 2018.
Page 92 of 306

Post-Act Events
The Democratic Unionist Party, whose support the government needs to have a
majority in key Commons votes, said on 2 July 2018 it would not support any deal which
did not give the UK full control over its borders.
After a meeting to discuss the latest development of the negotiations, when the
European Union's chief negotiator Michel Barnier repeatedly told the Prime Minister the
EU would not agree to discuss trade until an agreement was found on the terms of
withdrawal, the prime minister informed the House of Commons on 2 July 2018 that she
warned EU leaders that she did not think Parliament will approve the withdrawal
agreement in the autumn "unless we have clarity about our future relationship alongside
it." This was followed by a decision at a Cabinet meeting at Chequers on 6 July that
continuing preparations for potential outcomes included the 'no deal' possibility.
David Davis, who as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union had introduced
the Act as a bill in Parliament, and who had attended the Cabinet meeting at Chequers
on 6 July, resigned on 8 July. saying in his resignation letter, "In my view the inevitable
consequence of the proposed policies will be to make the supposed control by
Parliament illusory rather than real." The next day, the prime minister appointed Dominic
Raab as Brexit Secretary. Later in the day, the resignation of the Foreign
Secretary, Boris Johnson, who had also attended the Chequers Cabinet meeting, was
made public. Within hours, the prime minister appointed Jeremy Hunt as the next
Foreign Secretary.
Page 93 of 306

The government's policy on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the
European Union that the Cabinet had discussed at Chequers was published as a White
Paper on 12 July 2018 for debate in the House of Commons the following week.
While the President of the United States was on a visit to the United Kingdom on 13
July 2018, his comment, that the UK would probably not get a trade deal with the US if
the prime minister's plan went ahead, [24] was widely published in the media.
The government confirmed in the House of Commons on 19 July 2018 that the UK
would be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019, as stated in the Withdrawal Act and the
White Paper. The first meeting of Dominic Raab, the newly appointed UK Secretary of
State, with the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, was in Brussels later on the same
day (19 July 2018). Raab offered to meet Barnier throughout August to "intensify" talks,
while both the UK and EU were insisting that reaching agreement by the autumn on the
UK withdrawal in March 2019 was still very much on the cards.
Exit Day
The Act has been amended twice (by secondary legislation passed under section 20 of
the Act) to amend the definition of "exit day," the date on which the UK is to leave the
EU. Exit day was first varied to either 12 April 2019 or, depending on circumstances, 22
May, and then to 31 October 2019.
Connected Legislation: World and Cross-Border Trade
Two bills that allow for various outcomes including no negotiated settlement, that were
introduced in the House of Commons in November 2017, completed all stages there in
July 2018 and passed from the Commons to the House of Lords: the Taxation (Crossborder
Trade) Bill on 16 July, and the Trade Bill on 17 July. The government stated that
the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which became law on 19 July
2018, would apply to a permit scheme for international road haulage and was made in
connection with the government's aim in the negotiations to develop the existing
international access for commercial road haulage. On September 4, 2018, the Taxation
(Cross-Border Trade) Bill passed its second reading, committee stages and third
reading in the House of Lords and later became law after receiving Royal Assent on
September 13.
Impact on Devolution
The government published in March 2018 a provisional analysis about the devolved
administrations receiving new powers as the UK leaves the EU.
In devolved administrations, the powers currently exercised by the EU in relation to
common policy frameworks would return to the UK, allowing the rules to be set in the
UK by Westminster representatives. Ministers of devolved administrations would be
given the power to amend devolved legislation to correct law that would not operate
Page 94 of 306

appropriately following Brexit. However, the bill also prevents devolved administrations
from making changes that are "inconsistent" with those made by the UK
government. This significantly limits the power of the devolved governments by making
it impossible for them to, for example, choose to retain a piece of EU law that has been
modified by the UK government.
To prepare Welsh law for Brexit the National Assembly for Wales passed an EU
Continuity Act – formally the "Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 –
that became law on 6 June 2018.
The Scottish Parliament passed an EU Continuity Bill (formally the "UK Withdrawal from
the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill 2018") on 21 March 2018, to
prepare Scots law for Brexit, but was referred for scrutiny to the Supreme Court under
section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998, to determine whether the Parliament had
legislative competence to pass such a bill, and thus Royal Assent was not sought
Page 95 of 306

pending that judgement The Supreme Court hearing started on 24 July 2018. On
13 December 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that section 17 of the Bill to be out with
the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, partly as
it attempted to amend the Scotland Act 1998 itself (prohibited by Schedule 4 of the
Scotland Act), partly due to inherent conflict with section 28(7) of the Scotland Act, and
partly due to conflict with the subsequently passed and enacted European Union
(Withdrawal) Act 2018 while the Scottish Bill was under review, and that the bill as far
as that section is concerned is therefore 'not law'. The Governments of Scotland and of
the United Kingdom differed sharply on the outcome. The (UK) Secretary of State for
Scotland, David Mundell, said the court had "provided much-needed legal clarity" that
the bill "goes beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament". but Scotland's Brexit
Secretary Michael Russell argued that the UK government had "changed the rules of
the game midway through the match" in an "act of constitutional vandalism".
As the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended and the province has been
without devolved government since 9 January 2017 – before the passage of
the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 – it has not been possible for
the assembly to consider any equivalent continuity powers. Without an Assembly
or Executive, the province is governed by the Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland and her junior ministers; these would be the same ministers responsible for
making or amending continuity orders under the Withdrawal Act.
EU Case Law
At present, case law emanating from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU,
formerly and still commonly known as the ECJ) is binding on UK courts. The Act will
have ECJ case law retained as part of the law, but it will no longer be binding on the
courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom. The legislation permits courts to depart from
ECJ caselaw after applying the same test as they would apply in deciding whether to
depart from their own case law.
Human Rights Laws
The Act makes explicit in section 5 that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union will cease to be a part of UK law after Brexit.
Additional Repeals
Repeal of other Acts include:
European Communities (Greek Accession) Act 1979
European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Act 1985
European Union (Accessions) Act 1994
European Union (Accessions) Act 2003
European Union (Accessions) Act 2006
European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013
Page 96 of 306

European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002
European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008
European Union Act 2011
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act 2012
European Union (Approvals) Act 2013
European Union (Approvals) Act 2014
European Union (Approvals) Act 2015
European Union (Approvals) Act 2017
European Union (Finance) Act 2015
European Union Referendum Act 2015
Sections 82 and 88(5)(c) of the Serious Crime Act 2015
Amendments
Amendments to other Acts include:
Finance Act 1973
Interpretation Act 1978
European Economic Area Act 1993
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
Human Rights Act 1998
Page 97 of 306

Scotland Act 1998
Northern Ireland Act 1998
Government of Wales Act 2006
Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015
EU Response
After the Act became law on 26 June 2018 the European Council decided on 29 June to
renew its call on member states and union institutions to step up their work on
preparedness at all levels and for all outcomes.
Legislative History
In October 2016 the Prime Minister, Theresa May, promised a "Great Repeal Bill",
which would repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and restate in UK law all
enactments previously in force under EU law. It would smooth the transition by ensuring
that all laws remain in force until specifically repealed.
Henry VIII Clauses
In March 2017, a report by Thomson Reuters identified 52,741 pieces of legislation that
have been passed since 1990. Transferring European legislation into British law is the
quickest way to ensure continuity. Because these may refer to EU institutions that the
UK will no longer belong to, or use phrasing assuming that the UK is an EU member
state, they cannot simply be directly converted into law. Redrafting all of the tens of
thousands of laws affected and voting on them through Parliament would be an
impossibly time-consuming process, so the bill included provisions, informally known
as Henry VIII clauses, which would allow ministers to make secondary legislation to
amend or remove these laws (both primary and secondary legislation) to resolve
"deficiencies" by making statutory instruments.
In the bill, the powers were divided between two clauses. Clause 7 made provision for
ministers to correct "deficiencies" in law (including references to EU institutions that the
UK is no longer a member of, EU treaties that are no longer relevant, and
redundancies), expiring two years after the UK leaves the EU. These proposed powers
could not be used to make secondary legislation for:
Imposing or increasing taxation.
Making retrospective provision.
Creating a criminal offence with a maximum sentence greater than imprisonment
for two years.
Amending, repealing or revoking the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate
legislation made under it.
Amending or repealing the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (with some limited
exceptions).
Page 98 of 306

Clause 9 of the bill offered ministers unusually broad powers to make changes to
legislation. Although some safeguards were included to limit the situations in which law
can be modified, for instance with the inclusion of sunset clauses, the provisions
granting these powers were criticized for being too wide-ranging.
House of Commons First and Second Readings
On 13 July 2017, David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union,
introduced the bill in the House of Commons. As a government bill, this first
reading was pro forma, with the first debate taking place on the second reading.
The second reading and debate on the bill began on 7 September 2017. The debate
and second reading resumed on 11 September. Shortly after midnight on 12
September, the second reading passed by a margin of 326 to 290, a majority of 36
votes, after an amendment proposed by the Labor Party was rejected by a margin of
318 to 296.
A motion to put the Bill under eight days of Committee scrutiny passed 318 to 301.
Page 99 of 306

House of Commons Committee Stage
The Committee stage was originally scheduled to take place after MPs returned to
Parliament following the conclusion, in October, of their respective party
conferences. However, House of Commons leader Andrea Leadsom announced on 26
October that the committee stage was to begin on 14 November. Committee stage
began as scheduled on 14 November as a Committee of the Whole House, and
completed on 20 December 2017.
MPs tabled more than 470 amendments to the bill, and one of these provided Theresa
May's government with its first defeat on government business, as MPs voted by 309 to
305 to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal struck with
Brussels. The government had originally suggested that as the bill will be a major focus
of the parliamentary debate on Brexit as a whole, it would provide an alternative to a
vote on the deal agreed in the Brexit negotiations.
However, on 13 November 2017 the government announced that it would introduce a
separate Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill to deal separately with
examining an agreement from the negotiations between the UK and EU, if any is
reached, which would provide Parliament with a vote, but this did not prevent the
amendment to the bill being passed.
The repeal was planned to be enacted during the Brexit negotiations, but to come into
force on 'exit day'. As originally tabled, the bill did not give a date for 'exit day', but said
that " 'exit day' means such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations
appoint". If no time is specified, it was to be "the beginning of that day". [63] However, the
government tabled an amendment in Committee Stage so the bill then said " 'exit day'
means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m". To avoid a second possible defeat, [64] the
government accepted a further amendment that "A Minister of the Crown may by
regulations amend the definition of 'exit day' ", allowing for flexibility in the event of a
transitional deal, or extra time being needed in the negotiations.
There was a total of 40 divisions during Committee Stage. Proposed amendments that
were not passed include:
An amendment to exclude the section of the bill which states that the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union will not be part of domestic law after
exit day, was defeated by 311 votes to 301. On 5 December the Government had
published an analysis setting out how each article of the charter will be reflected
in UK law after Brexit.
An amendment to allow the UK to remain in the EU Customs Union was defeated
by 320 votes to 114.
An amendment to hold a referendum on whether to: (1) accept the final exit deal
agreed with the EU; or (2) remain in the EU, was defeated by 319 votes to 23.
Page 100 of 306

House of Commons Report Stage and Third Reading
The Report Stage and Third Reading happened on 16 and 17 January 2018. The bill
passed Third Reading by 324 votes to 295.
House of Lords First and Second Readings and Committee Stage
The bill had its First Reading in the Lords on 18 January 2018, and Second Reading on
30 and 31 January 2018, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. This
lasted for eleven days between 21 February and 28 March.
House of Lords Report Stage
As part of the Lords Report Stage, a number of amendments were passed, of which 170
were proposed by the Government, and 14 were defeats for the Government, including:
Amendment 1: A proposal requiring ministers to report on the Government's
efforts to negotiate a continued customs union between the EU and the UK was
passed by 348 to 225 – a majority of 123.
Amendment 11: A proposal that certain areas of retained EU Law cannot be
amended or repealed after Exit by Ministers, but only through primary
legislation (i.e. an Act of Parliament), was passed by 314 to 217 – a majority of
97. These areas of retained EU Law are: (a) employment entitlements, rights and
protection; (b) equality entitlements, rights and protection; (c) health and safety
entitlements, rights and protection; (d) consumer standards; and (e)
environmental standards and protection. Even technical changes to the retained
EU Law in these areas can only be made with approval of both Houses of
Parliament, and following 'an enhanced scrutiny procedure'.
Page 101 of 306

Amendment 15: One of the few pieces of EU Law the bill proposed to repeal,
rather than transpose into UK Law, was the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, but an amendment to keep the Charter part of UK Law after
Exit was passed by 316 to 245, majority 71.
Amendment 18: A proposal which allows individuals to retain the right to
challenge the validity of EU law post-Brexit was passed by 285 to 235 – a
majority of 50.
Amendment 19: A proposal which limits ministerial powers to alter EU law when
it is incorporated into UK law post-Brexit was passed by 280 to 223 – a majority
of 57.
Amendment 31: A proposal to amend a clause that originally gave ministers
power to make 'appropriate' changes to legislation, to instead give them power to
make 'necessary' changes, was passed by 349 votes to 221 – a majority of 128,
25 April 2018.
Amendment 49: A proposal that means parliament must approve the withdrawal
agreement and transitional measures in an act of parliament, before the
European parliament has debated and voted on this, and also gives the
Commons the power to decide the next steps for the government if the deal is
rejected (dubbed the 'meaningful vote') was passed by 335 to 244 – a majority of
91.
Amendment 51: A proposed change giving parliament a say on future
negotiations on the UK's future relationship with the EU was passed by 270 to
233 – a majority of 37.
Amendment 59: A proposed change requiring the government to reunite
unaccompanied child refugees with relatives in the UK was passed by 205 to 181
– a majority of 24.
Amendment 70: A proposal to create a parliamentary committee to sift certain
regulations introduced under the legislation to recommend whether they require
further scrutiny of Brexit statutory instruments was passed by 225 to 194 – a
majority of 31.
Amendment 88: The Lords voted in favour of inserting a new clause regarding
the continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border
arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, 309 votes to
242 – a majority of 67.
Amendment 93: A proposal to allow the Government to replicate any EU law in
domestic law and to continue to participate in EU agencies (such as European
Page 102 of 306

Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)) after Brexit was passed by 298 to 227 – a
majority of 71.
Amendment 95: A proposal to remove the exit day of 29 March 2019 from the
face of the Bill was passed by 311 to 233 – a majority of 78.
Amendment 110A: A proposal to mandate the Government to negotiate
continued membership of the European Economic Area was passed by 245 to
218 – a majority of 27.
On 30 April, a proposal to advance a second EU Referendum (amendment 50) was
rejected by the Lords 260 votes to 202 – a majority of 58.
House of Lords Third Reading
During the Third Reading on 16 May 2018, the Government suffered its 15th defeat in
the Lords which, including the Commons Committee defeat, meant 16 defeats overall.
The bill then passed the Third Reading.
Page 103 of 306

Consideration of Amendments
The Commons debated the amendments proposed by the Lords on 12 and 13 June. A
majority voted to reject 14 of the 15 Lords amendments and accepted only one, which
pertained to preservation of relations with the EU. The government also agreed to
accept an amendment encouraging the negotiation of a customs arrangement with the
EU and further compromised with amendments concerning the issues of Northern
Ireland, scrutiny, the environment and unaccompanied child migrants. A governmentbacked
amendment allowing legal challenges on the basis of EU law for the three-year
period following Brexit also passed. It was also agreed that any withdrawal agreement
with the EU would not be implemented without Parliament approval and if there was no
such approval, a minister will make a statement setting out how the Government
“proposes to proceed” within 28 days, as contained in section 13 of the Act as passed.
On 18 June the House of Lords passed another "meaningful vote" amendment similar to
the one rejected by the House of Commons which allows a parliament vote on Brexit in
case no UK-EU Brexit deal was reached, this time reworded so it wouldn't involve only a
"neutral motion." This amendment was later defeated by the Commons on 20 June in a
319-303 vote. The same day, the Lords agreed to accept the government's EU
Withdrawal Bill, thus paving the way for it to become law upon royal assent.
Royal Assent and Commencement
The bill became law as an Act on 26 June 2018. Section 1 states that the European
Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day, defined in another section as 29 March
2019 at 11.00 p.m. (subject to possible modification due to a withdrawal agreement or
agreed extension of the negotiating period). Section 25 subsection (1) sets out the
provisions of the Act that commenced on 26 June 2018, subsections (2) and (3) set out
the provisions of the Act that commenced on that day for certain purposes, and
subsection (4) states that the remaining provisions will come into force on the day or
days appointed by regulations.
________
The European Union Withdrawal Act of 2019
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019, sometimes referred to as the "Cooper–
Letwin Bill", is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes provisions for
extensions to the period defined under Article 50 of the Treaty on European
Union related to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. It was
introduced to the House of Commons by Labour MP Yvette Cooper and Conservative
MP Sir Oliver Letwin on 3 April 2019, in an unusual process where the Government of
the United Kingdom did not have control over Commons business that day.
Page 104 of 306

Provisions
Section 1 of the Act requires the Government to allow Parliament to debate a motion to
require the prime minister to seek an extension to the period in which the United
Kingdom is to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union ("Brexit")
under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union. The motion must be moved on the
day the Act received royal assent or on the next day, so 8 or 9 April 2019. If Parliament
passes the motion then the prime minister is legally obliged to comply with it and seek
an extension to a date chosen by Parliament (although the extension must still be
agreed to by the EU).
Section 2 streamlines the procedure for amending UK law to reflect the new date for
"exit day," the date on which the UK is to leave the EU.
Legislative History
House of Commons First and Second Readings
The Act was originally introduced to the House of Commons as the European Union
(Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill on 3 April 2019, on a day where some of the normal standing
orders of the House were suspended to prevent Government business taking
precedence over business that may want to be undertaken by other Members of
Parliament. As such, Sir Oliver Letwin tabled a motion which would allow MPs to
undertake proceedings on the second, committee, and third reading of the Bill in one
day. The motion was passed by one vote.
The UK Government opposed the bill at all stages throughout its passing in the House
of Commons and the House of Lords. The second reading passed by 5 votes, after
closing remarks given by Stephen Barclay, Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union making clear the Government's opposition to the Bill.
First Reading
Second Reading
Ballot → 3 April 2019 Ballot → 3 April 2019
Aye 312 / 634 Aye 315 / 634
No 311 / 634 No 310 / 634
Abstentions 11 / 634 Abstentions 9 / 634
Sources: Commons Votes
House of Commons Committee Stage
Sources: Commons Votes
During the committee stage, a number of amendments were tabled for the Bill, of which
four went to a Division:
Page 105 of 306

List of Commons amendments to European Union Withdrawal (No. 5) Bill
Amendment
13
14
20
21
22
Name of
proposer
Yvette
Cooper
George
Eustice
Stephen
Barclay
1 Anne Main
6
NC4
NC5
NC7
NC13
Sir William
Cash
Stephen
Barclay
Purpose
Technical amendment to correct printing error
Amendment to clarify references to European
Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
To ensure that the Bill would not permit an
extension of the Article 50 period later than 30
June 2019
To remove the requirement for the Prime
Minister to put any counter-offer of an Article 50
extension date by the European Union to a
debate and vote in Parliament
To ensure that nothing in the Bill could rule out
the Government extending Article 50 in a
different way
To ensure that the Bill would not permit an
extension to the Article 50 period later than 22
May 2019
To ensure that any extension is subject to the
agreement of the devolved assemblies
An additional clause to the Bill that would have
prevented Parliament from tabling amendments
to any future motion under Section 1 of the Bill
that change or suspend the standing orders of
the House of Commons
An additional clause to the Bill to ensure that
any motion on extension be limited to no later
than 22 May 2019
An additional clause to the Bill to prevent an
extension in the event of the United Kingdom
taking part in the 2019 European Parliament
election
An additional clause to the Bill to ensure that
any date limits in domestic legislation match
the Article 50 extension date
Status
Agreed
Agreed
Not
called
Rejected.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Not
called
Rejected.
Not
called
Not
called
Agreed
Amendment 21 Amendment 22 Amendment 1 New Clause 4
Ballot →
3
Apr
il
Ballot →
3
April
2019
Ballot →
3
April
2019
Ballot →
3
April
2019
Page 106 of 306

201
9
Aye
304
/
634
Aye
220 /
634
Aye
123 /
634
Aye
105 /
634
No
313
/
634
No
400 /
634
No
488 /
634
No
509 /
634
Abstentio
ns
17 /
634
Abstentions
14 /
634
Abstentions
23 /
634
Abstentions
20 /
634
Sources: Comm
ons Votes
Sources: Commons
Votes
Sources: Commons
Votes
Sources: CommonsVo
tes [12]
House of Commons Third Reading
As there was no report stage, the House of Commons debated and voted on the third
reading of the Bill after the committee stage.
Third Reading
Ballot → 3 April 2019
Aye 313 / 634
No 312 / 634
Abstentions 9 / 634
Sources: Commons Votes
The bill was accepted on its third reading by a difference of a single vote once
again. The approved Cooper-Letwin bill having passed through the House of Commons
subsequently passed the following day to the House of Lords.
House of Lords First and Second Readings
Having passed the House of Commons, the Bill was introduced into the House of
Lords by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town the following day, 4 April 2019. The debate
on the Bill was preceded by Lady Hayter introducing a motion to compress the process
for having the legislation passed into a single day's sitting through the suspension of two
of the House's Standing Orders:
Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed
with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all
its stages this day.
Page 107 of 306

Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be
considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name
of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
However, a number of Conservative Party peers laid down motions to amend the
original business motion, which was regarded as a filibuster attempt, with the tacit
approval of the Government, to prevent the Bill passing through the House. Despite a
total of seven motions put forward to amend Baroness Hayter's original business
motion, which had to be debated and voted on, the original motion eventually passed
allowing the Bill to be introduced at First Reading and passed to Second Reading the
same day.
List of Business Motion Amendments
Name of Proposer
Yes No
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean 94 254
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean 123 251
Lord True 122 248
Baroness Noakes 106 234
Viscount Ridley 104 223
Lord Robathan 61 238
Lord Hamilton of Epsom 62 235
However, the Second Reading debate did not begin until after 7.00pm that night, which
led it not being able to pass through all stages on the same day, with instead the Bill
passing Second Reading to the Committee Stage to be taken up the following Monday.
House of Lords Committee and Report Stages
Committee Stage began on the afternoon of 8 April 2019 with a total of 8 proposed
amendments, but only a single division on whether Clause 2 of the Bill ("Procedure for
ensuring domestic legislation matches Article 50 extension") should remain:
Amendment
1
2
3
List of Lords Amendments to European Union Withdrawal (No. 5) Bill
Name of
proposer
Lord Rooker
Purpose
To ensure that the House of Commons
was able to debate the Bill the next day
To allow a motion extending Article 50 to
be tabled on the day after Royal Assent
To allow any Minister rather than just the
Prime Minister to move the motion
Status
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Page 108 of 306

4
5
6
Baroness
Neville-Rolfe
Lord
Goldsmith
Baroness
Deech
7 Lord Pannick
8
Baroness
Noakes
extending Article 50
To place a restriction on the date of
departure to not later than the end of FY
2019/20
To remove the requirement for a motion to
be put to the Commons
in the event that the European Council
makes a proposal
Any extension to Article 50 cannot end
before 22 May 2019,
unless any withdrawal agreement comes
into force
The Act ceases to have effect on the day
of the UK's exit
Sources: Hansard
Clause 2
Ballot → 8 April 2019
Content 280 / 782
Not Content 46 / 782
Abstentions 456 / 782
Sources: Hansard
Withdrawn
Agreed
Not
Moved
Agreed
Withdrawn
Following the Committee Stage, there was an official Report Stage, noting merely that
the report on the Bill had been received.
House of Lords Third Reading
With the Committee and Report Stages completed, the Bill moved to Third Reading,
when it was passed without a vote and returned to the House of Commons.
Commons vote on Lords amendments and Royal Assent
Having passed through the House of Lords, the Bill returned to the House of Commons
for a vote on the five amendments passed by the Upper House late on 8 April.
Amendments 1 and 4 were agreed to, while Amendments 2, 3 and 5 were voted on in a
division, as was a new amendment placed by Sir William Cash.
Amendment
List of Lords amendments to European Union Withdrawal (No. 5) Bill
Original
Lords
Purpose
Status
Page 109 of 306

Amendment
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 5
5 7
Amendment (a) to
Amendment 5
Lords Amendments 2 and
3
Aye
No
Ballot →
Abstentions
8
April
2019
396 /
634
83 /
634
155 /
634
To ensure that the House of Commons was
able to debate the Bill the next day
To allow a motion extending Article 50 to be
tabled on the day after Royal Assent
To allow any Minister rather than just the
Prime Minister to move the motion extending
Article 50
To remove the requirement for a motion to
be put to the Commons in the event that the
European Council makes a proposal
Any extension to Article 50 cannot end
before 22 May 2019, unless any withdrawal
agreement comes into force
Any extension to Article 50 cannot end after
22 May 2019, unless any withdrawal
agreement comes into force
Amendment (a) to Lords
Amendment 5
Aye
No
Ballot →
Abstentions
8
April
2019
85 /
634
392 /
634
157 /
634
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Rejected
Lords Amendment 5
Aye
No
Ballot →
Abstentions
Sources: Commons Votes Sources: Commons Votes Sources: Commons Votes
8
April
2019
390 /
634
81 /
634
163 /
634
Having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, the bill achieved Royal Assent later
that evening.
Motion Under The Act
On 9 April 2019, the House of Commons debated a motion under the terms of the Act
put forward by the Prime Minister, requesting approval for the UK to seek an extension
to the Article 50 process to 30 June 2019.
Motion under section 1 to June 30
Page 110 of 306

Ballot → 9 April 2019
Aye 420 / 634
No 110 / 634
Abstentions 104 / 634
Sources: Commons Votes
This vote passed with a large majority of 310 votes.
Page 111 of 306

