Brexit—take back control

We're being asked to pre-commit to a pig-in-a-poke Brexit. Here's how we can retain a free hand

by Jolyon Maugham / February 13, 2017 / Leave a comment

©Archimboldus, Doublebubble Rex/Shutterstock

Read more by Jolyon Maugham here

The marriage metaphor is apt. We have not yet taken even the first formal step. But already the decision to begin divorce proceedings with the European Union is clogged with past resentments, fears for the future, and the steady ambivalence that characterised the marriage. It was a finely balanced decision in June—and it remains a finely balanced decision now. The polls on support for “Leave” and “Remain” have barely shifted. But there is now pretty broad agreement that the time has come to trigger the separation.

So how do we make progress? The Remainers of 2016, and I am one, must start by putting aside expedient analyses of what the result of the referendum meant. It is true that it did not bind our parliament in law. But to make this point in isolation is to sidestep the democratic imperative of the result. We voted on whether to leave, and we collectively voted to leave. The fact this did not technically bind parliament does not imply that parliament can properly ignore it. And it is for this reason that I believe our parliament was in principle right to vote to trigger Article 50. And why, to answer a rather sharp question put to me by Al Jazeera, if I’d been an MP in a strongly “Remain” constituency, I hope I would nevertheless have had the courage to vote to do the same.

But putting aside expediency is something both sides need to do. The referendum left questions unanswered—and it simply denies reality to pretend otherwise. The ballot paper asked one question. No small print. And in asserting the right to read into the result what Brexit means, the government is the pallbearer claiming Grandpa would have wanted him to have the mahogany tallboy. The answering of the questions about precisely what the “Leave” vote means—profoundly important questions—is for our parliament. It is MPs who have a roving mandate from the people to answer them. Not a government whose manifesto was silent on them, being written before these questions pressed home.

Our parliamentarians knew this. They collectively could—and should—have demanded a meaningful role in shaping what Brexit means. That’s why we put them there. Why we pay their salaries and expenses. They owe us. But many lied to deny it. Others…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

21420569835d35a8b3968227.67881364

Go to comments

This plan for breaking the Brexit deadlock deserves serious consideration

Jolyon Maugham / February 19, 2019

The amendment prepared by MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson offers a much-needed compromise

Our representatives must now stand up and say “No, prime minister”

