Brexit: predictably chaotic, and predictably never likely to happen

global britain vision
Brexiteers present their youthful, joyous, diverse, multicultural and dynamic vision for the UK

The day-to-day politics of Brexit are wildly unpredictable and volatile. But the bigger picture is one that has long been predictable. Back in 2016, shortly after the referendum, I argued that Brexit was a long game that would result in Brexit not happening. Nothing since then has substantially altered my view. Theresa May, with uncharacteristic clarity, has outlined the three options that remain viable: her deal, no deal, and no Brexit. The very warm favourite has to be no Brexit.

May’s deal is simply a bad deal. This is not surprising, since there was never a good deal to be had—something that has been obvious since the referendum itself to anyone with reason and sense. The pursuit of a deal was always about mitigating the considerable downsides to leaving the EU; the idea that the UK could retain all the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities and inconveniences was something the average child (if not the average Brexiteer) could understand was impossible. Those Brexiteers who maintained that it would be straightforward to secure a good deal are fantasists or stupid (or both).

The best negotiators in the world would have failed to succeed given the various incompatible goals of a good deal and the heavily disadvantageous negotiating context: frictionless trade; no hard border in Ireland; an end to free movement; holding the Union together; the ability to make independent trade deals; the high-wire parliamentary arithmetic; the uneven playing field of one country of 60 million people negotiating with a block of 27 countries of 450 million people.

And the UK ran the project of negotiating Brexit with all the skill, organization and experience of a losing team on The Apprentice. In addition to having no obvious negotiating plan, the UK seemed to treat Brexit as if it was hiring a sitcom cast rather than a team of crack negotiators: the doggedly unimaginative and incompetent Theresa May, the self-important Dominic Raab, extremist unicorn-chasers like Steve Baker and Suella Braverman, and (the crowning ignominy of it all) the delusional, workshy, inflated ego that is David Davis (in a fiercely competitive field, possibly the most overrated politician of our time). Passing mention also has to be made to the idiotically unhelpful contributions occasionally made by various senior figures, such as Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt.

Given all that, and given her own mantra that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, it’s a minor miracle that May reached any sort of draft agreement. Of course, her mantra was, like much of her Brexit rhetoric, simply fluff that she didn’t believe in. She was always going to cobble some sort of deal, because the alternative would have been a personal disaster. And so she has now pivoted, arguing that this is the best the UK can get (which is probably true), and that parliament should ratify it because the UK needs some sort of deal—all of which is just another way of saying that ‘a bad deal is better than no deal’. A further argument for her deal has been made: in its series of compromises, it is the deal that best reflects the 52:48 referendum divide. Superficially, this has some truth. But if a popular vote revealed a 52:48 split over whether the England football team should play in red or white, and it was decided that a pink strip was an acceptable compromise, then the outcome is one that satisfies nobody’s wishes. So it is with May’s deal.

This was always the likely outcome. It is tempting on all sides to point out May’s failings as prime minister—she is badly out of her depth in the role, and, for all her evident ability to cling on grimly to her position, she is an astonishingly limited leader, singularly incapable of building bridges and uniting factions (except, perhaps, against her). But I doubt a less incompetent prime minister would have achieved much more in the negotiations; although such a prime minister might have gone about things with less overpromising of success, less grandstanding about her toughness and resolve, and less spinelessness in the face of Brextremist demands, and with more imaginative and quiet exploration of how to bring together moderates to find solutions.

Parliament should refuse to ratify the deal, and in all likelihood that is what it will do. That will lead to a crisis—and how that will play out is uncertain (my best guess is that May will resign or be forced out, which will make for entertaining drama but resolve nothing). A parliamentary defeat of May’s deal will also simplify matters by removing from the table one of the three options (not least because there is no prospect of the EU renegotiating the deal), so that we will be left with two: no deal, or no Brexit.

Being left with those two options means that the choice will be between the only two coherent positions there have ever been on Brexit. May’s deal was always going to be incoherent, because it is manifestly worse than the current position of full membership of the EU, yet it also fails to deliver most of what the Brexiteers want. No Brexit (or Remain) is self-evidently rationally coherent, since it ensures the continuation of what has been a mutually beneficial and prosperous relationship that cannot be replicated in any other way. No deal (or hard Brexit) has little rational coherence, but it clearly has an emotional, perhaps even romantic, coherence: if you’re going to leave the EU, then, as Boris Johnson might say, ‘fuck business’ and sense, wax lyrical about independence and global Britain and believing in ourselves as a nation, dream of glories past and fantastic futures, and take a mad but exciting punt. It’s a crazy argument that will almost certainly lead to disaster, but I can see how it appeals to the dreamers who care little for facts or reality.

Although parliament has more than its share of dim and deranged members (how people like Philip Davies, Andrew Bridgen, Nadine Dorries and Andrea Jenkyn actually get elected is one of the great political mysteries of our age), it is almost inconceivable that, faced with the prospect of no deal, it will fail to act. A general election is unlikely—and it is even more unlikely that it would solve anything anyway. Renegotiating isn’t going to happen, and the EU will not extend Article 50—unless there is the prospect of a second referendum. Another referendum will be pretty much the only option left on the table to prevent a catastrophic hard Brexit. And since there is no majority among MPs for a hard Brexit, it is a referendum that they will, in effect, be forced to go for. Referendums are not a good way of conducting politics; but when the situation is such that the only viable way out of a problem is a referendum (and the gridlock in parliament is such that it is hard to see any other parliamentary solution), then needs must.