Page 112 of 306

IV. International Reactions
International reactions to the United Kingdom European Union membership
referendum of 2016 are the reactions to the decision to leave the European Union by
the United Kingdom. The main reaction was on global financial markets experiencing
extreme volatility.
European Union
International Responses
European Union
President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said that the result
"would not be the beginning of the end of the EU." He later added that he does
not expect an "amicable divorce" but it was never "a tight love affair anyway." He
called for urgency on separation, even though the EU has no authority to force
the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as "it doesn't make any sense to
wait until October to try and negotiate the terms of their departure. I would like to
get started immediately."
o
President of the European Council Donald Tusk said: "This is not a
moment for hysterical reactions. Today on behalf of the 27 leaders I can
Page 113 of 306

say that we are determined to keep our unity as 27. Until the UK formally
leaves the EU, EU law will continue to apply to and within the UK, and by
this I mean rights, as well as obligations. All the procedures for the
withdrawal of the UK from the EU are set out in the treaties. In order to
discuss the details, I have offered an informal meeting of the 27 in the
margins of the European council next week. I have also proposed we start
a wider reflection of the future of our union.
President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz said: "We respect the result.
We have clarity for the UK to go its own way. Now is the time for us to behave
seriously and responsibly. David Cameron has his responsibilities for his country,
we have our responsibilities for the future of the EU. You can see what is
happening to sterling on the markets. I don't want the same thing to happen to
the euro." He added that "we expect the British government to deliver now."
The European Central Bank issued a statement which read: "Following the
outcome of the UK referendum, the European Central Bank is closely monitoring
financial markets and is in close contact with other central banks. The ECB
stands ready to provide additional liquidity, if needed, in euro and foreign
currencies. The ECB has prepared for this contingency in close contact with the
banks that it supervises and considers that the euro area banking system is
resilient in terms of capital and liquidity."
Leader of the European People's Party and German Christian Social
Union MEP Manfred Weber wrote: "Exit negotiations should be concluded within
2 years at max. There cannot be any special treatment. Leave means leave."
French Left Party MEP Jean-Luc Mélenchon said: "This is the end of a world that
begins with this Brexit. This teaches a lesson to the whole of Europe; either we
change it or we leave it. This is the time for a plan B."
Independent Irish MEP Luke 'Ming' Flanagan commented: "[The] Irish
government now needs to step up to the plate at [the] European Council...No
barriers to trade with our biggest trading partner" and that the European Union
had "crumbled under its own weight in arrogance."
Polish MEP Danuta Hubner suggested the potential disuse of English as working
language of the European Union: "We have a regulation where every EU country
has the right to notify one official language. The Irish have notified Gaelic and the
Maltese have notified Maltese, so you have only the UK notifying English...if you
do not have the UK, you do not have English." German EU
Commissioner Gunther Oettinger added: "We have a series of member states
that speak English, and English is the world language which we all accept;" he
also suggested that if Scotland was to join separately it could apply for English as
their primary language.
Page 114 of 306

The UK EU commissioner, Jonathan Hill, resigned on 25 June ahead of a vote in
the EU parliament initiated by EPP, S&D, ALDE and Greens asking for his
removal. He said, "I don’t believe it is right that I should carry on as the British
commissioner as though nothing had happened". Latvia's Valdis
Dombrovskis will take over his portfolio (fincancial stability and services).
Member States
Austria – Chancellor Christian Kern said: "I do not fear a domino effect."
However, he added that "Europe will lose status and significance in the world
because of Britain’s step. The long-term economic effects will also be felt for
some time."
o
o
Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said that "a domino effect on other
countries cannot be ruled out." Although he added that the EU as a whole
would survive.
The Freedom Party's (FPÖ) former presidential candidate Norbert Hofer,
who lost narrowly in the 2016 Austrian presidential election (before it was
annulled), warned Austria could hold an Auxit referendum on EU
membership within a year. "The founding fathers [of the EU] wanted to
ensure closer economic cooperation because states that cooperate
economically do not wage war against each other. That worked very well
until the political union was founded. If a course is set within a year further
Page 115 of 306

towards centralization instead of taking [the EU’s] core values into
account, then we must ask Austrians whether they want to be members."
o Leader of the Freedom Party of Austria Heinz-Christian
Strache demanded the EU's Juncker should resign "out of decency and
out of respect for a better future for Europe."
Belgium – Prime Minister Charles Michel said that EU member states should
meet to "define priorities and set out a new future for Europe."
Bulgaria – Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said of potential contagion that
"only Bulgaria, Romania and Greece will remain when the domino effect is set
off."
Czech Republic – President Miloš Zeman said that the result could have an
unpleasant influence on the European Union because the United Kingdom will no
longer balance French and German influence. He also noted that he was
disappointed by the result and that it could worsen the economic conditions in the
Czech Republic. Zeman later said that he would hold a referendum about leaving
the European Union even though he would like to vote for remain in such a
referendum.
o
o
o
Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said that the result is "not the end of the
world, nor it is the end of the European Union. He also said Europe should
change because the project needs stronger support of citizens. After going
for an EU summit, he added: "We need to reaffirm the benefits of
European integration for growth and security in Europe. We need to make
the EU ideas more attractive for people. A new plan of relations between
the EU and Britain is needed. We should take into account that a lot of
Britons want their country to stay in the EU." Deputy Prime Minister and
Finance Minister Andrej Babiš said the European Union should respect
the decision and should not force remaining countries to stronger
integration. Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek urged Juncker to resign,
saying he was a "negative symbol" of federalism that British voters
rejected.
The ODS issued a statement that read the result was "the last warning
before others will go." It also called for change in functioning and strategy
of European Union. Leader of the party Petr Fiala said that the Czech
Republic "should reconsider its existence in European Union" and
negotiate new conditions for the country.
Eurosceptic parties welcomed the result and called for a similar
referendum. The Party of Free Citizens called for similar referendum
because "European Union has changed since 2003 and three million
newly eligible citizens could not vote at the time due to their age. Freedom
Page 116 of 306

and Direct Democracy stated that it will propose, in parliament, a
referendum on the withdrawal of the Czech Republic from the European
Union. Senator Ivo Valenta called for a "Czexit" and criticized the
European Union for bad legislation, bad immigration policy and for having
an army of bureaucrats.
Denmark – Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that the result is "very
sad for Denmark but it will be respected" and that "the British referendum does
not change the fact that Denmark belongs in the EU. The EU is Denmark's best
opportunity to influence the world that we are a part of for better or worse. We
can do some things better alone, but we are stronger together. Denmark and the
Danish economy are highly dependent on the European community."
o
Leader of Danish People's Party Kristian Thulesen Dahl praised the result
but added that it's too early for Denmark to have a similar vote. "It will
probably take a few a years, and I believe that Denmark should push that
Britain gets the best possible deal, and after that, it will be quite natural to
ask the Danish people whether they want to go the way of the British."
Finland – Minister for Foreign Affairs and the leader of the Finns Party Timo
Soini said that "the nation has had its say" and that "any retaliation and whinge is
out of the question."
o
o
Teija Tiilikainen, the director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs,
stated that "Brexit seems to have had a strong impact on Finnish attitudes
toward the EU,"
Kaj Turunen, a Finns Party Member of Parliament and the chairman of
the Parliament of Finland's commerce committee, stated that this was not
the time for Finland to leave the Eurozone.
France – President Francois Hollande said: "I profoundly regret this decision
for the United Kingdom and for Europe, but the choice is theirs and we have to
respect it." He later said that it "will be painful for Britain but... as in all divorces, it
will be painful for those who stay behind, too." Prime Minister Manuel Valls said:
"At stake is the breakup, pure and simple, of the union. Now is the time to invent
another Europe." Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron accused the U.K. of
taking the EU "hostage" with a referendum called to solve a domestic political
problem of eurosceptics and that "the failure of the British government [has
opened up] the possibility of the crumbling of Europe."
o
Les Republicains Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart said: "The British
must take the consequences of their choice. We are in a strong position to
push, to press this request for a review and we are asking the president
[Francois Hollande] to bring his weight [to the issue]...there must be an
element of division, of sharing." Leader for the Paris region Valerie
Page 117 of 306

Pecresse wrote: "It's a thunderbolt. Nobody believed this could happen. I
was convinced nobody would choose to undo what we have strived so
long to build. We need to rethink Europe. The French must know that the
EU protects them. We need a Europe that is more democratic and less
bureaucratic."
o
o
o
Front National leader Marine Le Pen wrote: "Victory for freedom! As I have
been asking for years, now we need to have the same referendum in
France and in the countries of the EU." She also said: "I'll be Madame
Frexit if the European Union doesn't give us back our monetary,
legislative, territorial and budget sovereignty." Her niece and party
member, Marion Marechal-Le Pen wrote: "From #Brexit to #Frexit: It's now
time to import democracy to our country. The French must have the right
to choose!"
France Arise leader Nicolas Dupont-Aignan commented "For half a
century the elites claim to 'build' Europe on the backs of citizens or against
them on the grounds they would be unable, intellectually and morally, to
adhere to the so-called grand project. But people are not as stupid or as
their malicious rulers hope. So they came to understand the real intention
of this [so-called] 'Europe' war machine against the countries, democracy
and social justice. No offense to many commentators, the people are and
always have been stronger than oligarchies, freedom always prevails over
the dictatorship."
Ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud wrote: "Now to the other Members
states to save the EU from unravelling which excludes business as usual,
especially in Brussels. Reform or die!"
Germany – Chancellor Angela Merkel said, after a meeting with her Austrian
counterpart, that Europe should discuss the result "together and in calm," while
warning against hectic reactions. She noted the referendum result would be
tabled during an EU summit in Brussels the following week. She added that
"today marks a turning point for Europe. It is a turning point for the European
unification process." She re-iterated her desire to avoid "ugly negotiations" and
that "Great Britain needs to say which kind of relationship it imagines having with
the EU. [Those talks should be] matter-of-fact [and] shouldn’t drag on
forever." Further noting: "Britain will remain a close partner, with which we are
linked economically."
o Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel wrote: "Damn! A bad day for
Europe." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier wrote: "The news from
Britain is really sobering. It looks like a sad day for Europe and Britain."
o
Ruling Christian Democratic Union MP Norbert Röttgen said the result
was the "biggest catastrophe in the history of European integration."
Page 118 of 306

o
Alternative for Germany's Frauke Petry wrote that the result was a warning
that "if the EU does not abandon its quasi-socialist experiment of ever
greater integration then the European people will follow the Brits and take
back their sovereignty."
Greece – Prime minister Alexis Tsipras in a televised address to the country
argued that "it was a difficult day for Europe" and that "the EU has been dealt a
blow." He also underlined that the result is respected and estimated that the
message had long been sent, as reflected by the rise of euroskepticism in
Europe. He further noted that the gap is widening and a "return to the so-called
security of national entrenchment" will lead to a dead end and that an immediate
change of course is necessary to defend against the rise of such movements. He
summed it up as a "negative development" and that the European migrant
crisis was partly to blame for the result.
o
o
Popular Unity issued a statement that read it was now "more urgent for
leaving the Eurozone and the indisciplined neoliberal EU" and that "after
the political earthquake of Brexit, Europe and the world can not remain the
same."
New Democracy MP Dora Bakoyannis said: "The cost of populism
emerged today in all its glory. Mr Cameron is bearing great responsibility.
It's a hard day for Europe and an even harder day for the UK."
Ireland – The Taoiseach Enda Kenny stated that "This result clearly has very
significant implications for Ireland, as well as for Britain and for the European
Union."
o
o
The Green Party described the decision as "a huge blow to the European
Union" but said that, "We have to respect their decision, and manage the
consequences for Ireland as best as we can." Its statement restated a
commitment to Europe and said that, "It is only by sharing sovereignty that
we can tackle the biggest issues facing our society. Yesterday's vote is a
challenge for every pro-European to consider how we can restore faith in
our Union."
The People Before Profit Alliance welcomed the exit vote and issued a
statement that read: "Over the last two years the EU has been shown for
what it is – a prison house for workers that fosters racism, xenophobia and
austerity."
Hungary – Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated that he respects the decision
and that "Brussels should hear the voice of the people." He has also emphasized
the need to carry out reforms on the structure of the European Union which "was
unable to adequately respond to weighty issues such as the ongoing migrant
Page 119 of 306

crisis." Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó declared "a strong Europe is in everyone's
interests, but this can only be realized if the EU provides real solutions to major
challenges, because Europe cannot be strong if the solutions it provides weaken
member states and the European Union."
Italy – Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said: "The decision of the British
voters must be a wake-up call."
o
o
o
The Five Star Movement also issued a statement that called for a
referendum on membership in the Eurozone.
Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini wrote: "Hurrah for the courage of free
citizens! Heart, brain and pride defeated lies, threats and blackmail.
THANK YOU UK, now it's our turn." He also called for a referendum on
membership in the EU.
Brothers of Italy President Giorgia Meloni reacted in saying that "the vote
of British citizens is a vote for freedom and choice to reiterate that the
sovereignty belongs to the people and that is not in the availability of
business committees and lobbies that today govern European institutions.
It is a brave choice that we believe we should follow. The EU can not be
reformed because it is rotten from its foundations, it must be completely
closed and reopened on diametrically opposite assumptions. We demand
the resignation of Mr Juncker and of the entire European Commission and
the start of whole new season." Commenting on the reaction to the vote by
the European Commission, she added: "Since when do Brussels
bureaucrats have the power to declare war to other states? Who decided
to now open hostilities against the United Kingdom? These technocrats
are on a full power trip, the sooner we get rid of them the better it will be
for Europe, the real one."
Luxembourg – Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said: "It cannot be ruled out
that Brexit leads to a domino effect in Eastern Europe. [It had been a] historic
mistake." He suspected that a meeting earlier in the year between Cameron and
the head of Poland's ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) Jaroslaw Kaczynski had
a gentleman's agreement on rolling back European integration. "Both seem do
have the same agenda regarding their critical stance toward the EU."
Netherlands – Prime Minister Mark Rutte said: "The dissatisfaction you see
in Britain is also present in other countries, including my own. This has to be a
stimulus for more reform, more welfare." He added: "First the British have to
decide when they want to start the process of leaving."
o MP and Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders wrote in
congratulations of the outcome and that it is "Time for a Dutch
referendum!"
Page 120 of 306

