Ggthjy

Clearly, the EU would prefer a new referendum

[citation needed]

May might offer a new deal that is accepted

The EU would have to approve it, and they've already been as clear as possible that this is the deal that has been negotiated. It is possible that if a new government was elected with a different mandate for a radically different deal, that would be worth exploring.

Clearly, this would lead to a referendum being held: nobody wants a no-deal.

Far from obvious: there definitely is a UK no-deal faction in parliament.

Also, what if they hold a referendum and the answer comes back as Leave? Nothing has been solved but more time has been wasted.

No, what's happening here is that the EU is forcing the UK to make a decision. It has to ask for an extension first, and present an offer that would result in some material change to the negotiation position. A referendum is only one of various options for that - fresh elections would also count, as would a change of PM without an election by means of a no-confidence vote. Crucially, to avoid timewasting, whatever the UK presents has to be acceptable firstly to the UK Parliament.

Edit: see Verhofstadt "The European Union should reject a request from Britain to extend its Brexit deadline unless British lawmakers rally around a clear objective for what they want to achieve".

As the comment says, trying to directly order around the UK political process would be unpopular. So they're trying hard to not specify a route out of the impasse, instead forcing the UK political factions to fight among themselves until a conclusion is produced.

The EU could indeed threaten to only allow an extension if it was used for a second referendum, but there is a risk that some British people would take exception to being forced into that course of action (by the failings of their own representatives!) and vote to leave with no deal, an outcome the EU wishes to avoid.

Basically the EU doesn't want to play into brexiteers claims about it being undemocratic and trying to force the UK to do what it wants, by forcing the UK to do what it wants.

With that in mind, why doesn't the EU simply threathen to NOT agree to an article 50 extension unless a referendum is held?

Because that's not in the best interest of the EU.

The EU doesn't want a second referendum. The EU wants the UK to make up its mind, and to make it up soon. A referendum does neither. If there is a referendum, whatever the outcome is, people will disagree on what the outcome means. Furthermore, you cannot have a referendum on a very short notice. Apart from logistics, a proper democracy demands there to be time for people to campaign; the public must get the opportunity to make up their minds. So you need time.

But the European elections are near the horizon. Europe will not have time to negotiate with the UK afterwards. There will be a new parliament, and a new commission has to be formed. Remember the UK lost valuable time when May called elections? It's something like that, except that forming a new commission takes much longer. Juncker will be replaced.

For the EU to agree on an extension, the UK must present a plan which can be used to build upon. A referendum is too much uncertainty. And remember, the UK will only be granted an extension if all of the 27 countries agree. And while Germany is very likely to go a long way to avoid a no-deal Brexit, even at huge costs, others (like France) are ready to take their losses and see more value in just moving on.

And beside that, the EU doesn't like to threaten. Whatever the differences it has, it always, always takes into account "we need each other tomorrow". Threats are not part of that.

"Why doesn't the EU simply threathen to NOT agree to an article 50 extension unless a referendum is held?"

In my experience the EU operates quite legalistically, and EU functionaries wish to refrain from doing things outside its range of established legal competences (or, if one is being cynical: they wish at least not to be seen to do such things).

One of the areas outside EU legal competences is the internal affairs and constitutional actions of member states -- insofar as EU law is not violated by the conduct of such affairs and actions.

So I believe this would be a simple explanation for the reluctance or restraint -- whichever it may be - shown by representatives of EU organs in promoting action to resolve the UK/EU impasse. They can and may encourage the UK to come to some decision about what it wants at the level of its relation with (currently) the rest of the EU, but it is not within their remit to promote particular political actions within the UK.

I have to refrain from putting a value judgment on this right now. I suppose that when it gets to be time for hindsight, then the judgment will depend on currently-unknowable factors in the outcome, yet to appear. But it might not be very long now before we get to know, for better or for worse!

• Many EU leaders and spokespersons say that they would like the UK to stay. I find those statements credible. Many EU leaders also express their exasperation with UK politics and they do not want the UK to stay at any cost.


