by
Les May
THERE
is a saying that ‘If
you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there’.
With
less than eleven weeks before we are scheduled to leave the European
Union (EU)
I don’t think that any of the major players, the European Research
Group (ERG),
Theresa May, those campaigning for a second referendum, the
MP(s)
trying to rescind the 29 March date or the
Labour party,
have
any clear
idea
where they want to end up or
how they are going to get there.
Having
a wish list isn’t the same as knowing how you are going to achieve
it.
For
the people who take the same line as the ERG
leaving the EU
is an end in itself. As if by magic the problem of the Irish border
will vanish. The transition to conducting trade with other countries
under World Trade Organisation (WTO)
rules will be seamless. Bi-lateral trade deals with other countries
will follow as surely as night follows day. We take a tough stance
with the EU
and the other 27 countries will be begging us to trade with them.
All these things may indeed come to pass, but I would like to see the
plan of how they are to be brought about. Until
I do I’ll accept the conclusion reached by Tony Blair, Nick Clegg
and Michael Heseltine that for those politicians who think that
leaving the EU is an end in itself it ‘would
provide the pretext they have always wanted for their programme of
extensive labour market deregulation and corporation tax cuts.’
For
two
and a half years Theresa May has
parroted
her
mantra
‘Brexit
means Brexit’.
At
no time has she given any sign that she was willing to listen to
anyone who had concerns about where we would end up following our
leaving the EU.
She’s
got deal, but it’s
really a fudge so
that she can say she ‘delivered
Brexit’. I
don’t think she has any clear idea of where the UK will be in two
years time or
a plan for getting there.
The Irish border problem is not simply going to vanish. With
a few days to go before the crucial vote in Parliament we hear that
she is scurrying round trying to get union leaders to pressure Labour
MPs to vote for her deal. And what has she to offer in return? A
reversal of the traditional Tory policy of ‘union bashing? I think
not.
The
individuals
who
seem to have thought least about where they want to
end up are those calling for a second referendum. I have already
written that I believe such a move would undermine faith in
parliamentary democracy. Parliament voted for the referendum in June
2016 with the result to be decided by a simple majority. This
produced a vote in favour of waving the EU, but not an overwhelming
one. For parliament to use this as a pretext for calling a second
referendum with
perhaps different rules seems to me improper. I voted to remain in
the EU, but I would struggle to square my conscience with even
casting a vote in a second referendum.
But
just in case I find
a way
to salve my conscience, I keep reminding myself that I can see
absolutely no evidence that the result would be any different than
last time. Although there’s a lot of noise coming from politicians
it
does not seem to figure in everyday conversations. In the absence of
evidence either way it’s an evens bet that the result will be the
same. Then what? We are back at square one, perhaps with
a bolstered and empowered ERG,
and facing
even more pressure for dropping out of the EU
immediately with
the consequences noted above.
That’s
an awful lot to risk on another throw of the dice.
The
former Attorney General Dominic Grieve is the MP behind the idea that
the 29 March date should be struck from previous legislation if
Theresa May’s ‘deal’
fails to be passed by MPs. As it stands this idea has a lot of
merit. There isn’t time to pass all the legislation which must
be passed before we can leave the EU.
It
would also give time to produce a clear plan of where we want to get
to in relations with the EU and the rest of the world, and how to get
there. Where
I disagree with Grieve is his call for a second referendum which I
think has no merit whatsoever.
Labour’s
position on the EU
is clearer than many people give credit. In
a long debate on the
impact on security of leaving the EU
the shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott said that in the 2016
referendum Labour campaigned
on ‘remain
and reform’
and in the 2017 election on honouring the result of the referendum
whilst being ‘committed
to a jobs-first Brexit that will not harm our economy’.
But of
course
that is a wish list, not a roadmap of how it is to be achieved.
If
as is anticipated Theresa May fails to get a majority for her ‘deal’
and
Labour
tables a vote of ‘No
Confidence’
which fails immediately or in
the
later vote to be held within 14 days, then
if Labour really is committed to
‘jobs-first Brexit that will not harm our economy’
it is going to have to come up with concrete proposals about how it
is going to get to that desirable
situation.
Simply saying it will renegotiate the present deal is to repeat
Theresa May’s mistake of not involving MPs
representing the wide spectrum of views about the EU which exists in
the present Parliament.
Views
on the EU,
and on leaving it, are so polarised that no way forward is going to
satisfy everyone. There is no perfect solution
which will honour the referendum vote, get
us out of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural
Policy, give
us the benefits of the single market, block immigration from the EU,
cease
payments to the EU
and resolve the issue of the Irish border, all
in one neat
package.
It
is time for MPs to tell the public that this is the case and that
some compromises will have to be made. I’d
like to think that Corbyn is the man to do this, but I’m not
holding my breath.
**************
Posts