Poland – Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said: "Brexit is bad news
for Britain and Europe. It is a sign the EU concept needs to change."
Portugal – Prime Minister António Costa said that country's economic
recovery will survive the result and that it had "sent a very strong signal" that
many Europeans no longer identified themselves "with what the EU has
become." He also invoked the world's "oldest alliance" between Portugal and the
United Kingdom and said that Portugal will keep strong economic relations with
the United Kingdom.
Slovakia – Prime Minister Robert Fico said that Slovakia respects the
decision to leave the European Union and further noted that it is not a "tragedy
but a reality". He also said that the European Union should change its policy
because many people are not satisfied with its migration and economic policies.
He added that the result would influence the Slovak six-month tenure
as president of the European Commission.
Spain - Acting Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo called for joint
control over the disputed territory of Gibraltar, which voted overwhelmingly in
favour of remaining in the EU. "It's a complete change of outlook that opens up
new possibilities on Gibraltar not seen for a very long time. I hope the formula of
co-sovereignty – to be clear, the Spanish flag on the Rock – is much closer than
before." Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo, however, immediately dismissed
the remarks, stating that "there will be no talks, or even talks about talks, about
the sovereignty of Gibraltar." He also called on Gibraltar's residents "to ignore
these noises."
o
The Spanish People's Party issued a statement in regards to the election
three days later that, as a result of the U.K. vote, Spain needed "stability"
in the face of "radicalism" and "populism." It was also read as an attack on
the Unidos Podemos coalition that vowed to fight for the least well-off. The
latter's leader Pablo Iglesias said that Europe had to "change course. Noone
would want to leave Europe if it were fair and united."
o Catalonia - President of the Generalitat of Catalonia Carles
Puigdemont praised the result, while the Catalan National
Assembly President Jordi Sànchez i Picanyol called for a referendum to
be held in Catalonia to separate from Spain, despite the previous Catalan
election being held as a de facto referendum on independence after
the Spanish Constitutional Court disallowed a de jure one.
Sweden – Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that Sweden will respect the
decision of British citizens even though it will be hard for them. However, he
added that this was a "wake-up call" for the EU and that it must show it can
respond to people's expectations. He also called for unity and said negotiations
Page 121 of 306

with the UK should be allowed to take time and that it is important to maintain
good relations with the UK. A few days later, he said "Boris Johnson put forward
a vision that the UK shall have free access to the EU, but be able to regulate
immigration themselves. Sounds like they want the rights, but no obligations.
This will not happen. Leaving the union will make a difference.
o
The Left Party issued a statement that called for the country’s government
to renegotiate the terms of its adhesion to the EU.
o Of the Alliance coalition, the Moderate Party leader Anna Kinberg
Batra expressed regret at the result and Centre Party leader Annie
Lööf called it a "nightmare."
o
Sweden Democrats' leader Jimmie Åkesson said: "We demand that
Sweden immediately starts to renegotiate the (EU) deals we have made
and that the Swedish people will be able to speak up about a future EUmembership
in a referendum."
Multilateral
After hosting talks with his counterparts from France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium
and Luxembourg the following day, Germany's Walter-Steinmeier said that "we now
have to open the possibility for dealing with Europe’s future. That is why we jointly say:
This process should start as soon as possible." France's Jean-Marc Ayrault said: "We
demand that the 27 other member countries also get respect. That’s one of the reasons
we came to Berlin today." He added: "There is a certain urgency ... so that we don't
have a period of uncertainty, with financial consequences, political
consequences." Luxembourg's Asselborn's said: "I believe you can destroy the
European Union with referenda. We have to communicate better what the EU has done,
and we have to work harder on issues such as migration where we have failed." A joint
statement also read: "We now expect the UK government to provide clarity and give
effect to this decision as soon as possible."
Supranational Bodies
Bank for International Settlements (BIS): Chief Economist Claudio Borio said:
"Brexit is one of the possible shocks to the economic outlook, but we emphasize
much more the buildup of endogenous problems. It’s very tempting for policy
makers to react strongly to market jitters. Given how far away we are from
normality, we should be able to see through them. If you have any fiscal space,
of the various possible uses, getting the banking system into shape is probably
priority number one."
The G7 was expected to make a statement in regards to whether there is any
coordinated intervention to ease monetary policy by global central banks.
Page 122 of 306

NATO: Leader Jens Stoltenberg said: "The UK will remain a strong and
committed NATO ally and will continue to play its leading role in our alliance."
Commonwealth of Nations: Secretary-General Baroness Patricia Scotland said
she remained "hugely, hugely positive" and added "The fact that the United
Kingdom made the decision to come out has put this on turbocharge, I believe
that now that the UK has made its decision, the Commonwealth will become
more pivotally important than it has ever been. Did the Commonwealth want it? I
don’t think they did. Will they work incredibly hard to with all its members to
derive the new benefits that may be available? Absolutely. Lots of people were
really, really frightened about what would happen if the United Kingdom came out
of Brexit. You are always more frightened about something before it happens
than when it has happened. You have just got to get on with and deal with it" she
told the House of Lords international relations committee.
G7: The UK economy is "resilient" to the impact of the EU referendum vote, G7
finance ministers and central bank governors have said in a statement. They
added they said steps had been taken to "ensure adequate liquidity and to
support the functioning of markets" and that they were ready to use "established
liquidity instruments to that end. We affirm our assessment that the UK economy
and financial sector remain resilient and are confident that the UK authorities are
well-positioned to address the consequences of the referendum outcome. We
recognize that excessive volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates
can have adverse implications for economic and financial stability. We remain
united and continue to maintain our solidarity as G7."
United Nations: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson issued a
statement that read "as the United Kingdom and other EU member states
embark on the process of charting a way forward, the secretary general trusts in
Europe's well-proven history of pragmatism and common responsibility in the
interest of European citizens" and that "at the UN, we look forward to continuing
our work with the United Kingdom and the European Union - both important
partners...the secretary general expects the European Union to continue to be a
solid partner for the United Nations on development and humanitarian issues, as
well as peace and security, including migration. He also expects that the United
Kingdom will continue to exercise its leadership in many areas, including
development. He very much hopes that this will continue."
World Trade Organization: Director-General Roberto Azevêdo wrote: "The
British people have spoken. The WTO stands ready to work with the UK and the
EU to assist them in any way we can."
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Which the UK co-founded
in 1960, Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann said that the U.K.'s return
would strengthen the association.
Page 123 of 306

Confederation of Indian Industry (CII): President & Co-chairman Forbes
Marshall, Naushad Forbes said, "India-UK relations will sustain with or without
Britain’s relationship with the EU and will only thrive and prosper in the years
ahead". He also said that the exit might speed up the India UK Free Trade
Agreement. India has been negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the EU for
over nine years. Indian is the third largest investor in the UK economy. CII
President also led a delegation of high profile CEOs to the UK to discuss the post
Brexit opportunities and the Free Trade Agreement.
International Monetary Fund (IMF): Director Christine Lagarde said "We urge
the authorities in the UK and Europe to work collaboratively to ensure a smooth
transition to a new economic relationship between the UK and the EU, including
by clarifying the procedures and broad objectives that will guide the process."
Sovereign States/Entities
Australia: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: "The impact on Australia
immediately, directly, from a legal point of view, will be very limited because it will
take some years for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, to
negotiate an exit. However, we've seen already large falls on stock markets and
there will be a degree of uncertainty for some time." He added that this was a
"momentous and historic decision." He also insisted "there is no cause for
Australians to be alarmed by these developments" and that "it is important to
remember that the Australian economy is strong and resilient and has weathered
global shocks before and weathered them well." On the campaign trail less than
a week before an election, he said: "The upheaval reminds us there are many
things in the global economy over which we have no control. Calm heads, steady
hands, stable government and a strong economic plan are critical for Australia to
withstand any repercussions. Always expect the unexpected. We will need to
renegotiate vital trade deals with Britain and Europe."
Bahrain: An unnamed spokesperson of the Bahraini government said that it
honored the decision of its "British ally" and also stressed its commitment
to strengthen relationship between the two countries, as well as with the EU to
"consolidate peace and security in the region."
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Prime Minister Denis Zvizdic said that Bosnia is
determined to join the EU as "nowhere on this planet people live better." The
Croat member of the Bosnian presidency, Dragan Covic, who submitted Bosnia's
membership application in February, said Britain's vote was just another
challenge that will make the bloc stronger.
Brazil: The Itamaraty Palace issued a statement that read the country
remains an EU partner, but that it will work to strengthen relations between Brazil
and the United Kingdom. It also read with "respect" the outcome of the
Page 124 of 306

eferendum and trust that this decision will not deter the process of European
integration.
Canada: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "The people of the UK have
chosen to leave the EU. The UK and the EU are important strategic partners for
Canada with whom we enjoy deep historical ties and common values. We will
continue to build relations with both parties as they forge a new
relationship...Prime Minister David Cameron indicated today that he will resign by
the fall. On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank him for being such a
close ally and good friend to our country. We wish him well."
China, People's Republic: Just hours after the vote, the Beijingbased
Global Times, which often expresses the views of the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP), said that "Britons are already showing a losing mind-set. They may
become citizens of a nation that prefers to shut itself from the outside
world." Later the Spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry Hua Chunying said "A
prosperous Europe is in the interests of all parties and China is willing to keep
co-operating with Britain and is fully confident in China-EU ties."
Colombia: After meeting with President Juan Manuel Santos, Minister of
Commerce, Industry and Tourism Maria Lacouture proposed, on behalf of
the Pacific Alliance, to jointly negotiate a free trade agreement with the United
Kingdom. She said that "rather than individual countries negotiating trade deals
with the UK, it should renegotiate as a block...the proposal we want to develop is
a deal that presents a great opportunity for Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru."
Holy See: Pope Francis said on board the papal flight to Armenia that "the will
expressed by the people...requires a great responsibility on the part of all of us to
guarantee the good of the people of the United Kingdom as well as the peaceful
coexistence of the entire European continent. This is what I expect."
Iceland: Outgoing President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson welcomed the result as
good news for Icelanders and presents an opportunity for Iceland. He
commented that “it is now obvious that here in the North Atlantic [there] will be a
triangle of nations that all stand outside of the European Union: Greenland,
Iceland, Great Britain, Faroe Islands and Norway. This key area in the north will
be outside of the influence of the European Union." The Presidential
candidate Guðni Th. Jóhannesson said on the day after the vote, as well as the
day before the Icelandic vote, in the final debate that the result in the U.K.
changes "much for the better for us Icelanders," implying the European
Economic Area agreement that non-EU members Norway and Iceland have with
the EU, could play a more important role with the United Kingdom on board.
India: Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said: "In this globalized world, volatility
and uncertainty are the new norms. This verdict will obviously further contribute
to such volatility not least because its full implications for the UK, Europe and the
Page 125 of 306

est of the world are still uncertain. All countries around the world will have to
brace themselves for a period of possible turbulence while being watchful about,
and alert to, the referendum's medium term impacts." Commerce Secretary Rita
Teaotia said: "My interest will get changed because number of tariff lines
(products) will change (now). I will calibrate and the EU will also calibrate. Now
they would reassess and we will also be going to reassess." She added that
recalibration is required as some items of interest to Britain may have to be
removed. She further noted: "Brexit will not impact our trade with the UK. With
EU also, nothing directly affects our trade. In long term, we would be interested
to see how UK negotiates its exit from EU." In regards to a proposed free-trade
agreement Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said: "I would
think, they (EU) would need time now to assimilate this outcome. Once they
assimilate the outcome, they will only then respond. I will talk to my
counterparts." She added: "So the impact of volatility of the currency is
something which might have an immediate impact on our exporters. We will
however have to keep watching currency based volatility, both in the short and
the medium term and also look at the impact on overall trade itself." External
Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said: "We have seen the results of
the British referendum on EU membership reflecting the choice made by the
British people on the issue. We value our multifaceted relationships with both the
UK and the EU and will strive to further strengthen these ties in the years
ahead." CII Director-General, Chandrajit Bannerjee said, “With Britain’s departure
from the EU, India will have to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with the UK
which may be easier to accomplish at a bilateral level... This could well be the
best era for our industries to collaborate.”
Iran: The Foreign Ministry issued a statement that read: "The Islamic
Republic of Iran, as a democratic state, are [sic] respected to British vote to leave
the European Union and considered it as will of the majority of its people in
setting its foreign relations. Iran has always called for expansion of relations with
European countries based on mutual respect and non-interference in each
other's internal affairs and the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European
Union will not change [the] Islamic Republic's relations with that country."
Israel: Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu quickly issued a
statement following the result of the vote and said that he has been in contact
with officials from the Finance Ministry and Bank of Israel to discuss the possible
implications of Brexit on Israel. He has concluded that "there is no direct effect on
Israel, apart from the fact that we are part of the global economy" and described
outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron as "a respected leader and a true friend
of Israel and the Jewish people." following his resignation.
Japan: Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida issued a statement that read the
country would closely observe the impact of developments on Japan and the
international community. He added that the government would continue its efforts
to maintain and strengthen Japan-United Kingdom relations. Finance
Page 126 of 306

