Britain will have to choose between a "hard Brexit" outside the single market and not leaving the European Union at all, European Council president Donald Tusk has said. Mr Tusk told the European Policy Centre in Brussels that it was fanciful to believe that Britain could retain the advantages of EU membership while escaping its obligations.
"It is useless to speculate about 'soft Brexit'. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a 'hard Brexit' is no Brexit. Even if, today, hardly anyone believes in such a possibility," he said.
Mr Tusk said the task of European negotiators would be “to protect the interests of the EU as a whole and each of the 27 member states”, adding that there will be “no compromises” on the principle that Britain could not restrict immigration from the EU and remain in the single market.
In London on Thursday, the high court began considering whether Theresa May’s government can invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, starting formal exit talks, without a vote in Parliament. Ms May has ruled out offering MPs a vote before she triggers the start of negotiations by the end of March next year, although she has agreed to allow MPs to debate the process.
Constitutional importance
The high court heard, however, that the issue was one of huge constitutional importance
“concerning the limits of the power of the executive”. The government argues that it can use the royal prerogative, executive powers once held by the crown but now by ministers, to trigger article 50, because it has the sole power to make and unmake treaties.
A group of plaintiffs, led by the investment banker Gina Miller, argues that Britain’s EU membership has implications far beyond those of other treaties, including citizenship rights. They argue that, because invoking article 50 leads automatically to Brexit after a negotiating period of two years, it would have the effect of overturning the 1972 European Communities Act, breaching the principle that a parliamentary act can only be reversed by another act.
“If we are to leave the EU, then the steps to be taken which will deprive her of her rights under the 1972 Act, and other legislation, must be done in a lawful manner,” Ms Miller’s counsel, David Pannick, told the court.
Attorney general Jeremy Wright, who will speak for the government next week, has said that invoking article 50 is a necessary step in implementing the decision of the referendum, which was itself mandated by an act of parliament.
“There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum,” he said.
Foreign secretary Boris Johnson expressed confidence on Thursday that Britain would secure a good trade deal with the EU after Brexit and that Britain would remain “a lodestar and magnet” for immigrants from around the world.
“I think it is extremely important that we continue to send out a signal of openness and welcome to the many brilliant people who help to drive the London economy and the UK economy,” he said.