• Extending the Article 50 negotiations beyond the next EU elections will be difficult. Extending them into the next multi-annual financial framework will be extremely difficult. There is little faith that a few weeks would result in a stable majority for a solution in the UK.


• The UK has held a brexit referendum in 1975 and another in 2016. In between there were rebates, opt-outs, and so on. If the UK were to stay by a narrow margin, the next referendum would be much sooner than 40 years from now. So what would be won by forcing the UK to stay a little longer?

The EU's position (insofar as an organization that is an organization of organizations has a position) is that the negotiated terms are those that the UK can take.

If they don't take those terms, the EU's position is that the UK is legally allowed to leave the EU or stay in the EU under EU law.

The EU appears to be willing to let the UK choose between those 3 choices.

In the event that the UK leaves the EU with no deal, there are "territorial"-ish disputes between EU states and the UK that will no longer be as resolved as they where under the EU framework. These include Gibralter (Spain-UK disagreement) and Northern Ireland (Ireland-UK-IRA disagreement, settled by Good Friday accords).

So in some sense, the EU doesn't want a no-deal Brexit, because it wants those disputes to remain settled.

The EU has also made clear that if the UK wants to stay in the EU, existing deals involving special status for the UK (where it can opt out of things) may no longer be on the table.

The EU has also made it clear that it is uninterested in reopening the current Brexit deal barring major concessions by the UK on matters of substance.

How the UK resolves these issues is up to the UK. They can have another referendum ("Do you want to accept the current Brexit deal (a), or stay in the EU (b)?" or "Do you want to accept the current Brexit deal(a), or no-deal Brexit(b)?" for a 2 question version, or a 3 question version "Current Brexit deal (a), No-deal Brexit (b), stay in EU (c)?", or a 2x2 version "Do you want to Brexit (1) or not (2)? If we do Brexit, do you want to accept current deal (a) or no-deal (b)?") to "settle" the issue if the UK chooses, they could have a snap election and have the new parlaiment decide, they could remove the oath requirement of Parlaiment and sit the 7 Sien Fein MPs and swing the balance of power, but that isn't the EU's problem.

Simple: The EU needs to maintain neutrality as to maintain credibility with the UK after Brexit is over. Article 50 is a legal process and the EU can not/should not obstruct that process by making demands of its member states in this fashion. The UK is following its own laws and processes in an attempt to follow Article 50 protocol, as tumultuous as it has been, and the EU just needs to be patient and let the process play out.

It's not just that the EU doesn't have any interest in that, they also aren't in a position to do so.

The facts are that UK handed in the note two years ago (well, almost). Article 50 says that in about two weeks it's deal or goodbye. Nothing more and nothing less.

Further, it says that if all member states agree unanimously they may grant an extension.

It doesn't say that the EU or anyone has a say in the internals of a country, which would be quite perverse, too, if it did. It doesn't say that the leaving country has any obligations.

It doesn't say that UK can actually revoke the Brexit (only some personal opinions state that, the treaty doesn't).

It doesn't say that a member country needs to do repeated referendums or whatever if the decision doesn't please the EU (or doesn't please the people, or whoever).

What the British do or didn't do during the last two years is strictly their very own responsibility (and problem). The EU cannot and should not dictate -- or even suggest -- what to do. Other than: Guys, you know the clock is ticking, get your asses up, whatever it is you do.

Also they wouldn't want to interfere, even moreso as there really isn't any such thing as "the EU" in that case. Who is "the EU"? Juncker?

What they want is a clear statement and an end to the uncertainity which damages the economy in the entire trade zone, they're not getting that with a referendum.

A deal would probably be preferrable for some industry stakeholders, but a hard Brexit really is indeed not so bad (not for the EU at least) at all as long as it just finally happens. What's bad is that nobody knows just what the British want. If they actually know what they want. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

There's nothing worse than uncertainity. Businesses don't like it, investors don't like it, governments don't like it, citizens don't like it. Uncertainity is worse than war, or an earthquake, or a reactor incident.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for that exact reason, at least one or two member states voted "No way!" on an extension, should it come to that. After all, what benefit would an extension bring? What didn't happen in two years is unlikely to happen in two months. It would only make the uncertainity last even longer.