Originally, I was planning to write this column on the outcome of Brexit, and how it will change both the UK and the EU. However, the UK parliament has just had a chaotic series of votes on the issue, bordering on anarchy, meaning that we still don’t know the outcome. Parts of the government voted against itself, and government ministers, having just defended their own policies then immediately voted against them. The UK now finds itself in a sort of zombie-zone of not knowing where it will be in a day, a week, a month or a year. The UK may leave the EU with Mrs May’s deal, with another deal yet-to-be-devised (unlikely), or with no deal (alarmingly likely), and it could do any of these things within the next 14 days, next six months or in the next two years. Alternatively, the UK could stay in the EU, with or without going through another divisive referendum. In any case, there will be double-helpings of bitter-tasting humble-pie for all involved. No-one comes out of this process smelling the sweeter for it.
The situation sounds terrible, but in fact it is possible to take some comfort from the situation. Although for the wrong reasons (petty party politics), the UK population was asked a reasonable question - In or Out. It’s been a topic of heated debate for decades, after all and here was a change to ‘lance the boil.’ However, as we now know, the campaigns on both sides of the Leave/Remain divide were misguided, disingenuous, unlawful and/or corrupted. Despite this, there was a lot of discussion and most people took the question very seriously.
I get the feeling that there was a large element of ‘sticking it to the Man,’ in people’s decisions to vote to leave. There is still huge anger at how the bankers got away with nearly bankrupting Britain during the financial crisis, and how that has made everyone poorer during the age of austerity. MPs do not have a good reputation, and there was certainly an element of kicking the Westminster elite. There was also a strong whiff of jingoistic ‘Bulldog Britain’ about some of the voting. Nigel Farage said very clearly that leaving would make people poorer, but that it would be worth it. Perhaps voters felt themselves rich enough to take the hit.
Personally, I decided to vote Remain, but only on the basis that imperfect and unaccountable EU institutions could better be reformed from the inside than the outside. When Jean-Claude Juncker stated before the referendum that the EU would not be reformed, my heart sank. I had already made up my mind, but perhaps he helped to change the minds of others who were still sitting on the fence, away from Remain and towards Leave. The outcome was very close. Only 650,000 voters would have needed to change their minds for it to have been a tie. However, the vote went to the Leavers, and following the hasty and unlamented departure of the man who had set the process in motion, David Cameron, Mrs May stepped up to ‘deliver Brexit.’
Mrs May has, ever since, devoted her energies to following through on her promise. It’s useful to remember two things about Mrs May: she voted to Remain, and she was Home Secretary (in charge of immigration, among other things) for six years in the run-up to the referendum. She knows how strongly many of the British populace feel about immigrants (despite being, literally, all immigrants themselves if you take it far back enough). She is said to be driven by two prime directives: delivering Brexit and not splitting the Conservative Party. ‘Prime directives’ might be an apt phrase: she has been compared to an unbending automaton many times, and her incessant and unimaginative mantra of ‘Strong and stable government’ during her ill-fated election campaign of 2017, which slashed her majority and led to the current impasse, has led to her being labelled ‘The Maybot.’
That election of 2017 gave Mrs May a reality check. Rather than giving her a strong mandate to push through a hard Brexit, the election ended with her having to scrabble for votes, and doing a deal with an obscure hard-line party to get her proposed laws passed. She could no longer steamroller Brexit and it was one of the most spectacular shots-in-the-foot of British political history. Mainly because of that numerological weakness, Parliament is functioning as it is supposed to, allowing a thorough testing of alternative ideas before the correct solution is decided upon. There has been no violence, no rioting. Hopefully, sense will prevail and the well-paid politicians will finally do their jobs and come to a sensible conclusion. Until then, life goes on. Many in Britain seem resigned to a no-deal Brexit, and many would welcome it, disruption or not.
One point has emerged with some clarity from the UK’s shambolic approach to leaving the EU: If any other country would like to try doing the same, then they are strongly advised to come up with a well-thought-through plan, which is acceptable to the EU, before trying to persuade the populace to vote for it. Otherwise, you may end up with your own version of the ‘Brexit omnishambles.’
