France throws a spanner in the Brexit works making an imminent general election likely

Representatives of a joint Opposition temporary coalition should be sent to Brussels to begin unofficial discussion of means to delay, or implement on the surface only, ‘no-deal’ Brexit when Johnson has been ousted. This is a time for reflection rather than macho stances. Perhaps, such channels have already been opened.

The tenor of official negotiations from the British side over Brexit has, from even before the referendum took place, been excessively combative: Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ rather than measured application of diplomatic skills refined over centuries in Britain and mainland Europe.

The EU doesn’t want the UK to leave. A substantial proportion of the UK population either doesn’t wish to leave or desires amicable detachment from some EU institutions, possibly leading to arrangements like those with Norway and Switzerland. If either side is intent solely upon a short term advantageous ‘deal’, negotiations are merely crude haggling.

Fully leaving the EU is, in effect, major constitutional change for the UK. Individual’s citizenship of the EU would be revoked along with a number of associated benefits, entitlements, and legal rights/protections. Trade and commerce will step off a precipice into the unknown. Cultural ties will be disrupted.

From the British side ought be recognition of benefits from membership of the EU and desire to minimise adverse effects from withdrawal (to whatever degree). Whatever, the outcome it’s imperative the UK and EU retain a positive working relationship rather than a generation of rancour. The name of the game must be ‘give and take’ rather than nailing an opponent to the floor by extracting a short-term ‘best deal’ measured solely in monetary terms.

From inception the Brexit movement (Farage and his followers) was (deliberately) blinkered to make out ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ as the only outcomes. This was perpetuated in the wording of Cameron’s foolishly organised referendum. It has been latched upon by the odious Johnson in his attempt to propel the UK towards the USA and deeper entrenchment of neo-liberalism.

None of this needed to be, nor needs to be now.

Various interests in the UK (political, commercial, and individual) have expressed dissatisfaction with how the EU is organised and behaves. For instance, EU finances have yet to be signed off by the official auditor. The Commission appears to be a gravy train for politicians put out to pasture (e.g. Kinnoch). The Parliament seems ineffectual. High level corruption (e.g. by lobbying interests) is rife. The Eurozone looks set for collapse. A particular gripe is how the EU commissariat keeps pushing for greater political union.

A pile of concerns. Yet these are offset by advantages. Mitigating the former whilst retaining the latter is a much more sensible starting point. Indeed, EU institutional behaviour is subject to increasing criticism within some member nations. The UK no longer is alone in wanting reform. Given that membership of the EU provides so many benefits it would be hugely stupid if some members states detach themselves rather than first seek reform.

The present state of Brexit is so chaotic that parliament must pull the plug and revoke Article 50. There must be no rush toward further referenda until the full range of options concerning UK ties has been worked out (including costing and “What if?” analyses). Even should complete separation from the EU be deemed desirable it does not follow that it must be done all in one go. Incremental detachment from some EU institutions offers less danger of unanticipated upset to either party.

For example, the present, soon to be ditched, negotiations could have led to full customs union as an interim measure. When knock-on effects from other measures have settled then an orderly progression from customs union could be arranged. What is the urgency? It could be two or five years hence.

Whatever else, when it next comes to a referendum the Norwegian/Swiss arrangement must be one among other explicit options to be ranked. Moreover, 2/3 agreement on the ultimate choice (perhaps following further referenda to clarify options receiving substantial initial backing) together with pre-specified electoral turnout are essential for avoiding civil discord. Additionally it must be made clear that referenda are advisory but not binding on parliament.

Sadly, few people in high political office grasp the principles of change-management; most certainly not Johnson. Also, they too readily accept constraint imposed by the electoral cycle as excuse for short term planning. Parliament, and, such as it is, our constitution, have received a nasty shock. Perhaps in future, enlightened leaders of political parties represented in parliament will strive to find common ground on key issues concerning our polity and reserve disagreement for matters of deep principle. Of some urgency too is setting in motion steps toward a written constitution; in the meantime royal prerogatives, now known to be easily misused by despotic prime ministers, should be transferred to our Supreme Court.

—–

Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 international license (sic).