An historian's view of Brexit.

The many views on Brexit.

    When the dust has settled, historians will begin to study and debate what happened in the momentous years 2016 — 2019, when parties, elites, and families in Britain were torn apart by the question of whether or not to pull out of the European Union.

    The referendum forced us into two great camps: that of 'Leavers', and 'Remainers'. But in truth there are many little camps, all rather isolated from each other, and in many cases having little internal communication either. (In pubs and cafés, talking about Brexit is taboo for it is easy to cause offence; and pointless anyway, because it is impossible to sway minds. Apart from family and a handful of journalists and politicians, I know few who think as I do. I would love there to be a Remainer's café where I could hang out and discuss strategy.)

    Eventually a party will have to form, a coalescence of groups supporting a single course of action. In the meantime some think Brexit will make them better off, others think the opposite; some would cosy up to USA, others prefer Europe; some think that Britain can make better laws on its own, others that EU laws are better. 

    Let me try and define your particular group. Perhaps:

(1)  You wish to achieve maximum national and personal sovereignty, trading as and when circumstances allow, but contributing as little as possible to world peace, stability, or culture: "little Englanders".  (Perhaps Rees-Mogg?)

(2)  Or you want to "take back control", mistakenly believing that the European Court consistently or repeated over-ruled British laws (actually 72 times out of 34,000 and in those cases on good grounds http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf)

(3)  Perhaps you prefer an alignment with the USA, to one with the EU (dominated as it is by Germany and France), perhaps on the grounds that the USA and UK share a common language.

(4)  Perhaps you think Brexit will allow Britain to trade freely, and gain an advantage over others by lowering standards or loosening restrictions. (Perhaps David Davis?)

(5)  Perhaps you think that Brexit could be a ticket to leadership of the Tory party. (Perhaps Boris Johnson?)

(6)  Perhaps you acknowledge that Brexit looks bad commercially, but believe that it is the duty of Government to deliver a form of Brexit that few (or no-one) voted for. (Perhaps Thersesa May?)

(7)  Perhaps you think that Britain is not ready for the degree of monetary and political integration that is the trend in Brussels, but would nevertheless vote Remain to retain our present position at the European table. (Perhaps George Monbiot.)

(8)  Or you know about the Erasmus scheme and think that Britain benefits financially and culturally from the EU, and you welcome both the supply of labour from the East and the meticulous law-making of 'Benelux'.

(9)  Perhaps you voted remain because you see a united Europe as a potential superpower more akin to British tastes and interests than the combative, exploitative, and increasingly isolated USA. 

(10) There will be those who see Britain as being (for at least the last 1,000 years) consistently and essentially a part of Europe, sharing its history, culture, religion, fighting its wars, exchanging monarchs, migrants and refugees, skills, trades, diseases. Admittedly, this point of view might be restricted to those who speak Latin or two or more of the core European languages. But Kings William I to Henry IV spoke French, while George I & George II spoke German by choice, even if you did not know that; and most of our Kings had a European mother.

    If I have not grasped your position on Europe I would be most grateful if you would tell me, so I can add it to my list. 

--
Cawstein: cawstein@gmail.com 

Another Public Meeting on Brexit?

Another Public Meeting on Brexit?

Dear Tommy Gilchrist,

    Thank you (and Andrea Leadsom) for inviting me to attend your public meeting on 25th Jan. I would have come, but once again travelling abroad prevents me; I fly that morning. 

    Two years ago, I joined Varoufakis and advocated a Norway-style arrangement that would cost, but might last 10 years while we sorted things out. I still advocate that. 

    The next best option might be a second referendum, though there are arguments against.  Of the various sound reasons for avoiding (if possible) a second referendum (what of the cost? should we ask the public their views when they do not even know how the EU parliament is elected, nor its function? what if it has a different result on a smaller turnout?  what is the question? what about having a third, and a forth?), reaching from the sensible to the ludicrous, the one argument that is unacceptably illogical is to say that it is an offence against democracy and an insult to the public to ignore the first referendum. It IS democracy to have another referendum. We have all-but established that the public was both ill-informed and mis-informed at the 2016 referendum, and electoral rules were broken. Two years is a long time. Anyway, the 2016 was itself the second referendum on this topic. 

    The ‘May deal’ seems worse than the above two options. (The Irish problem is geometrically insoluble — a border between UK and EU, but not between Eire/NI/GB). And to sidle up to Europe for frictionless trade but with no say in the rules seems semi-daft. 

    The handling of this affair (both the enthusiastic widening of Europe, and the subsequent ill-informed panic) shows up the British Parliamentary system as weak. The Labour Party has spent 2 years manoeuvring to overthrow Tory austerity; they are neither united, nor interested in Brexit. There has still not been a debate in Parliament on the issues involved. Why? Fear of the result? And anyway, Parliament is not representative. 

    Yours sincerely, Cawstein

---

9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,

Petition to Rescind Article 50

Over 188,000 people have now signed a petition asking the Government to “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”. The Government replied to signatories as follows:

“The British people voted to leave the EU and the Government respects that decision. We have always been clear that as a matter of policy our notification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempt to stay in the EU.  The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act…....”

It is true that the referendum gave a small majority to the Leave campaign (a margin of 1.27 million in an electorate of 46.5 million), and it is understandable that the Government regards it as its duty to deliver Brexit. However, it seems to me that the person who framed the Government’s answer did not understand the complaint being made in the petition. It is being claimed that the 2016 referendum is flawed because the electoral law was broken.  There is no virtue in adhering rigorously to a flawed referendum. 

If it is proved that electoral law was broken, I would not (myself) ask for immediately reversal of the leaving process, but a pause; and a rethink of the possibility of a second referendum. A second referendum would be enormously expensive and unsettling. But it would in no way disregard or disparage the will of "the people”. The Government maintains that "the people" still want to leave the EU, as was the case in June 2016. Confirming that opinion would enormously strengthen the Government’s position. But reversing the result in a second referendum would suggest that the public had not been adequately informed in the lead up to the 2016 referendum. To suggest that this would lead to a succession of referenda is silly; a clash between the 2016 referendum and a 2018 referendum would only lead to a further referendum if it could be shown that the 2018 result was also flawed, like the 2016.

Yours sincerely, Ian West

---

Ian West

9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,

BANBURY, OX17 2NB,