Yet another post about Brexit, in which I continue to whine about the unfairness of democracy,
and swing between despair and cautious optimism.
So, we now have a new PM who got the job essentially by default,
despite being the only one who was campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU.
As you may have noticed, I'm one of the 48% who want to remain in the EU,
so you might think there is some advantage to having a PM who claims to have wanted to remain,
and who has said leaving would not be in the national interest.
But I fear the reality of the political situation is that it would have been easier for a Leaver
to back out than for a Remainer.
A Leaver, assuming they didn't really want to leave,
could announce that after a lengthy consultation process they'd regretfully come to the conclusion that
whilst they still had ideological objections to the EU, the current circumstances meant that the decision should be delayed until they could get a better deal, etc, etc.
If Theresa May wanted to do that, it will be painted as suspicious, that she never really wanted to leave, and had only said that Brexit means Brexit to win the leadership contest.
Moreover, the fact that she's now created the post of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union,
might suggest she is not keeping an open mind and the question has already been answered.
Yet, and this is me clutching at whatever tiny straw a can, I do wonder if this might be a crafty maneuver to seem to be appeasing the quitters,
whilst giving them enough rope.
If in the next few months David Davis, one of the staunchest Euro-skeptics, cannot come up with a realistic plan,
it could be just the excuse needed to delay any decision for foreseeable future, or reach some sort of compromise.
For some context here's a detailed article
looking at the challenges the Brexit commissioner will face.
It suggests the best (that is least worse) solution would be to delay things until 2020 using an interim agreement.
An even more optimistic sign is that, as I'm writing this, it's being reported that May has had a constructive meeting with
Scotland's First Minister First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and is saying Article 50 won't be triggered until she has a UK approach.
This really begins to seem that she is trying to put the pressure on Davis - not only does he have to find a plan for leaving the EU,
but it has to satisfy Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I don't know, replied Mr. Pickwick in the same tone, Hush. Don't ask any questions. Its always best on these occasions to do what the mob do.
But suppose there are two mobs? suggested Mr. Snodgrass.
Shout with the largest, replied Mr. Pickwick.
Two weeks since the shambles of the the EU referendum, and I've been wondering if it's worth posting my options.
I made it clear what I thought about the referendum in my previous post.
I also made a few comments on various blogs,
especially HotWhopper here,
and here.
But a few things I need to get off chest.
This post isn't going to be about why I think leaving the EU will be a bad decision, but on who's responsible for this mess.
The Story So Far
Here's a brief and partial summary of where we stand as of today
- Thursday 7th July.
The referendum took place on the 23rd June - and was a narrow defeat for the UK, with 52% of voters voting to leave the EU, 48% to remain.
Nigel Farage gave a victory speech, even though he wasn't part of the official Leave team,
somewhat extending the brief to announce his desire to destroy the EU entirely and return to a Europe of independent nation states.
(Because that worked so well in the past.)
Early in the morning David Cameron announced his resignation and that he would leave it to his successor to trigger Article 50.
Everyone who had been campaigning for Leave suddenly started talking about the need not to be hasty,
and how important it was to think through our options.
Monday 27th June, Boris Johnson the main Leave campaigner, and widely seen as the inevitable next PM, spells out his vision the post EU UK.
He does this in his weekly Daily Telegraph article, in which he stresses nothing much will change as a result of our leaving the EU,
that we'll be more integrated with them, we'll still be able to work in the EU, but somehow we'll be controlling out borders.
Quite how he can guarantee any of this when negotiations haven't even started is another question.
The next day it is suggested in some quarters that Johnson didn't really mean what he said, and was tired when he wrote the article.
Thursday 30th June - with the deadline for Conservative ministers to put their names forward at midday.
First thing in the morning Gove, having previously saying he'd support Johnson's bid, stabs Boris in the back, and announces he'll be standing.
Minutes before the deadline Johnson announces he will not be standing.
Monday 4th July, Farage resigned from UKIP.
Johnson wrote another manifesto in his weekly Telegraph column suddenly realizing it would be a good idea to have some sort of plan for Brexit.
Today, Gove fails to make the final shortlist for Tory leadership, so the members will be choosing between Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom.
So we will have to wait till September to find out who will be leading the UK into this brave new future.
But whoever it is, it won't be anyone who was leading the leave campaign.