As a Remainer, I’ll be delighted with another referendum. It was always going to require another vote to reverse Brexit. And it was always likely that we’d have to stare into the abyss of a hard Brexit and realize how insane any sort of Brexit is before the nation as a whole would seriously begin thinking about how to pull back from the edge. Voting down May’s deal, despite the immediate prospect of no deal at all being in place, is therefore an acceptable risk. Of course, a second referendum may deliver another victory for Leave; and a victory for Remain is not suddenly going to end the divisions (but a referendum will not create divisions, it will simply reveal them). But for Remainers and Brexiteers alike, the political impasse is such that a referendum is the best chance for either to get the outcome they want.

Reversing Brexit was never going to be easy or risk-free; but for those willing to play the long game, it has always been doable. If Brexit was a two-legged football match, then we’d just be about to finish the first leg with the Brexiteers 1-0 up, having scored in the opening minute and, with increasing desperation, clung to their advantage since then. The second leg will begin soon, and for Remainers there is still all to play for.

 

Advertisements

Incompetence, lies, electoral fraud and the case for a second Brexit referendum

Incompetence, lies and electoral fraud: these are the foundations of the most important political decision in modern British history. Brexit exposes the shocking state of British democracy and a political system in crisis. The EU is not without its faults and democratic deficits—even as a Remainer I acknowledged that it would benefit from reforms—but they are minor by comparison with the problems in British politics. Unless remedial democratic action is taken quickly, then we will have bequeathed to future generations not only the disastrous economic decision of leaving the single market and customs union, but also a political system that may be irreparably damaged.

David Cameron’s gamble of staking the future of the country to resolve a narrow party issue was the first act of incompetence; the terms of the referendum (a straightforward in/out decision with little detail about what leaving the EU means) was the second; and Cameron’s misjudged negative campaign to persuade people to vote Remain was the third. Since then, incompetent leadership has characterized British politics. Is Theresa May incompetent? It is hard to say, since she was dealt an impossible hand, has fought a daily battle for survival, and may have been playing a long game as best she could—but she has certainly made some terrible decisions (triggering Article 50 without a plan, and calling an unnecessary general election being the outstanding ones). What is hard to argue with, however, is that collectively the government (the Cabinet and ministers) is the most incompetent in living memory. For two years now, Britain has had to endure a government lacking in discipline, sense and responsibility.

Such political incompetence has enabled a culture of lies, fraud and criminality. There were lies and exaggerations on both sides of the referendum debate, but outrageous mendacity especially underpinned the Leave campaign (false claims about the money that would be available to the NHS; lies about immigration); Brexiteers have subsequently run with these lies, until such point that some of them actually believe them. Brexiteers are either liars or fantasists; either way, they have systematically infected British political culture with their distortions, exaggerations and untruths in the service of their narrow (and often self-serving) ideological agenda.

Many would argue that an objective achieved through lying is not one worth achieving. Almost everyone would argue that an objective achieved through fraud and criminality is one that should be disqualified. We now know that the Leave campaign broke electoral law: it cheated, and it did so in a criminal way. In effect, the Leave campaign committed financial doping: it spent far more than it was entitled to spend (and then fraudulently tried to cover this up). Would Leave have won the referendum had they played by the rules? The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question whether Ben Johnson would have won Olympic gold in 1988 had he not been doping: we cannot be sure, but we can be sure that he gained a significant advantage over his fellow athletes. In almost every area of life (sport and employment, for example) cheating results in automatic disqualification. Yet in British politics it seems that many are asking us simply to shrug our shoulders and ignore financial doping and electoral fraud.

For unscrupulous figures such as Arron Banks, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, lies and cheating are merely clever tactics to get what one wants—they are acceptable means to an end. Banks, indeed, seems to revel in his use of nefarious methods (“we were just cleverer than the regulators and politicians” he has boasted in an interview in which he brazenly admits breaking spending rules and lies about the number of times he met the Russian ambassador). That so much of the media and political establishment has been willing to indulge this political culture—turning a blind eye to it; sometimes even celebrating it—indicates the sick state of British politics. When few in parliament seem to treat the matter with much urgency, and most of the media prefer indulging in virulent 1930s-style headlines (labelling opponents of Brexit as traitors and saboteurs, and demanding that they be crushed), then we have a democracy in peril.

The rational case for a second referendum is surely overwhelming. We now know far more about the illegal methods the Leave campaign used to win the referendum, and we also know far more about what Brexit might mean and the options open to the UK—a second referendum would surely involve a more informed debate than the first one did. Brexit may one day happen (I hope, of course, it does not, but politics can change); but it should certainly not proceed on its current basis. At the very least, the issue needs to be opened up to wider democratic debate, and there should be an opportunity to reconsider the issue—and one founded on principles of democratic rules, fairness and rationality, rather than on lies and fraud.

Might there be a second referendum? We currently have an appalling combination of an incompetent government, a feeble opposition, an unimpressive parliament (barring a few figures such as Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and Chuka Umunna) and an unscrupulous popular media. One should not, therefore, have high hopes for a second referendum. On the other hand, there are signs that even incompetent politicians are becoming aware of the potential disaster of Brexit, and that they are fudging their way towards parking it in something like a Norway option. Perhaps they will somehow fumble their way towards the realization that, given the perils of Brexit and the fact that we are where we are due to Brexiteer lies and fraud, a second referendum is the only reasonable, fair and sensible choice. Otherwise, economically, politically and socially damaged future generations may well ask why our generation allowed incompetence, lies and criminality to determine their lives.