Minister Taro Aso said he would carefully monitoring financial market
developments and respond as and when needed in the currency markets.
Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroshige Seko said the government was
worried about financial market volatility as a result of the vote as being
"undesirable."
Jordan: The Jordanian Cabinet announced that it would investigate the
possible impact of the vote on the Hashemite Kingdom. It has given the Deputy
Prime Minister for Economic Affairs and Minister of Industry, Trade and Supply
Jawad Ananithe task of preparing a comprehensive report on the repercussions
of Brexit, especially because Jordan has "solid relations with the UK on a
bilateral level and previously on EU level."
Norway: Prime Minister Erna Solberg said: "The referendum in the UK marks
a crossroads for European cooperation. Britain's decision pose[s] policy
challenges. Europe's leaders must get a grasp on the instability and lack of
confidence many voters feel." The Centre Party MP Per Olaf Lundteigen also
said: "The Centre Party must work even more powerfully to terminate
the EEA agreement and replace it with a trade agreement." The No to
EU organization, in a statement, welcomed the result as a "victory for
democracy" and invited the UK to rejoin EFTA.
Macedonia: President Gjorge Ivanov said that he fears that the European
Union may follow the former Yugoslavia’s steps. "In circumstances of a crisis,
countries are becoming selfish, right wing radicals are emerging who are blaming
refugees and Muslims and Islamophobia is emerging," Ivanov said, adding that
the Republic of Macedonia will carefully follow the developments after the
referendum, where 52 per cent of the British people voted in favor of leaving the
EU. Foreign Minister Nikola Popovski also said that Brexit means a loss for the
Balkans and the Republic of Macedonia, because Britain was a great supporter
of the process of the enlargement of the Union.
Malaysia: Prime Minister Najib Razak said: "The UK voters have spoken. As
democrats, we must respect the result. We wish our British friends well in the
new future they have chosen, Najib also hinted it was "historic and
unprecedented. The future cannot be predicted, although a period of volatility in
financial markets is to be expected as the ramifications of the result are
understood and as Britain's exit is negotiated."
Mexico: President Enrique Pena Nieto called for greater NAFTA integration
with Canada and the United States in the wake of the result.
Moldova: Prime Minister Pavel Filip said "A sad day for Europe and for
European and international friends of Great Britain. The European edifice needs
reconfirmation more than ever. Moldova remains attached to its European course
despite the results of the referendum in the UK because we consider the EU a
Page 127 of 306

successful project and we want to be part of it, based on reforms, during the next
years."
New Zealand: Foreign Minister Murray McCully stated "We've simply made
an offer that we as a country that is a long-standing friend ... stands ready to be
useful in any way we can be," The Foreign Minister did not rule out providing the
UK with the expertise of its trade negotiators. While Todd McClay, the Trade
Minister for New Zealand, said that loaning staff was not "currency on the table
given the range of trade negotiation commitments New Zealand is currently
managing". However, McCully said that his colleague's comments were no
contradiction, and that Wellington would "wait and see" on the issue of loaning
staff. "We will obviously look at what they ask us for and whether we have it."
Oman: The Foreign Ministry issued a statement that praised the "brave and
historic decision to leave the EU, explained by some as a firm reaction to certain
policies of the European Commission."
Qatar: Qatar has also reiterated its strong relationship with the UK, in a tweet
by the Qatari Ambassador to Britain, Yousef Al-Khater.
Russian Federation: President Vladimir Putin stated: "The consequences
will be global, they are inevitable; they will be both positive and negative...It is a
choice of the British people. We did not interfere and we are not going to
interfere." The head of the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee
Konstantin Kosachyov stated that the EU "has not solved its main problem: to
become understood by and convenient for the broader masses of the population.
[However,] this is an issue for the E.U. foremost to draw conclusions from, and
Britain only second."
Singapore: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a statement "Other
developed countries also face similar challenges as Britain. We all live in a
globalised, interdependent world. The desire to disengage, to be less constrained
by one's partners, to be free to do things entirely as one chooses, is entirely
understandable. And yet in reality for many countries, disengaging and turning
inwards will likely lead to less security, less prosperity, and a dimmer future.
Singapore will continue to cultivate our ties with Britain, which is a long standing
friend and partner."
South Africa: President Jacob Zuma issued a statement saying, "It will take
two years for the institutional changes that this vote implies to be negotiated and
we remain committed to retaining strong trade and financial relations with both
Britain and the European Union."
South Korea: Yonhap reported South Korea's economic and financial
authorities held an emergency meeting to discuss ways to fend off any possible
fallout from the British withdrawal from the European Union.
Page 128 of 306

Switzerland: President Johann Schneider-Ammann said in the capital, Bern,
that the UK plebiscite raised "many questions" for Great Britain, Switzerland, the
EU and Europe as a whole. "The European concept," he warned, "must be
reconsidered", a veiled reference to ongoing discussions in Brussels as to
whether EU members would benefit or not from ever-closer political, fiscal, and
economic union.
Syria: President Bashar al-Assad scorned British politicians for allowing the
vote on leaving the European Union, saying lawmakers who had criticized his
handling of the civil war had shown themselves to be "disconnected from reality".
Sudan: Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Ali Al-
Saddiq said the result was indicative of the will of the British people and that
"Britain's exit from the European Union is not expected to affect its relations with
Sudan." He added that both countries had "expressed their keenness, more than
once, to return the bilateral relations between them to the normal course...Sudan
is confident that if there is the political will at the British side, it (Sudan) is keen to
enhance and upgrade its relations with Britain especially that Britain has
colonised Sudan in the past, and therefore it is more aware than the other
western countries about Sudan and the Sudanese people."
Thailand: General and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has said that,
unlike David Cameron, he will remain in power even if the August referendum
rejects the constitution his administration has had drafted. Meanwhile, a trade
official has confirmed that Brexit will not affect this country because the EU froze
all trade negotiations with Thailand a long time ago. while Chan-o-cha went on to
tell the media at Government House that he will not leave his position even if the
draft charter is turned down in the August referendum, adding that the ways he
and David Cameron came to power are different, Matichon Online reported.
The Bahamas: Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell said yesterday while
there will "likely" be an impact for The Bahamas and the Caribbean of Britain’s
vote to exit the European Union, it is "too early to say" what that impact will be.
Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has hailed Britain's departure as
the "beginning of a new era" saying that the EU could face further break-up if it
does not reconsider its stance towards Turkey. On the 24 June, he blasted the
EU's attitude towards Turkey as "I slamophobic". He also criticized David
Cameron for his stance on Turkey during his 'Remain' campaign, when he said
Turkey was unlikely to enter the EU ‘until the year '3000'. Also Prime
Minister Binali Yildirim said "The EU should read this development very well and
reassess its future vision." While Deputy Prime Minister Nurettin Canikli said:
"The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first
vessel to have departed is Britain."
Page 129 of 306

Ukraine: Following a meeting with Moldovan Deputy Prime
Minister Gheorghe Balan, First Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Iryna
Herashchenko wrote: "Ukraine and Moldova are disappointed by the referendum
results and concerned about the growing number of Eurosceptics in the
European Union, however, Ukraine and Moldova are committed to the course of
the European integration and reforms." On 1 July 2016, Prime
Minister Volodymyr Groysman criticized the British people for voting to leave the
EU, but said that it was a positive signal that many young people voted to remain
in the EU, adding that he was convinced that Ukraine would join the EU within
the next decade.
United States: President Barack Obama stated that he respects the decision
made by the people of the UK, despite not supporting the country leaving the
EU. Then-Republican presumptive nominee for president Donald Trump said,
after arriving in Scotland: "I think it's a great thing. I think it's a fantastic thing."
Other
ISIL: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant welcomed Britain’s vote to
leave the European Union in its Arabic language propaganda newspaper al-Naba
hailing a "political crisis" and the prospect of referendums in other nations and
claimed the Brexit "threatens the unity of Crusader Europe"
Kosovo: European Integration Minister, Bekim Collaku, said it was "painful
that one of the member countries, one of the first to recognize our independence
and among the most supportive in our European path, will leave the EU." He
added that Kosovo still had a "powerful aspiration for EU membership."
North Cyprus: Chairman of the People’s Party (HP) Kudret Ozersay has
said "If, without any delay we implement a strategy and follow some diplomatic
initiatives with the help of Turkey, we can turn the current uncertainty into a
opportunity" as he noted that the 1994 European Court decision and the
embargo could be lifted.
Taiwan: Premier Lin Chuan said the UK and EU may expand their economic
and trade relations with Asia and the current international financial markets could
show more interest in investing in Taiwan. "The MOEA must devise related
approaches to encourage investment in Taiwan should any opportunity arise." He
added that the UK should reposition and renegotiate its relations with all its
global trading partners. "Taiwan must be prepared has to cope with the new
situation." In regards to Chuan's weekly meeting with the heads Taiwanese
ministries and other unnamed central government agencies, Cabinet Spokesman
Tung Chen-yuan said on 27 June: "With crisis comes opportunity that Taiwan
must be able to recognize and grasp."
Page 130 of 306

Syria (Opposition): Basma Kodmani of the Higher Negotiations Committee
said "If Europeans think about the developments destabilizing the EU they are
not because of Syria, but there is some Syria in every negative development in
the last two years - refugees fleeing and jihadis coming and going. That’s only
going to grow. It’s an issue that is imposing itself on Europe. Europe has no
choice. And if the UK has left it the EU still needs to prove it is a political player
on the international scene."
Economic
The Euro declined in value by almost four percent against the United States dollar,
while traditional "safe haven assets" such as gold and the Japanese Yen increased in
value. Crude oil prices fell. The flagship French CAC 40 and German DAX initially fell by
over 10% upon opening, while bank shares from the two countries fell by more.
Likewise, the Spanish IBEX 35, Greek ATHEX, Dutch AEX index, Czech PX Index and
Polish WIG30 all fell by eight to 15 percent. The Swiss franc, a traditional save haven
asset, rose sharply, thus prompting the Swiss National Bank to intervene in the foreign
exchange market to cap the rise. It issues a statement that read: "Following the United
Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, the Swiss franc came under upward
pressure. The Swiss National Bank has intervened in the foreign exchange market to
stabilize the situation and will remain active in that market." Yields on
European sovereign bonds spiked, with 10-year bonds in Spain and Italy rose as much
as 0.40% in early trades. Sweden's Riksbank issued a statement that read it was
"following the financial market developments closely and has a continuing dialogue with
Page 131 of 306

other authorities. We have contacts with the Swedish banks and other central banks.
We are ready to take the necessary actions to handle financial market distortions."
In the Asian-Pacific region, markets also fell. Meanwhile, an unnamed official at
the Bank of Korea in South Korea declined to comment on rumors it intervened in
the foreign exchange market, but Vice Finance Minister Choi Sang-Mok said the
government would take all efforts to minimize the impact of the result. An unnamed
policymaker with knowledge of the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) plans for related
market management said that it was "prepared to deal with any volatility." Unnamed
officials at SEBI said that they were in touch with the RBI on the market developments
amid surveillance being beefed up to curb excess volatility and possible manipulations
in various trading segments, including currency derivatives. The Australian dollar, which
has traditionally been sold off in times of financial market uncertainty, fell strongly
against the dollar and the yen. Other traditional markers of uncertainty, such as
interbank dollar funding rates in Singapore and Hong Kong, were more steady. Hong
Kong Financial Secretary John Tsang said: "Because of this matter, we have made
preparation in many aspects. We have reserved sufficient liquidity and we are able to
handle in different situations." The Hong Kong Monetary Authority asked banks within
its jurisdiction to maintain ample cash conditions and that no unscheduled monetary
liquidity injection operations had been taken. The Singapore stock exchange sought to
reduce volatility by raising margins on Nikkei futures traded on its exchange.
The Chinese yuan fell to its weakest level against the US dollar since January 2011
while its offshore counterpart slipped to its weakest level in more than four months,
despite a possibly unrelated People's Bank of China injection of 170 billion yuan into the
system. The Philippines Central Bank issued a statement that read it was closely
monitoring the foreign exchange market and would be prepared to act to ensure orderly
transactions and smooth volatility.
In the USA, government bonds effectively priced in a small FOMC interest rate cut from
a rate increase in July. When American markets opened there was a dramatic fall from
Canada to Brazil.
Every two months, a conclave of many major central bank governors is held in Basel,
Switzerland at the BIS. This month the meeting coincided with the day following the
vote. RBI's Raghuram Rajan, who had previously called for greater co-ordination for
such situations, issued a statement that sought to allay concerns about the impact of
the vote on Indian financial markets and reiterated the RBI's promise to provide
necessary liquidity support to ensure orderly movements. He also sought to reassure
investors about India's preparedness to deal with the eventuality and that the Indian
rupee's fall was relatively moderate compared to many other currencies.
Business
Anton Boerner, head of Germany's foreign trade association, [clarification needed] said: "That
is a catastrophic result for Britain and also for Europe and Germany, especially the
German economy. It is disturbing that the oldest democracy in the world turns its back
Page 132 of 306

on us." [4] Europe's airport trade body, ACI Europe called for the European Union and
United Kingdom aviation markets to remain integrated in the future by safeguarding air
connectivity and continuing to support economic development.
In India, Biocon Chief Managing Director Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw said: "It has opened up
a Pandora's box of grave uncertainties. Will Euro [sic] remain intact or will we see others
exit? What will be the impact on the Euro itself? Will it devalue and to what extent? How
will India's bilateral trade with UK and Europe be impacted? How much will the USD
strengthen against the Pound Sterling/Euro/Rupee?" She added that "India cannot be in
denial that it will be immune to such a result and that there is likely to be mayhem for
several weeks before things stabilize. It's fortunate that we still have Raghuram Rajan at
the helm of RBI at this critical time." India's Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar
said: "The impact of Brexit will certainly be negative in the short-term on account of
volatility in the exchange rates, uncertainty in the markets and the terms on which
Britain will leave the EU." Chief Investment Officer for TD Asset Management said that
investors are wondering if the result could lead to a slowdown in the global
economy. Tata Group, whose Tata Steel was involved in controversy following the
decision to shut down their Port Talbot Welsh steel mill, amongst other layoffs, were
suggested to be the hardest hit on the Indian financial markets. An unnamed company
spokesman said that access to markets and a skilled workforce were "important
considerations;" he added that "there are 19 independent Tata companies in the UK,
with diverse businesses. Each company continuously reviews its strategy and
operations in the light of developments, and will continue to do so." Tata Motors', whose
portfolio includes the British based Jaguar Cars and Land Rover, shares sank the day of
the announcement. An unnamed division spokesman said: "We remain absolutely
committed to our customers in the EU. There will be a significant negotiating period and
we look forward to understanding more about that as details emerge."
Singapore's United Overseas Bank issued a statement that read: "We will temporarily
stop receiving foreign property loan applications for London properties. As the aftermath
of the UK referendum is still unfolding and given the uncertainties, we need to ensure
our customers are cautious with their London property investments. We are monitoring
the market environment closely and will assess regularly to determine when we will reinstate
our London property loan offering."
Media
The BBC, the British national broadcaster, highlighted uncertain reactions from the EU,
Ireland and Greece. characterizing Britain's plan to leave the European Union as "utter
disruption" that could result in a "domino effect." North Korea's Rodong Sinmun wrote
an editorial that called the result as "causing problems." Sweden's Dagens
Nyheter and Dagens Industri questioned the decision to hold a referendum. The latter's
political editor P. M. Nilsson wrote, in an editorial, that "democracy is greater than the
power of the people...[the result clearly showed that] the democratic aspirations of the
international cooperation such as the EU should be reduced. At present, the key
question should not be how people could get more power from the EU, but rather how
Page 133 of 306