It won't be anyone who can be held to account for failing on the promises,
and if May is elected it will be someone who was claiming to believe that it was not in the national interest to leave the EU
(albeit someone who wants to abandon the European Court of Human Rights).
It seems no one had a plan for leaving the EU, not even those who campaigned for it.
The whole thing has really been about internal conservative party politics, and the people will not get a say in what happens next.
Yet for some reason everyone keeps insisting that whatever the cost to the UK, to Europe to the world, we must go through with the breakup.
I really don't get why, and hope a more considered approach will be taken after the contest is over.
Does Brexit Mean Brexit?
The argument that the will of the people must be respected is flimsy and goes against the idea of parliamentary democracy.
I can see three reasons to argue that the result of the referendum must be respected, without even a follow referendum: legal, pragmatic and moral.
But none of them make sense to me.
The question of a legal obligations is just wrong.
This was never a legally binding referendum;
and if it had been the details would have needed to be much more rigorous.
There should have been a requirement for a significant majority, there should have been a concrete proposal for what leaving would mean,
and there should have been scrutiny of the claims maid during the campaign.
The pragmatic argument would be that the electorate would punish the party that failed to deliver on leaving.
This would require making a lot of assumptions about why people voted to leave, especially given the narrowness of the vote.
How many who voted leave felt strongly enough about it to affect their decision at a general election?
How many will have changed their mind by the next election?
How many would never vote Conservative?
How many would vote Conservative even if they reneged on leaving?
And then reverse the question with the 48% who voted to remain.
I expect a shrewd PM who believed remaining would be in the national interest, would be able to frame the decision to go against the referendum,
would be able to frame the action in a way that would not damage their chances in 2020.
In any event the alternative would be taken the flack for all the damage caused by leaving, and being blamed for putting short term electoral interest above the country's good.
The moral argument could be that a promise was made and it would be immoral to break it.
But politicians break promises all the time, and it could easily be argued that breaking a promise was the morally correct action,
if keeping a promise was going to lead to worse consequences.
In any event, the promises were made by people who are no longer in charge, and other promises,
such as the 350 million a week to be spent on the NHS have already been broken.
It appears, then, that the Eatanswill people, like the people of many other small towns,
considered themselves of the utmost and most mighty importance, and that every man in Eatanswill,
conscious of the weight that attached to his example, felt himself bound to unite, heart and soul,
with one of the two great parties that divided the town—the Blues and the Buffs.
Now the Blues lost no opportunity of opposing the Buffs, and the Buffs lost no opportunity of opposing the Blues;
and the consequence was, that whenever the Buffs and Blues met together at public meeting, town-hall, fair, or market,
disputes and high words arose between them.
Disclaimer
This is going to be a chaotic outpouring of some of my thoughts on tomorrow's referendum.
It isn't going to change anyone's mind - it probably won't even be read - it's simply me getting somethings out of my system.
How I'm Voting
I will be voting for the UK to remain in the EU.
There was never any real doubt in my mind on this and nothing in the so called debate of the last few months has given me any reason to change my mind.
The fact is that I have always considered myself to be a European. I'm proud to be English, but proud that England is part of the United Kingdom,
and proud that the UK is part of the European Union.
I feel that unity is better than division, and fear that leaving the EU will be very divisive and only lead to more division.
None of this means that I think everything England, the United Kingdom, or the European Union does is for the best,
just that it's better to be part of something bigger than yourself.
But whilst I hope that we will remain in the EU, I fear that whichever side wins, the loser will be democracy, the UK and the EU.
About the Referendum
This referendum is and has always been a bad idea.
There are times when a referendum makes sense.
If a party wants to take an action, such as leaving the EU, that will have profound effects on the country it's fair that it should ask the people for a mandate
via a referendum..
But this is not such a referendum. No mainstream party wants to leave the EU.
David Cameron doesn't want to leave the EU -
the only reason for the referendum was as a sop to elements of his party that were threatened by UKIP.
So we have the Prime Minister, a year after winning an election, asking the country if he should do something he doesn't want to do, and has no need to do.
It's difficult to have a referendum on our future as a nation without it becoming very divisive and bitter.
It's like a civil war - you are not fighting an enemy, you are fighting your own country.
It's brother against brother, fathers killing sons, sons killing fathers.
The problem is whatever the outcome the wounds will still be there, and worse may follow.