Helen Mountfield / February 25, 2019

Parliament cannot allow May’s false choice on Brexit to become the default

Share with friends

Comments

phil
February 13, 2017 at 15:09
sadly, whatever the outcome of the brexit negotiations post-A50, nothing will be achieved that will bring the country together. although it remains a close result, no attempt is being made by may's government to define & secure a middle ground between the two sides - the ideologically-pure wing of her party, spearheaded by the ERG (the european research group, who were incidentally leadsom backers during the leadership campaign) would never permit it & as she is no real agenda-setter herself either, she simply ends up sailing with the prevailing wind. that is why, as the new york times so aptly described it, brexit will be the rift that will keep on giving, for a long time to come.
Simon C.
February 13, 2017 at 15:25
I remain optimistic that the country will see sense and draw back. It is important that those who believe in the EU as a better future stay loyal to that belief.
Neil Mack
February 13, 2017 at 21:17
Pious nonsense. Remain sentiment is crumbling fast, with about two thirds of the country now actively supporting Leave. Pro EU politicians are hopelessly divided and looking around for alternative troughs. Understandably googling "Museum Directorships near me" has been popular in the last few weeks. One must hope that the wonderful, inspirational Marine Le Pen wins the Presidential election in France. It will make clearing away the wreckage of the EU so much quicker.
Nicolas H.
February 13, 2017 at 22:57
Even those who are now pro-Brexit should support the revocability of the article 50 notification. If, contrary to their expectations, we end up in two years time with a bad deal for the UK, and leaving with no deal also looks bad, would they prefer that we jump off the cliff anyway, or would they not like to have the option of changing their minds and remaining? The arrogance of their position is that most of them steadfastly refuse to recognise any possibility that they might turn out to have been wrong about what is in the best interests of the UK. Clearly there are those at the more extreme ends of the spectrum (either way) who are implacable, but the decision in a situation such as this will be made by the middle 10% ( those between 45% and 55%). A swing of 5% is all that it would take for a national change of mind. Let's make the final decision at the right time and without having to wear a blindfold.
David V
February 14, 2017 at 07:44
The article makes the assumption that A50 is revocable and that we can choose to take the final deal or not. Is it revocable though? Because if it isn't (and it looks like it isn't), then at the end of those 2 years, it won't matter whether we take the deal or not; the UK will be out of the EU regardless.
Brian Cave
February 16, 2017 at 07:54
Democratic? The people have voted? I was not allowed a vote because I have lived in France for 15+ years. I am 85 years old. My life is seriously affected by the result. As are the lives of many thousands of others - perhaps towards a million. The 16-18 year age group were not allowed a voice - Their lives are seriously affected. Democracy has not happened.
1. PAULA CLEMENTS
  February 27, 2017 at 13:40
  I am with you here and as an elderly person feel similarly disressed
Alison H.
February 20, 2017 at 09:19
I agree with most of what you say, although I can't agree with this: "The Remainers of 2016, and I am one, must start by putting aside expedient analyses of what the result of the referendum meant. It is true that it did not bind our parliament in law. But to make this point in isolation is to sidestep the democratic imperative of the result. We voted on whether to leave, and we collectively voted to leave. The fact this did not technically bind parliament does not imply that parliament can properly ignore it. And it is for this reason that I believe our parliament was in principle right to vote to trigger Article 50." This too closely follows the "will of the people" narrative - where the supposed "will" is a wafer-thin majority on an immensely complex set of issues, after a campaign laced with lies. I disagree that the law is purely a technicality - parliament has every right to examine every facet of Brexit closely, and if it considers that a shipwreck will be the result of Brexit, then it is madness for the nation to leave the safe harbour. There was no proper debate in parliament and the production of a thin white paper, only after the House had voted, was a joke. Yes the nation is divided - but speeding out of the harbour will not heal divisions, especially if the seas are wild. Once the ship is buffeted and broken, it may become impossible to head back to harbour, no matter what the outcome of your legal initiative to determine whether or not Brexit is revocable (don't get me wrong - I think the step you have taken to obtain clarity is necessary and shows great courage on your part). If it continues on its current course (with much associated anti-EU rhetoric) Britain risks destroying relationships with European countries that it has spent decades nurturing. The smashed remnants of a broken cup might be glued together, but they will never again be the cup they once were. I believe that parliament actually has a duty to examine Brexit very, very, closely. If it believes that the nation will benefit from leaving the EU, fine. Trigger Article 50. If not, then don't. At the very least, stay in the harbour until you check the seaworthiness of the vessel, monitor the weather forecast, look at the map, research the destination, and make sure there's plenty of petrol in the tank. After all, Britain has not taken leave of its senses - or has it?
Tony Hart
February 25, 2017 at 08:44
It is so easy to forecast that dreadful things will happen to UK, when it leaves EU! This is Cassandra! We suffer a large trade deficit and pay in £8.5 billion for that 'pleasure'. What else is at stake? EU is hardly likely to send our 3 million British residents home, when they spend probably some £20 billion in the EU. What we might do is set up a 28 member Council that meets once a quarter to determine how Europe should react to world events, using NATO and UN.
Stephen Goodridge
February 25, 2017 at 10:51
Why is it that Remainers so arrogantly assume they are right? They have no more idea than anyone else as to what the future holds. Western liberal capitalism has failed at least half the population. Has anyone crunched the numbers on the average net value and wage of those who voted remain? No, I'm sure they haven't. As Juncker recently stated the only way forward is to create the US of Europe. It is th ONLY way a single currency can work. However, I is a pipedream. The way forward for world peace is small independent states cooperating from a position of mutual dependence. The real reason for the Remainers point of view is the thought that the uneducated plebs got it right. What they need to do is go out, get a low paid job on the minimum wage and live in a run down part of town where every day you're making the decision to eat or heat. This is the reality for millions of people that the arrogant, wealthy, liberal elite have no concept of.
1. phil
  March 2, 2017 at 15:27
  exactly - what we need is some kind of supra-national organisation which ties us together with our close neighbours in order to make common cause and obtain strength through numbers and thereby avoid being at the mercy of overbearing superpowers. such an organisation would be sufficiently strong enough to resist unfettered corporatism and could achieve an overarching framework to support the environment, strengthen workers' rights and create common standards and regulations in order to minimise bureaucracy and costs, as well as ensuring that all member countries adhere to a minimum legal standard to reduce issues and disputes. oh, hang on . . . .