Brexit
I have recently read that when faced with a problem you should think about the solution and not the problem or it's cause. That sounds like sage advice. However, there are some problems which don't have a solution that works for everyone. Brexit, and how it's achieved (if at all), is one such problem, so looking at the cause of the current mess might be the best way to start to resolve the Brexit chaos, as understanding the problem might shine a light on the best way to proceed. Regardless of which route is chosen there will be millions of UK citizens left angry and feeling cheated - but I'm looking here at finding a solution which upsets the least number of people as there is no solution which is going to leave everyone happy - and maybe no solution which will even leave a majority happy.
Firstly, the UK has been split, since we joined the EEC, over whether joining was the correct thing to do, or not, in the first place. This split was right across the whole of the UK and different sections of society - but the clearest split has always been within the Tory party and those supporting it. This eventually gave rise to UKIP which in turn polarised the split in the Tory party. With UKIP gaining votes the clamour from within the Tory party to leave the EU grew and grew until David Cameron decided that this needed to be settled once and for all by a referendum on EU membership.
Secondly, the problem with his solution was that a binary LEAVE or REMAIN choice was too simple for what we have since learned was a complex situation. Did Cameron assume REMAIN would win and as a result gave little thought to the various outcomes a LEAVE vote would produce - or did he just not understand, himself, all the ramifications that would result from a LEAVE win? In addition to questions about the Single Market and the Customs Union there was also the issue about what happened with the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I doubt that even the people of Northern Ireland fully understood the ramifications of leaving the EU as, if they had, I suspect the Remain vote there would have been even higher than it was.
I would argue that the cause of the current mess all stems from the simple IN/OUT choice of the 2016 EU referendum and that confusion needs to be resolved and clarified before we can even start to move on. Of course, Cameron calling for the referendum, to save the Tory party, is another major factor - but that's done and cannot now be undone. What might also have helped, but is now also too late, would have been Cameron promising a second referendum after the negotiations were completed - just to get confirmation that 'the people' were satisfied with the outcome. That, at least, would have prevented complaints about a second referendum being unfair as it would have been clear from the outset that that was what was going to happen.
One of the arguments made by the LEAVE side to leave under any circumstances (crashing out without a deal if needed) is that 17.4 million people voted to leave and that we have to go ahead with that regardless of any negative results. I was one of the minority in Scotland who voted to leave - not because of the Free Movement of People but because I do not like the way the EU has been developing, politically, over recent decades and because, for me, it cares more about business profitability than it does about it's citizens (but I won't delve into that here). I stupidly presumed the UK would be joining EFTA or having a similar relationship with the EU. If I had known that there was a high chance of leaving the way the hard line Brexiteers now propose then I'd have voted to remain. I presume I was not alone in this. That's not to say that LEAVE would still not have won - but it would not have been by as much as they did win by and there would not have been 17.4 million who voted this way. There is even the chance, if the choice was between to remain or a hard Brexit, that REMAIN might have won by a slight margin. There will also be many who would now, having learned what they have over the past three years, vote REMAIN after having originally voted to leave. There might also be some who have switched in the other direction. What is clear to me is that it is wrong of the LEAVE side to claim that 17.4 million voted to leave and that we must now leave at all costs. It is not at all clear that 17.4 million want to crash out of the EU without a deal.
So it's now possible that there's a majority who don't want to leave and many who would still chose to do so but only if keeping access to the Single Market and/or Customs Union and avoiding the return of a hard border in Ireland. No one knows!
The UK is split in a way that is going to be very difficult to repair (and that's without Scotland seeking to leave the UK and rejoin the EU as a separate country). I would argue that a general election will not solve this problem. A general election is about which political party you want in charge of running the country - not a single issue like Brexit. There would be millions of citizens who would feel forced to vote for the party of their choice but, therefore, against the Brexit they want. That will still leave millions very unhappy about the type of Brexit forced upon them. There is also a strong possibility that a general elections will still result in a Westminster unable to make a clear choice one way or the other.