To go or not to go, that is not the question
With these dissensions it is almost superfluous to say that everything in Eatanswill was made a party question. If the Buffs proposed to new skylight the market-place, the Blues got up public meetings, and denounced the proceeding; if the Blues proposed the erection of an additional pump in the High Street, the Buffs rose as one man and stood aghast at the enormity. There were Blue shops and Buff shops, Blue inns and Buff inns—there was a Blue aisle and a Buff aisle in the very church itself.
One of the problems with this vote is that the question being asked is very simplistic, just the two options Remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union,
but the actual question is much more nuanced than that.
I think it was the leave supporters who were very insistent that the question should be very simple, but the result is that no-one knows what a leave vote actually means.
What type of brexit will we get?
A vote for Remain at least is straightforward - nothing changes,
(except for all the bitterness, recriminations).
But a vote to leave could mean anything, and anyone voting to leave won't get to make the decision of which sort of exit will be negotiated.
There are two questions regarding a leave vote:
The first is how much do we actually leave. A vote for leave won't suddenly mean we are no longer a member of the EU,
there will have to be years of negotiation before it's settled,
and whoever is doing the negotiating will get to choose from arrange of options, going from complete isolation, to remaining in the EU for trade purposes,
but giving up any ability to control the EU.
The second problem is what we will do with all this new found freedom once we leave.
We currently have both the extreme right and left wings of the political spectrum both thinking leave will be a good thing.
They cannot both be correct.
To some the EU is literally a communist state, to others it's full of capitalist parasites, forcing privitisation and destroying workers rights.
Piers Corbyn (of termite fame) wants a Lexit, a left wing exit.
But that won't be an option on the ballot, the only option is leave or remain,
and you can bet that a vote for leave will be interpreted by Johnson, Gove or Farage as a Rexit.
If Leave win I suspect there will be a lot of disappointed leavers at the end.
The Standard of Debate
Of course it was essentially and indispensably necessary that each of these powerful parties should have its chosen organ and representative: and, accordingly, there were two newspapers in the town—the Eatanswill Gazette and the Eatanswill Independent; the former advocating Blue principles, and the latter conducted on grounds decidedly Buff. Fine newspapers they were. Such leading articles, and such spirited attacks!—'Our worthless contemporary, the Gazette'—'That disgraceful and dastardly journal, the Independent'—'That false and scurrilous print, the Independent'—'That vile and slanderous calumniator, the Gazette;' these, and other spirit-stirring denunciations, were strewn plentifully over the columns of each, in every number, and excited feelings of the most intense delight and indignation in the bosoms of the townspeople.
Look Who Want Out
To bring this blog back to science;
if I was in any way tempted to vote Leave, the fact that just about everyone of the most idiotic climate skeptics also want to leave,
would surely be enough to put a reasonable doubt in my mind.
When the likes of Piers Corbyn, Christopher Monckton, Steve Goddard, Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, James Delingpole are all cheering on an exit, one has to assume they see some benefit to their cause.
That said, I suspect the reason has less to do with any possible change in UK energy policy,
and more to do with the correlation between Euro and Global Warming conspiracies.
It may or may not be a coincidence, but so much of the debate seems to echo the climate change arguments.
There's the constant repeating of statistics that have been debunked (the 350 million a week we will be supposedly saving for example).
There's the experts know nothing type of arguments.
There's the dismissal of any argument that goes against you as scaremongering, or the result of EU bribery.
The Gazette warned the electors of Eatanswill that the eyes not only of England, but of the whole civilised world, were upon them; and the Independent imperatively demanded to know, whether the constituency of Eatanswill were the grand fellows they had always taken them for, or base and servile tools, undeserving alike of the name of Englishmen and the blessings of freedom. Never had such a commotion agitated the town before.
The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
Finally, what really concerns me about the referendum, and especially the Brexit side, is the attempts to define the debate in terms of Britishness,
and argue this as a choice between being pro-British and anti-Europe, or pro-Europe and anti-British.
As I said at the start, I consider myself to be both pro-British and pro-European.
If we remain there will still be a United Kingdom, if we leave it could well mean the end of the UK, as Scotland at least, and possibly the other non-English
sections of the kingdom will be pressing for their own independence votes.
My big fear from all this is that with so much at stake, and the constant mantra of brexit of take back control,
that aftermath will be filled with accusations that the other side were unpatriotic, sold out our country's future, and was even an act of treason.
Things could get nasty in the days after the referendum, and possibly for a lot longer.
