I spent election night at a party hosted by a bunch of organisations who had tasked themselves with blocking a hard Brexit, campaigning for a second referendum, and mobilising people to vote tactically to do so. Broadly supporting the sentiment behind all three endeavours but having contributed in a tangible way to none of them, I was already suffering from vague imposter syndrome which only got worse as the evening progressed.
As the exit polls predicted a hung Parliament, a huge cheer resounded through the room. “We did it!” everyone cried as they hugged each other and jumped up and down in excitement. “Did what?” I couldn’t help but wonder. We “Remoaners”—if the phrase can be used to describe someone like me, who is resigned to the outcome of the referendum, but not the fact that it gave an unequivocal mandate for one, hard, approach to accomplishing Brexit—were left with no more “stability and certainty” from the election than Theresa May herself.
On the one hand, the election result has opened the floor for the more moderate Conservative MPs to demand a softer Brexit. On the other hand, it removed some of the most outspoken moderates: of the 20 Conservative MPs who lost their seats, 13 had backed Remain. A potential leadership contest—with Brexiteers David Davis and Boris Johnson as frontrunners—would drive the party in the opposite direction.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party’s success could be attributed to so many things that it is impossible to have a coherent analysis of what this means for Brexit. Corbyn’s ambivalence on Brexit may have attracted UKIP voters, or his surge in support could equally have come from people who wanted a strong opposition to stand up to the Conservatives in Parliament. It remains to be seen whether the Labour Party can turn their election successes into a unified and effective vehicle to do scrutinise and challenge the Brexit negotiations.
So, what now? It seems to me that we have two options. The first would be to take the election result at lowest-common-denominator face value, proclaim we now have reverted to a two-party system, and look for ways to confirm this binary analysis: namely, through calling for another general election, ASAP, regardless of whether people want one or not.
The second is that recognise and harness the political uncertainty to shape a genuinely constructive, consultative Brexit, having learnt that no vote can ever really uncover the complexities of opinion and circumstance across the country nor provide a public mandate for a future Brexit deal that is as yet unchartered.
Here’s some thoughts on what this would look like.
The government should take leadership on its minority status by commencing an extended public consultation process on the sort of deal and negotiating process that people of all backgrounds, ages and political stripes would like to see. This need not hinder the commencement of negotiations, but should feed into further rounds of deliberations.
To account for the political behaviours of younger people, the process should be conducted online, for an extended period, and seek to encourage deliberative rather than binary decision making. One of the most interesting things about the general election is that tech finally came into its own, with apps on tactical voting and interpreting the manifestos crossing the line from political geekery into mainstream use. There will doubtless be plenty more of these types of innovation if the Brexit process is opened up to civic entrepreneurs.
This, in turn, should aim to address the woeful level of public understanding about the EU and the process of leaving it. We need better public discussion on the “seven degrees of economic integration,” and a reciprocal arrangement with the EU on transparency of the negotiating process to allow for “real-time” discussion of the options (although not in the same way that the press covered Cameron’s fateful trip to Brussels).
We also need open discussion of the economic benefits of immigration. It is worth pointing out that in two studies Common Vision conducted with Opinium in January and June of this year, reducing immigration fell consistently lower than public services, jobs, education and other priorities amongst all age groups. Going forward, we must consider how we safeguard the economic benefits of migration through the Brexit process, via innovative solutions such the regional immigration model exemplified in Canada (whereby localities can determine immigration numbers based on the specific needs of local labour markets).
In Parliament, there is more need than ever for a cross-party commission of MPs. Party divides seem even more incoherent given the multitude of explanations for general election voting patterns. This group—alongside others with a key representative stake, such as the Metro Mayors—should either be given a seat at the negotiating table in Europe, or, if that isn’t offered, take up a role as a strong and powerful force for scrutiny.
If it comes to another public vote, then this must be the outcome of a rational discussion on when and why this would be necessary. Yet another election at the wrong time would just cause electoral fatigue and make a mockery of the British democratic process, but perhaps another general election or a referendum when we have some defined options on the table for the deal with Europe would finally create the firm mandate that the Prime Minister wanted. If so, this process must be coupled with an unbiased public education process and open to 16 and 17-year-olds.
It is in no politician's interest to second guess the "will of the people". And in the year 2017, we don't have to. Uncertainty is an opportunity, as long as "Politics" doesn't get in the way.