I therefore argue that the only way out of this is another referendum. Go back to what caused this mess (the 2016 EU referendum) and have another go at it. However, this, for me, will require a two part referendum because, if it does not, the country will be left seriously divided (it will be left divided no matter what is done but I'm looking at how this divide might be reduced and mitigated). The first part remains a simple IN/OUT choice (and should be binding on parliament, either legally or morally). The second part should ask, in the event of a Leave win, what type of outcome people want; 1) access to the Single Market, 2) a Customs Union, 3) access to the Single Market and a Customs Union or 4) WTO terms. This second part would not be binding upon parliament but be used simply as a guide for parliament in their negotiations and to help it achieve what the majority want or would at least settle for. I would also suggest that the period leading up to a second referendum should include unbiased information (maybe from the Electoral Commission or a cross party Westminster committee) which outlines the pros and cons of all four options. No wild claims about possible economic outcomes but straightforward information about what each option would require of the UK and what the advantages would be (like having to contribute to the EU for access to the Single Market but in return being able to buy from, and sell to, EU countries with greater ease than would otherwise be the case). Clarification about what each option would mean for the Irish border would also help (for example, and despite all the information over the past three years, I remain unsure which option, or options, would prevent the return of border posts and checks: would access to the Single Market avoid this? Would a Customs Union avoid this? Or would both, or something else, be required to avoid this?
I know the Hard Brexiteers will object long and hard about another referendum - but 17.4 million did not vote to crash out of the EU in the way they are claiming. Thanks to David Cameron's too simple referendum it is too unclear what the people of the UK actually want and this needs to be clarified before proceeding.
It will, of course, be claimed that a two part referendum would be too complicated. Well, that might be true - but if it is then the people should not have been asked to vote in the first place. If the people are intelligent enough to choose then they need to understand all the ramifications of their choice first - and if they can do that then they can also understand a two part referendum (especially when the second part is only advisory and could even be ignored by anyone if they wanted to). If 'the people' don't have the intelligence to cope with that then giving them the referendum was a mistake in the first place.
I doubt, even if a second referendum is called, that such a choice will be given - but the division in the country stands no chance of being healed, even a little bit, with a repeat of the simple REMAIN or LEAVE choice - and a general election will in no way even start to heal the divisions between those who want to remain in the EU and those who want to leave. One side or the other is going to be left feeling cheated. A general election will not avoid this. A second, simple referendum will not avoid this but would be better than a general election. A second referendum, with an advisory section about what type of Brexit is wanted (should LEAVE win again), will not avoid this but would be better than a simple LEAVE/REMAIN referendum. Crashing out without a second vote of some sort is the worst possible course of action. I would suggest that those opposing a second vote, of some sort, are, by a large majority, LEAVE voters who greatly fear they will lose the vote next time round and want to hide the possibility that they are now in the minority.
Firstly, the UK has been split, since we joined the EEC, over whether joining was the correct thing to do, or not, in the first place. This split was right across the whole of the UK and different sections of society - but the clearest split has always been within the Tory party and those supporting it. This eventually gave rise to UKIP which in turn polarised the split in the Tory party. With UKIP gaining votes the clamour from within the Tory party to leave the EU grew and grew until David Cameron decided that this needed to be settled once and for all by a referendum on EU membership.
Secondly, the problem with his solution was that a binary LEAVE or REMAIN choice was too simple for what we have since learned was a complex situation. Did Cameron assume REMAIN would win and as a result gave little thought to the various outcomes a LEAVE vote would produce - or did he just not understand, himself, all the ramifications that would result from a LEAVE win? In addition to questions about the Single Market and the Customs Union there was also the issue about what happened with the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I doubt that even the people of Northern Ireland fully understood the ramifications of leaving the EU as, if they had, I suspect the Remain vote there would have been even higher than it was.
I would argue that the cause of the current mess all stems from the simple IN/OUT choice of the 2016 EU referendum and that confusion needs to be resolved and clarified before we can even start to move on. Of course, Cameron calling for the referendum, to save the Tory party, is another major factor - but that's done and cannot now be undone. What might also have helped, but is now also too late, would have been Cameron promising a second referendum after the negotiations were completed - just to get confirmation that 'the people' were satisfied with the outcome. That, at least, would have prevented complaints about a second referendum being unfair as it would have been clear from the outset that that was what was going to happen.