to protect the EU, together with its member states, from such expressions of people's
power."
Academia
In the article "Britain's Democratic Failure", Professor Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard
University wrote "This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of
enormous consequence ... has been made without any appropriate checks and
balances ... The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is
necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term. Modern democracies have evolved
systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid
making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences."
Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University and Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law
said "On virtually every major issue that was raised in this referendum debate Leave’s
arguments consisted of at best misrepresentations and at worst outright deception" and
that the Leave campaign was "criminally irresponsible"
Khaled al-Hroub, a senior research fellow at the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern
Studies at the University of Cambridge said: "In theory, the UK's influence on the EU
policies vis-à-vis Arab issues such as Palestine, Syria and Iraq will end - which is not
necessarily a bad thing to have. The British used to pull the EU in the direction of more
Americanized positions and politics. Relieving the EU from British pressure could be
seen as a good sign that allows for more independent European standing on Arab
affairs."
Religious
Anglican Communion - Archbishops Justin Welby of Canterbury and John
Sentamu of York issued a joint statement that read citizens must "re-imagine
both what it means to be the United Kingdom in an interdependent world and
what values and virtues should shape and guide our relationships with others."
Roman Catholicism:
o Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community -
The conference marked the outcome by displaying a "Prayer for Europe"
on its website, which invoked God’s help "in committing ourselves to a
Europe of the Spirit, founded not just on economic treaties but also on
values which are human and eternal."
o
Polish Episcopal Conference - Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki of Poznan
told the country’s Roman Catholic information agency, KAI, that while the
conference respects the voters’ decision "we can’t forget unity is better
than division, and that European solidarity is an achievement of many
generations."
Page 134 of 306

o
Archbishop Jean-Pierre Grallet of Strasbourg said he was left with
"feelings of sadness [that] what we have long fought for has been
contradicted. [I hope] the vote would create a clarification [rather than]
destabilizing the European project. I’ve repeatedly said we should work for
a future which is more European than national, but on condition this
Europe is an entity we can identify with."
Church of Scotland - Rev Dr Richard Frazer, the Convener of the Church and
Society Council, stated that "the Church of Scotland has spoken out consistently
over the last 20 years in favor of our continued membership to the European
Union – but it [Brexit] is the democratic decision of people living in the UK and we
must honor that."
Order of Malta: Grand Master Matthew Festing "The choice whether Great
Britain to stay in the European Union opens the pandora’s box"
Individuals
Former Politicians
Former Czech President Václav Klaus said the result was a victory for democrats who
want to live in a free world and it would change the thinking of millions of people in
Europe. He compared the result to the British resistance against Napoleon
Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. He also stated that it would not have any economic effect on
the Czech Republic. Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott commented that "a
brave and momentous decision by the British people taken against the advice of
foreigners (including me!). There will be more chance of an Oz FTA (Free Trade
Agreement) with Britain than with the EU."
Page 135 of 306

Page 136 of 306

V. Opposition to Brexit
in The UK
Since the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum,
a number of demonstrations have taken place and organizations formed whose goal
has been to oppose, reverse or otherwise impede that decision.
Marches
Brexit
Articles on the British exit from the
European Union
Main topics
Brexit negotiations
Impact of Brexit on
the European Union
Brexit and arrangements
for science and technology
Economic effects of Brexit
Opposition to Brexit
in the United Kingdom
Secondary topics
Withdrawal from the European Union
Euroscepticism in the United
Kingdom
Referendum
European Union Referendum
Act 2015
Campaigning in the United Kingdom
European Union membership
referendum
European Union Act 2016 (Gibraltar)
Issues in the United Kingdom
European
Union membership referendum
Opinion polling for the United
Kingdom European Union
membership referendum
Endorsements in the United
Kingdom
European Union membership
referendum
International reactions to the
2016 United Kingdom European
Page 137 of 306

Union
membership referendum
Activism
Britain Stronger in Europe
Labour In for Britain
Vote Leave
Campaign for an Independent Britain
Get Britain Out
Better Off Out
The European Union: In or Out
Brexit: The Movie
People's Vote
Postcards from the 48%
Wooferendum
Proposed second Scottish
independence referendum
Higher categories: European
politics, United Kingdom
Category:Brexit
The March for Europe, July 2016
The first March for Europe took place in London on 2 July 2016, shortly after the Brexit
referendum on 23 June 2016, and was attended by thousands of people.
The March for Europe, September 2016
The second March for Europe took place in London on 3 September 2016 and was
attended by thousands of people. It was one of a number of events to take place on the
day, including rallies in Edinburgh and Birmingham. Pro-Brexit demonstrators staged a
counter-protest at one location along the marching route.
Unite for Europe
The Unite for Europe march, which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the signing of
the Treaty of Rome, was held in London on 25 March 2017, and
the Independent reported that police estimated 100,000 people attended.
People's March for Europe
The People's March Ltd came into being in July 2017, to help ensure that a march
planned for 9 September 2017 in London went ahead. The event began with a march
and was followed by speeches in Parliament Square. The event was attended by
thousands of people and was part of a series of protests dubbed "the Autumn of
Page 138 of 306

discontent". Over 50,000 people took to the streets under the banner "Unite, Rethink,
Reject Brexit" marching from Hyde Park to Parliament Square followed by a rally with
speakers from the remain movement and from across the political spectrum and
received broad media coverage.
StopBrexit Manchester
The StopBrexit Manchester march was held in All Saints Park, Manchester, on 1
October 2017, to coincide with the Conservative Party conference. The event consisted
of a rally followed by a march through central Manchester, and finishing with a street
party organized by local pro-EU groups. An estimated 30,000 people took part in this
event.
StopBrexit Leeds
The StopBrexit Leeds march was held on 24 March 2018 in Leeds. The march
assembled at The Headrow in central Leeds and ended with a rally at The
Headrow, with thousands of people reported to have attended. [16][17] Leeds for Europe
organized the march.
People's Vote March, 2018
On 23 June 2018, the second anniversary of the EU referendum, People's
Vote organized a march and protest from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square in
Central London. Speakers included Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, Green
Party co-leader Caroline Lucas, Labor's David Lammy and the Conservatives' Anna
Page 139 of 306

Soubry. The organizers said that at least 100,000 people attended the march. A smaller
pro-Brexit march was held in London on the same date.
The People's Vote march was not designed to reverse the result of the referendum, but
to hold a public vote on the final terms of the UK's EU exit deal. The organizers said
Brexit was "not a done deal" and Cable said "Brexit is not inevitable. Brexit can be
stopped." The Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn was criticized for not attending the march.
People's Vote March for the Future
On 20 October 2018, People's Vote organized the second march called The People's
Vote March for the Future. Organizers claimed that 700,000 people attended the march
jointly organized by People's Vote and the UK newspaper The Independent, although
police were unable to verify the number. A later estimate, presented by the Greater
London Authority and published in The Daily Telegraph, reported the number to be
250,000. The aim of the march was to secure a vote on the final Brexit deal. The march
organizers stated: "Whether you voted leave or remain, nobody voted to make this
country worse off, to harm jobs, to damage the NHS, to affect the future of millions of
young people, or to make this country more divided. The more the shape of the final
Brexit deal becomes clear, the more it is clear that it will do nothing to improve social
justice, reduce inequality, increase our standard of living, or create a better future for
future generations."
A number of celebrities, including Delia Smith, Ian McEwan, Sir Patrick
Stewart and Charlie Mullins, stated that they would fund coach travel to London, to
enable those wishing to attend the march to do so. If the organizers' stated estimate of
the attendance was correct, then the event was the second-largest protest of the 21st
century in the UK, after the "Stop the War" anti-Iraq War march in 2003.
Put It To The People
The third People's Vote March, also known as the Put It to the People march, took place
in London on 23 March 2019. The main purpose of the march was to call for a second
referendum. The organizers suggested that a million people took part; independent
verification by experts in crowd estimation put the figure at between 312,000 and
400,000.
Joint Campaigning
Members of national groups, including Britain for Europe, European Movement
UK, Open Britain, conduct joint campaigns in various towns and cities of the UK.
In March 2018 six national groups moved into a shared Remain office in Millbank
Tower, London, in order to pool their resources for campaigning.
Page 140 of 306

People's Vote
Launched in April 2018, People's Vote is a UK campaign group calling for a public vote
on the final Brexit deal. The campaign comprises nine anti-Brexit groups, including eight
operating from Millbank Tower. The groups include the seven listed below, plus For our
Future's Sake (FFS), InFacts, and Open Britain.
Britain for Europe
Britain for Europe was established shortly after the EU referendum. It is an
independent pressure group and umbrella organisation for grassroot activists from
around the UK. It lobbies in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. The group organizes
marches, conferences, meetings, and national campaigns. It is a founding member of
People's Vote.
The Chair of Britain for Europe is Tom Brufatto. Britain for Europe is organized from
the grassroots membership.
The organization has about sixty member affiliated groups including:
Camden for Europe
Devon for Europe
Page 141 of 306

Bath for Europe
Berkshire for Europe
Bristol for Europe
EU in Brum
Leeds for Europe
Perth for Europe
In January 2017, the affiliate group Leeds for Europe formed. It campaigns against
Brexit in the city of Leeds and elsewhere in West Yorkshire. Leeds for Europe is also
affiliated to the European Movement UK.
European Movement UK
European Movement UK is an organization which campaigns in support of
greater European integration and for reform of the EU. It is part of the European
Movement International, which pushes for a "democratic, federal, enlarged European
Union".
Formed in 1949, it campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum
and continues to oppose Brexit in collaboration with other major pro-European
campaign groups such as Open Britain and Britain for Europe.
Healthier IN the EU
Healthier IN the EU was co-founded in 2016 by Mike Galsworthy, Rob
Davidson, and Martin McKee. Its advisory board included former Chief Executive of the
NHS in England Nigel Crisp, former Minister for Health John Bowis, former Chief
Medical Officer for Scotland Harry Burns, former President of the Royal College of
Physicians Ian Gilmore, President of Royal College of Psychiatrists Simon Wessely,
and the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton. Healthier in the EU is a grassroots
organization making the health case for continued EU membership.
Shortly before the 2017 general election, Healthier IN the EU and Vote Leave
Watch organized an open letter calling on the Conservative Party to commit to spending
an extra £350m per week on the NHS after Brexit. The letter was signed by some of the
UK's leading medical professionals. The amount of £350m per week corresponded to
the savings attributable to Brexit claimed by the Vote Leave campaign. Following the
publication of the letter, foreign secretary Boris Johnson received negative press
coverage for falsely claiming that the pledge was already in the Conservative Party
election manifesto.
Healthier IN the EU is a founding member of People's Vote.
Wales for Europe
Despite the name, Wales for Europe is a separate entity from Britain for Europe, and
currently operates as a partner organization to Open Britain. The chair is Geraint Talfan
Page 142 of 306

Davies. It currently employs a full-time director and part-time organizer based in Cardiff,
and has 17 branches across Wales.
Wales for Europe is a founding member of People's Vote.
Our Future Our Choice
Our Future Our Choice (OFOC) was incorporated as a company on 19 February
2018 and is aimed towards young adults. Its four founding members are Femi
Oluwole(spokesman), Calum Millbank-Murphy (spokesman), Lara Spirit (co-president)
and Will Dry (co-president).
Our Future Our Choice is a founding member of People's Vote.
Scientists for EU
Scientists for EU is a pro-EU research advocacy group. It was co-founded by
scientists Mike Galsworthy and Rob Davison on 8 May 2015, the day after the UK
general election 2015. Its advisory board included high-profile UK scientists, including
former EU chief scientific advisor Anne Glover, and MPs from different political
parties. Galsworthy articulated two concerns that Scientists for EU aimed to address:
"first, a lack of clarity and cohesion within the community on EU benefits and Brexit
Page 143 of 306

isks; and, secondly, a lack of public understanding on the UK/EU relationship in
science."
Following the referendum, hundreds of scientists contacted Scientists for EU voicing
concerns about the future of scientific research in the UK after Brexit, many saying they
planned to leave the UK; for some, xenophobia was a significant concern. Program
Director Galsworthy concluded, "It is clear that the UK has overnight become less
attractive as a place to do science."
Scientists for EU has continued to publicize the benefits of EU membership for Britain
and the negative consequences of Brexit for science and healthcare, including
uncertainty over immigration and funding, and the loss of influence over EU regulations
and policy.
In February 2018 George Soros's Open Society Foundations donated £500,000 to a
number of groups opposing Brexit including £35,000 to Scientists for EU.
Scientists for EU is a founding member of People's Vote.
Right to Vote
Other Groups
Right to Vote is a group of Conservative, Change UK and Independent MPs and Peers
who advocate holding a referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It was founded
after the UK government lost the first parliamentary vote on the UK's withdrawal
agreement with the EU.
Wooferendum
Wooferendum was founded in August 2018 by Daniel Elkan. The group is concerned
with the welfare of pets when the UK leaves the European Union. The protesters and
their pets of Wooferendum also joined the People's Vote march.
Other Events
A Pro-EU Demonstration In Birmingham, September 2018
Viral Petition To Revoke Article 50
In March 2019, an e-petition launched on the UK Parliament petitions website reached
over 6 million signatures within a week, becoming the largest petition in UK history, and
the fastest-growing. This surge in signatures has been attributed to a speech given
by Theresa May which was perceived to accuse MPs of 'frustrating' Brexit. The petition
was later referenced by Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, who
Page 144 of 306

warned that the UK Government "cannot betray the six million people". The petition was
debated in Parliament on 1 April 2019.
Postcards from the 48%
David Wilkinson's full-length film Postcards from the 48% opened on 23 June 2018 at
the Edinburgh International Film Festival and went on general release on 6 July 2018.
The documentary was made by, and featured, members of the 48% of voters who
chose Remain in the referendum. A reviewer for The Times wrote that it "gives voice to
the fears and the hopes of the nation's discontented remainers".
Page 145 of 306

