Skip to main content

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it.

Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that would have fulfilled the referendum vote, but not totally alienated the 48% who wished to continue or even deepen the UK relationship with the EU. Her "Citizen of Nowhere" speech was a jingoist rejection of nearly a century of British engagement with Europe and showed a willful blindness to the social and economic changes that 40 years of EU membership have brought to Britain. Remain may have lost, but by a whisker and many of those who voted to leave, including Dan Hannam MEP, believed that EFTA and/or a single market were the most likely post-EU arrangements.

If seems clear that the policy of the Prime Minister: to mirror EU rules with sovereign British rules, while obtaining certain concessions on how the UK conducts trade policy, is close to breakdown. The Chequers agreement has, in fact been no such thing. The hardliners continue to reject it. Yet from the point of view of obtaining an agreement there is nothing else on offer. It's a very poor deal.

However a leader with vision would choose to avoid the crisis that a crash-out will create. That leader is not Theresa May. She has committed herself to exit/mirror and if this deal fails, she would have to go. The problem is that there is no other viable leader either. Corbyn is unelectable. Other figures in the Conservatives, such as Michael Gove are even more divisive than the hapless Mrs May. A second referendum is even less likely, despite the general support it now has.

So what is to be done?

The growing scandal around Aron Banks may yet persuade voters that a second referendum is now essential, but if it is not, then we need to think practically. The collapse of the government would need the Article 50 deadline to be extended. However the EU is only likely to agree this, if a viable policy emerges in London.

Unless the entire referendum process is discredited (which it may be) it seems unlikely that the Leavers can be reconciled to Remain, but equally Remainers cannot be expected to support the Hardline policy that is offered as the only option.

There is a compromise policy, and that policy is EFTA membership. 

A leader who has the vision to speak out for this may finally be able to break the logjam, end the uncertainty of a crash-out and begin to heal the fractured body politic that this whole tawdry affair has inflicted on our country.

Comments

Nigel Jones said…
I generally agree with this piece, but what a shame that it contains inflammatory language at the beginning which will cause most leavers to ignore what is written here.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...