One of the arguments made by the LEAVE side to leave under any circumstances (crashing out without a deal if needed) is that 17.4 million people voted to leave and that we have to go ahead with that regardless of any negative results. I was one of the minority in Scotland who voted to leave - not because of the Free Movement of People but because I do not like the way the EU has been developing, politically, over recent decades and because, for me, it cares more about business profitability than it does about it's citizens (but I won't delve into that here). I stupidly presumed the UK would be joining EFTA or having a similar relationship with the EU. If I had known that there was a high chance of leaving the way the hard line Brexiteers now propose then I'd have voted to remain. I presume I was not alone in this. That's not to say that LEAVE would still not have won - but it would not have been by as much as they did win by and there would not have been 17.4 million who voted this way. There is even the chance, if the choice was between to remain or a hard Brexit, that REMAIN might have won by a slight margin. There will also be many who would now, having learned what they have over the past three years, vote REMAIN after having originally voted to leave. There might also be some who have switched in the other direction. What is clear to me is that it is wrong of the LEAVE side to claim that 17.4 million voted to leave and that we must now leave at all costs. It is not at all clear that 17.4 million want to crash out of the EU without a deal.
So it's now possible that there's a majority who don't want to leave and many who would still chose to do so but only if keeping access to the Single Market and/or Customs Union and avoiding the return of a hard border in Ireland. No one knows!
The UK is split in a way that is going to be very difficult to repair (and that's without Scotland seeking to leave the UK and rejoin the EU as a separate country). I would argue that a general election will not solve this problem. A general election is about which political party you want in charge of running the country - not a single issue like Brexit. There would be millions of citizens who would feel forced to vote for the party of their choice but, therefore, against the Brexit they want. That will still leave millions very unhappy about the type of Brexit forced upon them. There is also a strong possibility that a general elections will still result in a Westminster unable to make a clear choice one way or the other.
I therefore argue that the only way out of this is another referendum. Go back to what caused this mess (the 2016 EU referendum) and have another go at it. However, this, for me, will require a two part referendum because, if it does not, the country will be left seriously divided (it will be left divided no matter what is done but I'm looking at how this divide might be reduced and mitigated). The first part remains a simple IN/OUT choice (and should be binding on parliament, either legally or morally). The second part should ask, in the event of a Leave win, what type of outcome people want; 1) access to the Single Market, 2) a Customs Union, 3) access to the Single Market and a Customs Union or 4) WTO terms. This second part would not be binding upon parliament but be used simply as a guide for parliament in their negotiations and to help it achieve what the majority want or would at least settle for. I would also suggest that the period leading up to a second referendum should include unbiased information (maybe from the Electoral Commission or a cross party Westminster committee) which outlines the pros and cons of all four options. No wild claims about possible economic outcomes but straightforward information about what each option would require of the UK and what the advantages would be (like having to contribute to the EU for access to the Single Market but in return being able to buy from, and sell to, EU countries with greater ease than would otherwise be the case). Clarification about what each option would mean for the Irish border would also help (for example, and despite all the information over the past three years, I remain unsure which option, or options, would prevent the return of border posts and checks: would access to the Single Market avoid this? Would a Customs Union avoid this? Or would both, or something else, be required to avoid this?
I know the Hard Brexiteers will object long and hard about another referendum - but 17.4 million did not vote to crash out of the EU in the way they are claiming. Thanks to David Cameron's too simple referendum it is too unclear what the people of the UK actually want and this needs to be clarified before proceeding.
It will, of course, be claimed that a two part referendum would be too complicated. Well, that might be true - but if it is then the people should not have been asked to vote in the first place. If the people are intelligent enough to choose then they need to understand all the ramifications of their choice first - and if they can do that then they can also understand a two part referendum (especially when the second part is only advisory and could even be ignored by anyone if they wanted to). If 'the people' don't have the intelligence to cope with that then giving them the referendum was a mistake in the first place.
I doubt, even if a second referendum is called, that such a choice will be given - but the division in the country stands no chance of being healed, even a little bit, with a repeat of the simple REMAIN or LEAVE choice - and a general election will in no way even start to heal the divisions between those who want to remain in the EU and those who want to leave. One side or the other is going to be left feeling cheated. A general election will not avoid this. A second, simple referendum will not avoid this but would be better than a general election. A second referendum, with an advisory section about what type of Brexit is wanted (should LEAVE win again), will not avoid this but would be better than a simple LEAVE/REMAIN referendum. Crashing out without a second vote of some sort is the worst possible course of action. I would suggest that those opposing a second vote, of some sort, are, by a large majority, LEAVE voters who greatly fear they will lose the vote next time round and want to hide the possibility that they are now in the minority.
.JPG)
Comments
Post a Comment