Last Night of The Proms
Anti-Brexit campaigners gave away EU flags to audience members at the last night of
The Proms in 2016 and 2017.
No. 10 Vigil Boat Trips
The No. 10 Vigil campaign group, which holds regular demonstrations outside Downing
Street, organized a boat trip on the Thames on 19 August 2017. A subsequent boat trip
occurred on 24 July 2018.
Page 146 of 306

VI. EU Referendums Since 1972
This is a list of referendums related to the European Union, or referendums related
to the European Communities, which were predecessors of the European Union. Since
1972, a total of 48 referendums have been held by EU member states, candidate
states, and their territories, with several additional referendums held in countries outside
of the EU. The referendums have been held most commonly on the subject of whether
to become a member of European Union as part of the accession process, although the
EU does not require any candidate country to hold a referendum to approve
membership or as part of treaty ratification. Other EU-related referendums have been
held on the adoption of the euro and on participation in other EU-related policies.
The United Kingdom is the only EU member state to have held referendums on
continued membership of the European Union and its antecedent organization,
the European Communities. In the first referendum in 1975, continued membership of
what was then the European Communities (which included the European Economic
Community, often referred to as the Common Market in the UK) was approved by
67.2% of voters, while in its second referendum in 2016 voters voted by 51.9% to leave
the European Union.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, voted to leave the EC in a referendum
in 1982 by 53% of voters.
Summary
Country
Denmar
k
France
Norway
Ireland
United
Kingdom
Greenl
and
Åland
Austria
Finland
Yea
r
197
2
197
2
197
2
197
2
197
5
198
2
199
4
199
4
199
4
Vote (%)
Turno
ut (%)
Result
63.3 36.7 90.1 Joined
68.3 31.760.2
46.5 53.5 79.0
Approv
ed
No
action
83.1 70.9 16.9 Joined
67.2 32.8 64.6
Remain
ed
47.0 53.0 - Left
73.6 26.4 49.1 Joined
66.6 33.4 82.3 Joined
56.9 43.1 70.8 Joined
Norway 199 47.8 52.2 89.0 No
Page 147 of 306

4 action
Swede
n
199
4
52.3 47.7 83.3 Joined
Switzerl
and
199
7
25.9 74.1 35.4
No
action
Switzerl
and
200
1
23.2 76.8 55.8
No
action
Czech
Republic
Estonia
Hungar
y
Latvia
Lithuan
ia
Malta
Poland
Slovaki
a
Sloveni
a
Croatia
San
Marino
United
Kingdom
North
Macedonia
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
200
3
201
2
201
3
201
6
201
8
77.3 55.2 22.7 Joined
66.8 33.2 64.1 Joined
83.8 45.616.2
Joined
67.5 32.5 71.5 Joined
91.1 63.4 8.9 Joined
53.6 46.4 90.9 Joined
77.6 58.9 22.4 Joined
93.7 52.1 6.3 Joined
89.6 60.2 10.4 Joined
66.7 33.3 43.5 Joined
50.3 49.7 49.7
No
action
48.1 51.9 72.2 Leaving
94.2 36.9 Joining 5.8
EC Enlargement of 1973
In 1972, four countries held referendums on the subject of the 1973 enlargement of the
European Communities.
France — 1972 French European Communities enlargement referendum, 23
April 1972, 68.3% in favor, turnout 60.5%
Before allowing the four new candidate member states to join the European
Communities, founding member France held a referendum that approved this. Following
the French approval, three of the four candidate states (Ireland, Denmark and Norway)
Page 148 of 306

likewise held referendums on the issue of joining the European Communities.
The United Kingdom did not hold a referendum before joining.
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Third Amendment of the Constitution
of Ireland, 10 May 1972, 83.1% in favor, turnout 70.9%
Norway — 1972 Norwegian European Communities membership referendum,
25 September 1972, 53.5% against, turnout 79%
Following the rejection by the Norwegian electorate, Norway did not join.
Denmark — 1972 Danish European Communities membership referendum, 2
October 1972, 63.3% in favor, turnout 90.1%
Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom were admitted as members of the EC,
acceding on 1 January 1973.
Page 149 of 306

United Kingdom's European Communities Membership, 1975
United Kingdom — 1975 United Kingdom European Communities
membership referendum, 5 June 1975, 67.2% in favor, turnout 64.0%
The Conservative government of Edward Heath did not hold a referendum before
the United Kingdom joined the European Communities in 1973. The Labour Party's
manifesto for the 1974 general election included a pledge for an in-out referendum after
a renegotiation of its membership. Accordingly, after Labor won under Harold Wilson,
the referendum was held on whether to remain in the Communities after a renegotiation
of its membership. The result was in favor of remaining.
Greenland's European Communities Membership, 1982
Greenland — 1982 Greenlandic European Communities membership
referendum, 23 February 1982, 53.0% against
In 1973, Greenland joined the European communities as part of Denmark. However,
after the establishment of home-rule and Eurosceptic Siumut winning the 1979
Greenlandic parliamentary election, a referendum on membership was agreed upon, in
which the voters rejected remaining part of the communities. This resulted in Greenland
negotiating the terms of the its separation from the EU, resulting in the Greenland
Treaty, and Greenland's leaving the communities in 1985.
Single European Act
Two referendums were held in EU countries to permit them to ratify the Single
European Act.
Denmark — 1986 Danish Single European Act referendum, 26 February
1986, 56.2% in favor, turnout 75.4%
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
of Ireland, 26 May 1987, 69.9% in favor, turnout 44.1%
Maastricht Treaty
Italy — 1989 Italian advisory referendum, 18 May 1989, 88.1% in favor,
turnout 81.0%
Before the negotiations on the treaty of Maastricht began, Italy held a consultative
referendum in order to give the European Parliament a popular mandate to elaborate a
future European Constitution. After the treaty was signed, three countries held
referendums on its ratification.
Page 150 of 306

Ireland — a referendum to approve the Eleventh Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland, 18 June 1992, 69.1% in favor, turnout 57.3%
France — 1992 French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 20 September
1992, 51.0% in favor, turnout 69.7%
Denmark — The 1992 Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 2 June
1992, 50.7% against, turnout 83.1%
In Denmark, two referendums were held before the treaty of Maastricht passed. The
first one rejected the treaty.
Denmark — The 1993 Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 18 May
1993, 56.7% in favor, turnout 86.5%
After the defeat of the treaty in the first referendum, Denmark negotiated and received
four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union
Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs, and Common Defense. The second referendum
approved the treaty amended with the opt-outs.
Page 151 of 306

EU Enlargement of 1995
In 1994, four countries, and one dependency, held referendums on membership of the
EU, resulting in the 1995 enlargement of the European Union.
Austria — 1994 Austrian European Union membership referendum, 12 June
1994, 66.6% in favor, turnout 82.3%
Finland — 1994 Finnish European Union membership referendum, 16
October 1994, 56.9% in favor, turnout 70.8%
Sweden — 1994 Swedish European Union membership referendum, 13
November 1994, 52.3% in favor, turnout 83.3%
Åland Islands — 1994 Ålandic European Union membership referendum, 20
November 1994, 73.6% in favor, turnout 49.1%
The Åland Islands, a semi-autonomous dependency of Finland, also voted on their
accession to the European Union. The favorable vote meant that EU law would apply
also to the Åland Islands.
Norway — 1994 Norwegian European Union membership referendum, 28
November 1994, 52.2% against, turnout 89.0%
For the second time, Norwegian voters rejected the Norwegian government's proposal
to join the EU.
Austria, Sweden, and Finland were admitted as members of the EU, acceding on 1
January 1995.
Treaty of Amsterdam, 1998
Two countries held referendums on the ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam.
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Eighteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland, 22 May 1998, 61.7% in favor, turnout 56.2%
Denmark — 1998 Danish Amsterdam Treaty referendum, 28 May
1998, 55.1% in favor, turnout 76.2%
Treaty of Nice, 2001
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-fourth Amendment of the
Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland), 7 June 2001, 53.9% against, turnout 34.8%
In 2001, Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice, in the so-called "Nice I referendum".
Page 152 of 306

Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-sixth Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland, 19 October 2002, 62.9% in favor, turnout 49.5%
In the so-called "Nice II referendum" in 2002, statements on Ireland not having to join a
common defense policy and affirming the right to decide on enhanced cooperation in
the national parliament were stressed in a special document, resulting in a favourable
vote.
EU Enlargement of 2004
The 2004 enlargement of the European Union involved ten candidate states, eight from
Central and Eastern Europe, and the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus. In
2003, referendums on joining the EU were held in all these nations except Cyprus.
Page 153 of 306

Malta — 2003 Maltese European Union membership referendum, 8 March
2003, 53.6% in favor, turnout 90.9%
Slovenia — 2003 Slovenian European Union and NATO membership
referendum, 23 March 2003, 89.6% in favor, turnout 60.2%
Hungary — 2003 Hungarian European Union membership referendum, 12
April 2003, 83.8% in favor, turnout 45.6%
Lithuania — 2003 Lithuanian European Union membership referendum, 10–
11 May 2003, 91.9% in favor, turnout 63.4%
Slovakia — 2003 Slovak European Union membership referendum, 16–17
May 2003, 93.7% in favor, turnout 52.1%
Poland — 2003 Polish European Union membership referendum, 7–8 June
2003, 77.5% in favor, turnout 58.9%
Czech Republic — 2003 Czech European Union membership referendum,
13–14 June 2003, 77.3% in favor, turnout 55.2%
Estonia — 2003 Estonian European Union membership referendum, 14
September 2003, 66.8% in favor, turnout 64.1%
Latvia — 2003 Latvian European Union membership referendum, 20
September 2003, 67.5% in favor, turnout 71.5%
Since the results were in favorable in all cases, all ten candidate countries were
admitted as members of the EU, acceding on 1 May 2004.
Euro
Denmark and the United Kingdom received opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty and do
not have to join the euro unless they choose to do so; Sweden has not received an optout,
yet deliberately does not live up to the requirements for joining for now. Two
referendums have been held on the issue up to now, both of which rejected accession.
Denmark — 2000 Danish euro referendum, 28 September 2000, 53.2%
against, turnout 87.6%
Sweden — 2003 Swedish euro referendum, 14 September 2003, 55.9%
against, turnout 82.6%
Page 154 of 306

European Constitution, 2005
Several member states used or intended to use referendums to ratify the Treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE).
Spain — 2005 Spanish European Constitution referendum, 20 February
2005, 81.8% in favor, turnout 41.8%
France — 2005 French European Constitution referendum, 29 May
2005, 54.7% against, turnout 69.4%
Netherlands — 2005 Dutch European Constitution referendum, 1 June
2005, 61.5% against, turnout 63.3%
Luxembourg — 2005 Luxembourgian European Constitution referendum, 10
July 2005, 56.5% in favor, turnout 90.4%
Referendums were planned, but not held, in:
Czech Republic — Czech European Constitution referendum
Denmark — Danish European Constitution referendum
Ireland — Irish European Constitution referendum
Poland — Polish European Constitution referendum
Portugal — Portuguese European Constitution referendum
United Kingdom — United Kingdom European Constitution referendum
Treaty of Lisbon
Only one member state, Ireland, obliged by their constitution, decided on ratification of
the Treaty of Lisbon through a referendum.
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the
Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland), 12 June 2008, 53.2% against, turnout 53.1%
In 2008, Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland, 2 October 2009, 67.1% in favor, turnout 59.0%
After the first vote by Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council and the Irish
Government released separate documents, referred to as the "Irish Guarantees", that
Page 155 of 306

stated the other member countries would not use the possibility in the Treaty to diminish
the number of permanent commissioners in favour of a rotating system with fewer
commissioners, and not threaten Ireland's military neutrality and rules on abortion. With
these assurances, the Irish approved the unchanged Lisbon Treaty in a second
referendum.
EU Enlargement of 2013
Croatia — 2012 Croatian European Union membership referendum, 22
January 2012, 66.7% in favor, turnout 43.5%
Croatia was admitted as a member of the EU, acceding on 1 July 2013.
European Fiscal Compact, 2012
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Thirtieth Amendment of the
Constitution of Ireland, 31 May 2012, 60.4% in favor, turnout 50.5%
San Marino Membership Application
A referendum was held in San Marino on whether the country should submit
an application to join the European Union as a full member state.
San Marino - 2013 Sammarinese referendum, 20 October 2013, 50.28% in
favor, turnout 43.38% (quorum of 32% of registered voters in favor not met.)
Unified Patent Court
The Unified Patent Court is a proposed court between several EU member states, that,
inter alia, is to be constituted for litigation related to the European Union patent.
Denmark — 2014 Danish Unified Patent Court membership referendum, 25
May 2014, 62.5% in favor, turnout 55.9%
Ireland — The ratification of Ireland requires a referendum. Such a
referendum has not been announced.
Greek bailout referendum, 2015
Greece — 2015 Greek bailout referendum, 5 July 2015, 61.3% against,
turnout 62.5%
A referendum on the bailout conditions in the Greek government-debt crisis. A majority
of the voters rejected the bailout conditions. However, shortly afterwards the
government accepted a bailout with even harsher conditions than the ones rejected by
the voters.
Page 156 of 306

