Brexit: One hell of a hangover for Britain
By common consent, the British Prime Minister Theresa May has shown commendable dedication in reaching a draft deal with the European Union over Brexit, but opponents and supporters of Brexit have united to say it won’t fly and it will almost certainly be rejected by the House of Commons.
Remainers say it is worse than the terms of our current membership while Brexiteers say it ties us too much to the EU as a rule-taker rather than rule-maker and blocks the freedoms they thought would flow from departure. Some Brexiteers believe the UK can leave without a formal deal and make its own way in the world but others warn that this could seize up trade at pinch points such as Dover and leave food rotting in the fields. Remainers hope that a new referendum can be organised and the people given a fresh choice between May’s deal and staying on current terms.
Conservative MPs may yet express their lack of confidence in May and trigger a leadership election in the hope that a new leader can get a better deal, but we are running out of time. The EU has moved but probably won’t move much further because they want the UK to stay. A leadership contest would be a battle for the soul of the Conservative Party, which would almost certainly split.
We have hit a huge crisis. The people voted to leave by a narrow margin. It’s often argued that the prospectus offered by the Brexit campaign was false: that deals with other countries would be easy, and that we would take back control of our money, borders, and laws.
It has not proved to be easy as the 27 other EU countries have operated ruthlessly as a bloc and played their cards better than Britain. The argument, if parliament is paralysed, is that the people should be allowed to exercise their choice now they know the costs and opportunities of the only likely deal.
The trouble is that many of those who voted for Brexit already feel they are being ignored by the liberal elite and will feel cheated. It seems likely that the result could be reversed and by a similar margin to the victorious result two years ago – this time by 52-48 for remaining. If it were much higher, then the danger of fundamental alienation from the democratic process would be reduced although a significant minority would still feel swindled and there could be violence. An MP was murdered during the referendum campaign in 2016.
Yet the people have the right to make such a decision on an issue that dramatically affects everyone if their representatives cannot reach a decision. Any violence has to be faced down.
The original problem is that those who wished to leave saw no need for a coherent and accountable plan and those who wanted to stay were complacent and also sneering about Brexit supporters. It was a perfect storm. The ruling class was complacent and counted on conservatism and inertia plus more or less justifiable fears of catastrophe to sustain the status quo.
Many people were in no mood to take the medicine for various reasons. Europe, they thought, wasn’t working for those who had seen a major collapse in their incomes and who blamed mass immigration for it. Free movement of labour within the EU is one of its fundamental tenets and many EU citizens from poorer countries filled the demand for seasonal working in agriculture, as plumbers and many other positions.
They made much more money here than they could at home and their unplanned arrivals transformed certain towns and swamped public services. An enabling state that saw the benefits of such immigrant labour would have been speedy in rectifying the gap between population numbers and services. People who had contributed through their taxes to schools, hospitals, and doctors surgeries felt they were being cheated of the fruits of their contribution as queues lengthened.
There was and is a good argument for immigration being a bonus but many saw it as a threat to their livelihoods and businesses. Groups of EU workers in cheap and often sub-standard accommodation gained a competitive advantage in setting up businesses such as plumbing and house improvements. Those who could buy a conservatory cheaply were happy but British citizens who used to provide such services were badly affected and driven out of business.
If there is a new referendum, then the language of those proposing that we should stay has to change. It’s offensive and counter-productive to ignore the hurt felt by many or to condemn those wanting to leave as simpletons and racists. My own small bug bear is how the proposed referendum has been badged as a “People’s Vote.” The 2016 referendum was a people’s vote and using the term now seems to diminish its legitimacy.
The UK has the right to leave the EU, make its own mistakes, and put sovereignty above economic growth. MPs can decide if they wish to simply carry out the instruction or they can warn the people they are making a huge mistake and be prepared to take the consequences when they put themselves for re-election. It is perfectly reasonable to say that the decision cannot be carried out without huge ructions. Doing May’s deal, no deal or staying are all problems.
I was a firm advocate of leaving the then Common Market in the 1970s, embraced fully-fledged federalism in the 1990s but that was scuppered by the expansion of the EU to include countries in eastern and northern Europe. The federalist project has already divided Europe into a rich core and a poor periphery and it would be best to reconstruct the EU on a more sustainable basis. I voted Remain so the UK could contribute to that. Staying in the EU could enable the UK to use its political, economic and security weight to restart the European project.
My own view, on balance, is that asking the people to decide is right. It may be that this angers some people so much that the referendum repeats the instruction. It may be that it is rescinded. So be it. Debating the options respectfully is ideal but will be very difficult given the increasing polarisation of public opinion. I don’t care if it means a total realignment of politics in the UK with new parties. I do care that a new referendum on EU membership seeks to be candid, honest and inclusive. I’m afraid to say that there is fat chance of that happening.
