Jonathan Fryer: UK Government Foolishly Triggers Article 50 to Divorce from EU

Speaking with FNA in an exclusive interview, Mr. Jonathan Fryer said, “There is no guarantee that Mrs May’s successor will be more successful in delivering Brexit than she has been. There is strong opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the House of Commons which heightens the risk of Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal, which could have disastrous economic and practical consequences.”

Jonathan Fryer is a British writer, broadcaster, lecturer and Liberal Democrat politician. He served as Chairman of the London Liberal Democrats, where he supervised the headquarters' move to Brixton and streamlined its operations.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: Studies show the social media were full of pro-Brexit deliberate interferences prior and at the time of the divorce referendum. Do you believe such reports should be taken into consideration by the current policy makers delivering Brexit? Is that for certain the referendum reflected the real intention of the nation?

A: Because the referendum result was so close (52:48 for Leave) credible reports of foreign interference, notably from Russian-based bots, promoting Leave, undermine the validity of the outcome. This situation is made worse by the fact that the Leave campaign lied, e.g. saying that Britain sends £350million a week to the EU and that Turkey was about to join the EU. Boris Johnson, former Foreign Secretary, is facing court proceedings over his false statements during the campaign. Opinion polls suggest that there has been a shift in public opinion in the UK and if there were a second referendum this time Remain would win. But the Conservative government, as well as the leadership of the opposition Labour Party, are determined to press on with Brexit, to “respect” the result of the 2016 vote. However, the country is deeply divided over the matter, as was shown in the European elections in May when the two best performing parties were the Brexit Party championing Brexit and the Liberal Democrats demanding Stop Brexit.

Q: What were Brexit mistakes that led to outgoing Prime Minister May’s resignation?

A: The government foolishly triggered Article 50 – thereby giving it only 2 years to sort out Brexit – before it had thought through what sort of Brexit it wanted or could agree with Britain’s 27 EU partners. The attitude of many Ministers was arrogant, declaring the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, and in some cases going to Brussels badly prepared for the negotiations on the draft Withdrawal Agreement. It was a big mistake not to consult with other political parties until after problems were entrenched. Similarly, the government should have tested opinion within Parliament rather than trying to ram its Agreement through. Theresa May personally showed herself to be stubborn and unwilling to take advice. By early May this year she was even refusing to meet Cabinet Ministers, while at the same time prevaricating about the date of her departure. In the meantime, the other EU member states have become increasingly exasperated by the British government’s stance, though probably they would be relieved if Brexit does not happen.

Q: Theresa May was determined to deliver the Brexit; but, she failed. Is there guarantee that the next leader succeeding her will not face exactly the same Brexit conundrum that brought her down?

A: There is no guarantee that Mrs May’s successor will be more successful in delivering Brexit than she has been. There is strong opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the House of Commons which heightens the risk of Britain crashing out of the EU on 31 October without a deal, which could have disastrous economic and practical consequences. Business and industry are rightly worried about this. But the narrative of No Deal Brexit, supported by the Brexit Party, has gained increasing traction within the Conservative Party. Nonetheless a growing number of senior Conservatives, such as the Chancellor Finance Minister Philip Hammond, have been arguing that it may be impossible for Parliament to agree on a way forward, other than ruling out No Deal, so therefore the matter should be put back to the British people in another referendum, in which Remain would be an option. For such a referendum, or even a general election, to happen there would probably need to be another extension to Article 50 beyond 31 October. There is a groundswell of opinion in favour of such a “People’s Vote”, but of course no guarantee, despite the opinion polls, that Remain would win, especially if the campaign is as mendacious as the last one.

Message end/