Brexit Summary

Brexit Summary

Given what I have been saying on Brexit I can't let the latest development, the defeat of May's Brexit deal, go uncommented. The defeat of Corbyn's no confidence in May vote was not a development, simply a miscalculation by a dogmatically inclined politician and, unfortunately, leader of the Opposition, who seems not to, or refuses to, accept anything outside his dogma.

According to the latest You Gov survey around 12% more people in the UK want Brexit to be cancelled than for it to go ahead. I'm shocked. Well, at least that disposes of the «will of the people» argument. If the will of the people is to be done now Brexit will be cancelled. What I can't get my head round is the 44% who apparently still want it to go ahead. Why?

I've disposed of the «will of the people» argument so let's address the democratic issue. If anyone claims the referendum result was a democratic vote they are right. However, if they claim that therefore it must be enacted they are wrong. Constitutionally a referendum in Britain can only ever be advisory, whatever any politician says (and who on earth believes that politicians should always be taken at their word?). Both the Act of parliament that allowed a referendum (necessary, as a referendum is no part of the UK's democratic process, please note) and the Act that defined it both clearly stated that the result could only ever be advisory. So why do some people still insist that the result has to enacted? Quite simply, that is not true.

So much for those theoretical arguments. What of the practicalities? I can see only four possibilities going forward. The first is that May's deal second time around is accepted but, given the huge majority against it first time around, that has little credence.

Another is that a «no deal» Brexit happens. I think it could do, but only by accident. A significant majority of MPs have said that they will not let it happen because of the disastrous financial consequences (an economic recession of up to two decades estimated by one of its supporters, Rees-Mogg). Put it this way, if the Leave campaign had proposed an economic recession of up to two decades, higher food prices, fewer jobs and less money for the NHS, who would have voted for it? More pertinently for the Government, who would at a subsequent general election? The will of the people? An undeliverable impossible dream was needed.

A third is a second referendum but, realistically, that would in May's probably more or less accurate estimation (two more Acts of Parliament and considerable discussion and organisation needed) take a year to organise. It looks impractical.

The fourth possibility is to delay or cancel Brexit. The EU is probably thoroughly fed up with the UK by now and its reaction to a proposed extension is unlikely to be positive and, if granted, would probably include onerous conditions. Cancelling Brexit would have no negative implications, apart from the considerable costs already incurred for no reason.

So the obvious conclusion as I see it is that Brexit should be cancelled. But………….44% of the population apparently still does not see it that way. So which of the alternatives above do they want? There is an understandable reaction, I think, which ignores my first two points above and says: we are now fed up with the whole mess, just get on with it. However, that just gets back to my second set of points; which of the possibilities do you want?

There is another counter argument. If we are not going to deliver the result of the referendum, why did we have one? The answer to that is clear and generally accepted. We had one because the Conservative Party was split before the general election before last and David Cameron, not confident of winning the election and afraid of the UKIP influence, chose it as a way of trying to avoid a split in the conservative party. That failed; the Conservative party is still split. There was discontent with the EU in the UK, as in all EU countries, but no public clamour for a Brexit. The referendum came about not through any debate on the UK's future but because of a spat in the Conservative party. It' really should be only as important as that but has got out of hand. Again, impossible undeliverable dreams needed.

For myself I can explain the 44% in only one of three ways. Some part of that percentage must be the neo- fascist racist boneheads who support such organisations as the EDL and BNP. Another part I can only explain as people who have bought the impossible dream sold to them: return to the days of Empire (reconquer India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, etc). Do these people ever reason, think of practicalities? A final part, I suspect, are fed up with the whole process and just want done with the mess. These, in my view, are the most dangerous because, in throwing up their hand in despair they despair of their own important part in the democratic process; indeed of democracy itself.

So, if Brexit is cancelled, which is still just a possibility; what do we have? Certainly not Nirvana. We return to a situation, at significant cost, in which a large and important minority of people are discontented with the EU of which we are still a part. The good point there, I think, is that we share that situation with many other EU countries and that is the best indicator that the EU will be subject to the necessary reforms, for the benefit of all concerned. Somewhat paradoxically, a Conservative Thatcher handbagging will be needed.