It seems to me that the process of exiting the EU by triggering article 50 is in itself flawed and here’s why; there is no provision for oversight on the exact terms of exit. The process is also susceptible to false rhetoric used in driving political campaigns and distortions in promoting false expectations/narratives. As such it has always been my view that the process should be protected by a double-lock mechanism to ensure transparency and credibility once a decision is made to leave via a Referendum or otherwise;
- Lock 1; (Initial Negotiations on Terms of Exit): Once a decision is made to leave the EU, initial negotiations should start automatically. These are not intended to be exhaustive in nature but rather designed to establish an agreement on the terms of exit as required by step 2.
- Lock 2: (National Referendum-or parliamentary vote in worst case scenario): This allows proper/objective oversight by the electorate on actual terms agreed.
- (Triggering Article 50): Once terms agreed and there is approval to move forward it would at this stage that Article 50 is triggered.
In the event that no agreement is reached by the member state and the EU on exit terms or on main terms post triggering article 50, same procedures now in place may be followed.
As regards to current state of play with regards to BREXIT, I can only hope that a more flexible process is applied-similar to the one stated above. Unfortunately though I do not believe the British team in charge of the negotiation has any intention but to fast track the process.