Hyperbole is the way of politics now but we are in a true crisis – many political careers will be finished, the UK will not punch its weight in international affairs, living standards will fall, and business investors will go on strike until they see the end game. There are only least worst options according to taste. Brexit is one hell of a hangover and a new referendum seems the least worst way out of this historic conundrum but one that also carries huge risks.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Remainers say it is worse than the terms of our current membership while Brexiteers say it ties us too much to the EU as a rule-taker rather than rule-maker and blocks the freedoms they thought would flow from departure. Some Brexiteers believe the UK can leave without a formal deal and make its own way in the world but others warn that this could seize up trade at pinch points such as Dover and leave food rotting in the fields. Remainers hope that a new referendum can be organised and the people given a fresh choice between May’s deal and staying on current terms.
Conservative MPs may yet express their lack of confidence in May and trigger a leadership election in the hope that a new leader can get a better deal, but we are running out of time. The EU has moved but probably won’t move much further because they want the UK to stay. A leadership contest would be a battle for the soul of the Conservative Party, which would almost certainly split.
We have hit a huge crisis. The people voted to leave by a narrow margin. It’s often argued that the prospectus offered by the Brexit campaign was false: that deals with other countries would be easy, and that we would take back control of our money, borders, and laws.
It has not proved to be easy as the 27 other EU countries have operated ruthlessly as a bloc and played their cards better than Britain. The argument, if parliament is paralysed, is that the people should be allowed to exercise their choice now they know the costs and opportunities of the only likely deal.
The trouble is that many of those who voted for Brexit already feel they are being ignored by the liberal elite and will feel cheated. It seems likely that the result could be reversed and by a similar margin to the victorious result two years ago – this time by 52-48 for remaining. If it were much higher, then the danger of fundamental alienation from the democratic process would be reduced although a significant minority would still feel swindled and there could be violence. An MP was murdered during the referendum campaign in 2016.
Yet the people have the right to make such a decision on an issue that dramatically affects everyone if their representatives cannot reach a decision. Any violence has to be faced down.
The original problem is that those who wished to leave saw no need for a coherent and accountable plan and those who wanted to stay were complacent and also sneering about Brexit supporters. It was a perfect storm. The ruling class was complacent and counted on conservatism and inertia plus more or less justifiable fears of catastrophe to sustain the status quo.
Many people were in no mood to take the medicine for various reasons. Europe, they thought, wasn’t working for those who had seen a major collapse in their incomes and who blamed mass immigration for it. Free movement of labour within the EU is one of its fundamental tenets and many EU citizens from poorer countries filled the demand for seasonal working in agriculture, as plumbers and many other positions.
They made much more money here than they could at home and their unplanned arrivals transformed certain towns and swamped public services. An enabling state that saw the benefits of such immigrant labour would have been speedy in rectifying the gap between population numbers and services. People who had contributed through their taxes to schools, hospitals, and doctors surgeries felt they were being cheated of the fruits of their contribution as queues lengthened.
There was and is a good argument for immigration being a bonus but many saw it as a threat to their livelihoods and businesses. Groups of EU workers in cheap and often sub-standard accommodation gained a competitive advantage in setting up businesses such as plumbing and house improvements. Those who could buy a conservatory cheaply were happy but British citizens who used to provide such services were badly affected and driven out of business.
If there is a new referendum, then the language of those proposing that we should stay has to change. It’s offensive and counter-productive to ignore the hurt felt by many or to condemn those wanting to leave as simpletons and racists. My own small bug bear is how the proposed referendum has been badged as a “People’s Vote.” The 2016 referendum was a people’s vote and using the term now seems to diminish its legitimacy.
The UK has the right to leave the EU, make its own mistakes, and put sovereignty above economic growth. MPs can decide if they wish to simply carry out the instruction or they can warn the people they are making a huge mistake and be prepared to take the consequences when they put themselves for re-election. It is perfectly reasonable to say that the decision cannot be carried out without huge ructions. Doing May’s deal, no deal or staying are all problems.
I was a firm advocate of leaving the then Common Market in the 1970s, embraced fully-fledged federalism in the 1990s but that was scuppered by the expansion of the EU to include countries in eastern and northern Europe. The federalist project has already divided Europe into a rich core and a poor periphery and it would be best to reconstruct the EU on a more sustainable basis. I voted Remain so the UK could contribute to that. Staying in the EU could enable the UK to use its political, economic and security weight to restart the European project.
My own view, on balance, is that asking the people to decide is right. It may be that this angers some people so much that the referendum repeats the instruction. It may be that it is rescinded. So be it. Debating the options respectfully is ideal but will be very difficult given the increasing polarisation of public opinion. I don’t care if it means a total realignment of politics in the UK with new parties. I do care that a new referendum on EU membership seeks to be candid, honest and inclusive. I’m afraid to say that there is fat chance of that happening.
Hyperbole is the way of politics now but we are in a true crisis – many political careers will be finished, the UK will not punch its weight in international affairs, living standards will fall, and business investors will go on strike until they see the end game. There are only least worst options according to taste. Brexit is one hell of a hangover and a new referendum seems the least worst way out of this historic conundrum but one that also carries huge risks.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.