Danish EU opt-out referendum, 2015
Denmark The 2015 Danish European Union opt-out referendum, 53.1%
against, turnout 72.0%
The referendum was held to decide on converting the opt-out from participation in the
area of Justice and Home Affairs area into an opt-in: the possibility for the Danes to
decide on a case-by-case basis. The voters rejected the proposal.
Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement Referendum, 2016
Netherlands — 2016 Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement
referendum, 6 April 2016, 61.0% against, turnout 32.2%
A consultative referendum upon a request of 427,939 Dutch citizens, based on
the Advisory Referendum Act 2015.
United Kingdom's European Union Membership, 2016
United Kingdom — 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership
referendum, 23 June 2016, 51.9% to leave, turnout 72.2%
In February 2016, the Conservative government of David Cameron negotiated "a new
settlement for Britain in the EU" which was then followed by a referendum on the UK's
membership of the European Union in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
The result was for the UK to leave the EU and the deal was discarded.
Hungarian Migrant Quota Referendum, 2016
Hungary — 2016 Hungarian migrant quota referendum, 2 October
2016, 98.4% against, turnout 44.0%
A referendum was held to decide whether Hungary should accept migrant quotas
imposed by the EU without the National Assembly's approval or not. The turnout was
too low to make the poll valid.
Future EU Enlargements
Countries which seek to join the European Union in the future may hold a referendum
as part of the accession process. In addition, Article 88-5 of the Constitution of
France requires a referendum there to ratify any future accession treaty. Politicians in
other existing members have proposed referendums in their states, particularly with
reference to the accession of Turkey.
Page 157 of 306

There is discussion amongst Eurosceptic parties and movements across the EU to hold
their own referendums on EU membership since the referendum in the UK.
Agreements Between Switzerland and The EU
Main article: Switzerland–European Union relations § Chronology of the Swiss votes
Switzerland — 1972: Free trade agreement with the EC, 72.5% in favor
Switzerland — 1992: EEA Agreement with all EU member states and all
EFTA member states as well as the European Communities, 50.3% against
Switzerland — 1997: Requiring the approval of a referendum and the
Cantons to launch accession negotiations with the EU, 74.1% against
Switzerland — 2000: Bilateral I agreements with the EU, 67.2% in favor
Switzerland — 2001: Opening negotiations for EU membership, 76.8%
against
Switzerland — 2005: Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation, 54.6%
in favor
Switzerland — 2005: Freedom of movement for workers, to include 10 new
EU members, 56.0% in favor
Switzerland — 2006: Cohesion contribution of one billion for the ten new
member states of the EU, 53.4% in favor
Switzerland — 2009: Freedom of movement for workers, to include two new
EU members, 59.6% in favor
Switzerland — 2009: Introduction of biometric passports, as required by the
Schengen acquis, 50.1% in favor
Switzerland — 2014: Freedom of movement for workers to be
reduced, 50.3% in favor
Page 158 of 306

VII. References
1. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-european-union-how-it-works-and-history-3306356
2. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brexit.asp
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal_Agreement)_Bill_2017%E2%80%9319
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2019
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_
membership_referendum
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Brexit_in_the_United_Kingdom
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union
11. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FP_20181005_divided_kingdom.pdf
12. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/sampsont/BrexitDisintegration.pdf
13. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Public-Opinion-2019-report.pdf
Page 159 of 306

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 160 of 306

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 161 of 306

Page 162 of 306

Attachment A
Divided Kingdom: How Brexit is Remaking The
Constitutional Order
Page 163 of 306

Page 164 of 306

Page 165 of 306

Page 166 of 306

Page 167 of 306

Page 168 of 306

Page 169 of 306

Page 170 of 306

Page 171 of 306

Page 172 of 306

Page 173 of 306

Page 174 of 306

Page 175 of 306

Page 176 of 306

Page 177 of 306

Page 178 of 306

Page 179 of 306

Page 180 of 306

Page 181 of 306

Page 182 of 306

Page 183 of 306

Page 184 of 306

Page 185 of 306

Page 186 of 306

Page 187 of 306

Page 188 of 306

Page 189 of 306

Page 190 of 306

Page 191 of 306

Page 192 of 306

Page 193 of 306

Page 194 of 306

Page 195 of 306

Page 196 of 306

Attachment B
The Economics of International Disintegration
Page 197 of 306

Page 198 of 306

Page 199 of 306

Page 200 of 306

Page 201 of 306

Page 202 of 306

Page 203 of 306

Page 204 of 306

Page 205 of 306

Page 206 of 306

Page 207 of 306

Page 208 of 306

Page 209 of 306

Page 210 of 306

Page 211 of 306

Page 212 of 306

Page 213 of 306

Page 214 of 306

Page 215 of 306

Page 216 of 306

Page 217 of 306

Page 218 of 306

Page 219 of 306

Page 220 of 306

Attachment C
Brexit and Public Opinion: The UK
in a Changing Europe
Page 221 of 306

Page 222 of 306

Page 223 of 306

Page 224 of 306

Page 225 of 306

Page 226 of 306

Page 227 of 306

Page 228 of 306

Page 229 of 306

Page 230 of 306

Page 231 of 306

Page 232 of 306

Page 233 of 306

Page 234 of 306

Page 235 of 306

Page 236 of 306

Page 237 of 306

Page 238 of 306

Page 239 of 306

Page 240 of 306

Page 241 of 306

Page 242 of 306

Page 243 of 306

Page 244 of 306

Page 245 of 306

Page 246 of 306

Page 247 of 306

Page 248 of 306

Page 249 of 306

Page 250 of 306

Page 251 of 306

Page 252 of 306

Page 253 of 306

Page 254 of 306

Page 255 of 306

Page 256 of 306

Page 257 of 306

Page 258 of 306

Page 259 of 306

Page 260 of 306

Page 261 of 306

Page 262 of 306

Page 263 of 306

Page 264 of 306

Page 265 of 306

Page 266 of 306

Page 267 of 306

Page 268 of 306

Page 269 of 306

Page 270 of 306

Page 271 of 306

Page 272 of 306

Page 273 of 306

Page 274 of 306

Page 275 of 306

Page 276 of 306

Page 277 of 306

Page 278 of 306

Page 279 of 306

Page 280 of 306

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Page 281 of 306

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
The e-Advocate Quarterly
Page 282 of 306

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals
I
The ComeUnity ReEngineering
Project Initiative
Q-1 2015
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015
III
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (PA)
Q-3 2015
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016
VI
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (NJ)
Q-2 2016
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016
VIII
The Economic Consequences of Legal
Decision-Making
Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017
X
The Theological Foundations of
US Law & Government
Q-2 2017
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017
XII
The EB-5 Investor
Immigration Project*
Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018
XIV
The Juvenile Justice
Legislative Reform Initiative
Q-2 2018
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018
Page 283 of 306

XVI
for Drug-Free Communities
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (GA)
Q-4 2018
Page 284 of 306

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2
Vol. VI 2020 Missions
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020
XXIV
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative Project
Q-2 2020
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement
XXVII
The 21 st Century Charter Schools
Initiative
Q-1 2021
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021
XXX
XXXI
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
Domestic
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
International
Q-4 2021
Bonus
Page 285 of 306

Vol. VIII
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering
XXXII
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry
@ The Foundation
Q-1 2022
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022
XXXIV
The Theological Origins
of Contemporary Judicial Process
Q-3 2022
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023
XXXVIII
The Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Initiative
Q-3 2023
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development
XXXVX
The Inner-City Strategic
Revitalization Plan
Q-1 2024
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025
Page 286 of 306

LI
Nonprofit Confidentiality
In The Age of Big Data
Q-3 2025
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America
LIII
American Poverty
In The New Millennium
Q-1 2026
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028
LXIV
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated
Service Approach to Delinquency
Prevention
Q-4 2028
Page 287 of 306

Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization
LXIV
LXV
LXVI
Part I – Strategic Housing
Revitalization
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational
Redevelopment
and Economic Empowerment
Part III - Financial Literacy
and Sustainability
Q-1 2029
Q-2 2029
Q-3 2029
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029
LXVIII
The Strategic Home Mortgage
Initiative
Bonus
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030
LXIX
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative
Q-2 2030
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus
Page 288 of 306

Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032
Page 289 of 306

The e-Advocate Monthly Review
2018
Transformational Problem Solving January 2018
The Advocacy Foundation February 2018
Opioid Initiative
Native-American Youth March 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018
Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Social Entrepreneurship June 2018
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018
African-American Youth July 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Gang Deconstruction August 2018
Social Impact Investing September 2018
Opportunity Youth: October 2018
Disenfranchised Young People
The Economic Impact of Social November 2018
of Social Programs Development
Gun Control December 2018
2019
The U.S. Stock Market January 2019
Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019
Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019
Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019
Page 290 of 306

African-American Youth in The May 2019
Juvenile Justice System
Racial Profiling June 2019
Mass Collaboration July 2019
Concentrated Poverty August 2019
De-Industrialization September 2019
Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019
Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019
The Gift of Adversity December 2019
2020
The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020
The Gift of Introspection February 2020
The Gift of Introversion March 2020
The Gift of Spirituality April 2020
The Gift of Transformation May 2020
Property Acquisition for
Organizational Sustainability June 2020
Investing for Organizational
Sustainability July 2020
Biblical Law & Justice TLFA August 2020
Gentrification AF September 2020
Environmental Racism NpA October 2020
Law for The Poor AF November 2020
…
Page 291 of 306

2021
Biblically Responsible Investing TLFA – January 2021
International Criminal Procedure LMI – February 2021
Spiritual Rights TLFA – March 2021
The Theology of Missions TLFA – April 2021
Legal Evangelism, Intelligence,
Reconnaissance & Missions LMI – May 2021
The Law of War LMI – June 2021
Generational Progression AF – July 2021
Predatory Lending AF – August 2021
The Community Assessment Process NpA – September 2021
Accountability NpA – October 2021
Nonprofit Transparency NpA – November 2021
Redefining Unemployment AF – December 2021
2022
21 st Century Slavery AF – January 2022
Acquiesce to Righteousness TLFA – February 2022
ComeUnity Capacity-Building NpA – March 2022
Nonprofit Organizational Assessment NpA – April 2022
Debt Reduction AF – May 2022
Case Law, Statutory Law,
Municipal Ordinances and Policy ALG – June 2022
Organizational Dysfunction NpA - July 2022
Institutional Racism Collab US – August 2022
Page 292 of 306

The Ripple Effects of Ministry TLFA - September 2022
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 NpA – October 2022
Organized Crime (In The New Millennium) ALG – May 2022
Nonprofit Marketing NpA – June 2022
The Uniform Code of Military Justice AF – July 2022
Community Policing NpA – August 2022
Wills, Trusts & Estates AF – September 2022
International Incidents Series
I. Ten Conflicts to Watch In
The New Millennium LMI – October 2022
II. International Hotspots LMI – November 2022
III. International Cyber Terrorism LMI – December 2022
2023
IV. International Sex Trafficking LMI – January 2023
V. Brexit LMI – February 2023
VI. Global Jihad LMI – March 2023
VII. The Global Economy LMI – April 2023
…
Page 293 of 306

The e-Advocate Quarterly
Special Editions
Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017
Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017
Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017
The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018
Issues in Pain Management
The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018
The Drug Culture in the U.S.
The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018
Drug Abuse Among Veterans
The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018
Drug Abuse Among America’s
Teens
The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018
Alcoholism
The Economic Consequences of June 2018
Homelessness in The US
The Economic Consequences of July 2018
Opioid Addiction in America
Page 294 of 306

The e-Advocate Journal
of Theological Jurisprudence
Vol. I - 2017
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation
Vol. II - 2018
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform
& The Uniform Commercial Code
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence
Page 295 of 306

Legal Missions International
Page 296 of 306

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015
I
II
God’s Will and The 21 st Century
Democratic Process
The Community
Engagement Strategy
Q-1 2015
Q-2 2015
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015
IV
Public Interest Law
in The New Millennium
Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017
IX India Q-1 2017
X Suriname Q-2 2017
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018
Page 297 of 306

Vol. V 2019
XVII Russia Q-1 2019
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019
Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. VI 2020
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020
XX Israel Bonus
Vol. VII 2021
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021
XXII Peru Q-2 2021
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021
XXIV China Q-4 2021
XXV Japan Bonus
Vol VIII 2022
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022
Page 298 of 306

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report
______
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency
Page 299 of 306

The e-Advocate Newsletter
Genesis of The Problem
Family Structure
Societal Influences
Evidence-Based Programming
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values
Philosophy/Application & Practice
Expungement & Pardons
Pardons & Clemency
Examples/Best Practices
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US
The Economics of Prison Enterprise
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal
The Fourth Amendment Project
The Sixth Amendment Project
The Eighth Amendment Project
The Adolescent Law Group
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium
Page 300 of 306

2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative
2017 - Organizational Development
The Board of Directors
The Inner Circle
Staff & Management
Succession Planning
Bonus #1 The Budget
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation
2018 - Sustainability
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process
The Quality Assurance Initiative
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
The Community Engagement Strategy
2019 - Collaboration
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
International Labor Relations
Immigration
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process
The Community Engagement Strategy
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
2020 - Community Engagement
Page 301 of 306

Extras
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
The Board of Directors
The Gladiator Mentality
Strategic Planning
Fundraising
501(c)(3) Reinstatements
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters
How You Think Is Everything
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships
Accelerate Your Professional Development
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing
Assessing The Risks
Page 302 of 306

Page 303 of 306

About The Author
John C (Jack) Johnson III
Founder & CEO – The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
________
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental
Health professionals” in each jurisdiction served. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and been expanded to include a three-tier mission.
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide
300 organizational member violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and
chronology of which are available for review online at LinkedIn.com. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of
for-profit corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel
since 1990.
www.Advocacy.Foundation
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study Steering Committee; Atlanta
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007; Liberty In
Life Ministries, Inc. Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc Board of Directors; Temple
University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our Common Welfare Board of
Directors President 2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill Community Ministries
(Winter Sports Athletic Director); Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American -
Basketball; Church Trustee; Church Diaconate Ministry (Walking Deacon); Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquency
(Nominee).
Page 304 of 306

www.Advocacy.Foundation
Page 305 of 306

Page 306 of 306