Probably the biggest problem in writing about Brexit is that the second you finish, things change, but not definitively. Everything changes, but nothing changes. Seconds after finishing this, I read that after all four alternative versions of Theresa May's deal had been voted down (Tuesday 2nd April 2019), Labour's Yvette Cooper and the Tory's Sir Oliver Letwin had published a cross-party Bill to force the Prime Minister to table a motion to extend the 12th April Brexit date, with the intention that this be passed through all of its stages on Thursday 4th April. Where this leaves us is anyone's guess.
"Brexit means Brexit," said Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference back in 2016, and others have parroted the same truism or something similar such as "Leave means leave," regularly ever since the result of the EU Referendum was announced what seems like a lifetime ago but was, in fact, less than three years since. But what does Brexit means Brexit actually mean, apart from the obvious, that the UK will leave the EU? Well, despite the fact that if social media is anything to go by, every one of the 17.4 million people who voted leave knew exactly what they were voting for, very few of them can have known what they were going to get, as is evidenced by the fact that at the time of writing, no one knows the terms on which we will leave the EU, nor when, nor (possibly) even if we actually will. What most of the 17.4 million do know now, however, is that whatever deal is being proposed, it isn't what they voted for.
 |
| Theresa May - still looking for a Brexit solution. |
While Theresa May has been proving Einstein's theory of madness by bringing what is to all intents and purposes exactly the same deal to the Commons on three occasions (and possibly for a fourth) in the expectation of a different outcome each time, a series of indicative votes have seen defeat for every option - ranging from a customs union to a confirmatory public vote (not to be confused with a second referendum) - that has been tabled. Over six million people signed the online petition calling on the Government to revoke Article 50 (to no one's surprise, the Government responded by saying "This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union."
Anti-Brexit campaigners have held rallies, as have pro-Brexiteers, while Nigel Farage collected a rag-tag-and bobtail group to march from Sunderland to Westminster in support of his demands that the Government deliver his version of Brexit. While there is no doubting the sincerity of the protesters on each side of the divide, the one thing I cannot say I've seen happening, nor can I see happening, is the likelihood of large numbers on either side changing their mind. That goes for Parliament too, where the possibility of Theresa May getting sufficient support for her deal would most likely only come to pass if sufficient MPs changed their minds on the basis of what was in it for them, be that Mrs May's resignation, their own chances of becoming Prime Minister, or - on the other side of the house - the prospect of a General Election.
 |
| Farage's march...sans Faraga, of course. |
Assuming that sooner or later Mrs May is supplanted as leader of the Conservatives, her likely replacement will be either Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid. Gove and Johnson have not covered themselves in glory over the Vote Leave campaign's cheating during the run-up to the referendum, while Vote Leave's chair, former Labour MP Gisela Stuart has said the Vote Leave campaign cannot prove its innocence in an appeal about breaking electoral law - because it has destroyed all of the data. Regardless of any actual wrongdoing, I am surprised that nothing has been said about how the destruction of such data stands vis a vis data protection regulations.
So far as I can see, there is only one thing that the country is united about; everyone worries that their worst fears about Brexit will be realised. Obviously there are the 16.1 million who voted Remain who want no form of Brexit, but among those who voted Leave, those who favour a soft Brexit will dread the prospect of a hard one, while those in favour of leaving with no deal will be horrified by the prospect of a Norway style deal or Common Market 2.0 The chances are, that of the 33 million who voted in 2016, only a tiny minority are going to be happy with the terms on which the UK leaves the EU.
But, regardless of the terms under which the UK leaves, the influence of the EU will still be felt in this country, either by choice or diktat. Two stories in the Daily Express, a publication that has never flinched when it comes to criticising the EU, illustrate that even outside the union, the UK will probably never be free of its influence. Firstly, the EU is likely to enforce regulations to have all cars fitted with speed limiters from 2022. This aim, to reduce deaths on the roads, is one that few would argue against, and were the Conservatives to announce this as policy, the Express would be all for it; if proposed by Labour, it would be an example of the 'nanny state' trying to control us, but of course it is completely beyond the pale as it is an EU idea. Then there is daylight saving. A public consultation carried out in August 2018 saw more than 4.6 million people votes - the most ever received by the EU. According to wired.co.uk, it found that "84 per cent of respondents across 28 member states were in favour of putting an end to the bi-annual clock change." There are good reasons why daylight saving should be abolished (see https://www.wired.co.uk/article/daylight-saving-time-european-parliament-vote), but of course the Express sees this as Brussels imposing its will on the UK. As far as the Express, the Daily Mail, The Sun et al are concerned, any idea that the EU comes up with is barmy, or an imposition, even if it's a good idea, even if it is one they might support if put forward by someone else.
 |
| Ahh, but what Brexit did you vote for? |
The EU is not without its faults, that is clear, but influencing it, having it see the UK's point of view would be easier (not much easier, but somewhat) inside the union than outside it, and outside it the UK will retain many of the obligations that go with membership, whatever type of Brexit we end up with, while having sacrificed the majority of our rights. Despite the 29th March deadline for Brexit having passed, we could be out - deal or no deal - on 12th April, and once we are out, I have a feeling that the vast majority of people - whichever way they voted back in June 2016 - are going to be unhappy, largely because despite the assertion of many that they knew what they were voting for when they voted leave, it is probably not what they are going to get.
