Seemingly, the matter is straightforward – the will of the nation
expressed in the referendum in June 2016 has to be brought into life. What
makes things complicated is that the quitting procedure is unprecedented. A
600-page-long agreement has been negotiated with the EU, just the British
parliament has not made up its (collective mind) to back it; deputies keep
arguing for weeks being stuck in a gridlock, leaving bystanders around the
world confused.
The most mind-boggling part of the story is that as Brexit date was
inexorably approaching (before it was deferred by two weeks mere eight days ahead
of deadline) and the no-deal option was looming, few were outspokenly fearing
dismay. Some regulations governing air traffic, transport of goods and people
as well labour market have been enacted, yet, correct me if I am wrong, everyone
potentially harmed by the Brexit has seemed to have been taking it for granted
the no-deal, chaotic scheme would be averted. No-deal Brexit, if it was to come
about as scheduled, i.e. on 29 March 2019, would strike as a bolt from the
blue.
The fortnight given mercifully by the EU to the UK to get its act
together only prolongs the period of wreckful uncertainty. In the meantime, the
concession from the EU has ignited a glimmer of hope among Brexit opponents. A
petition for another referendum has been signed online by nearly five millions,
around a million of people were reported to march yesterday in London, calling for revoking Brexit. Personally I hope firstly that the UK would reserve on its way
towards independence from the EU structures, secondly that the travesty called
Brexit will teach other nations a lesson, what reckless decisions preceded by flawed cost-and-benefit analysis lead to.
The result of the Brexit referendum, just like the victory of Donald
Trump several months later or victory of PiS in parliamentary election in Poland
several months earlier prove… (here I deliberately shut up, however comments
containing ending of the sentence are appreciated).
1 comment:
The essential problem is that the Brexiteers militating to leave the EU had two entirely different and incompatible visions.
One lot want a hard Brexit, without any deal, Leave Means Leave. No financial settlement. Out of the single market, out of the Customs Union.
The other lot want an orderly Brexit, 'taking back control' yet paying €50 billion to the EU, keeping some access to European markets, yet relinquishing any future say in how that market is to be regulated.
Then the hard Brexiteers are split between those who want a neo-liberal economy, scrap workers' rights, health and safety and environmental protection, let in chlorinated chicken from the UK, and let US corporation buy choice bits of the National Health Service, lower taxes to tax-haven levels... and yet keep the door open to immigrants (to keep wages down). The other lot of hard Brexiteers want NO IMMIGRUNT'S, NO FORRINER'S TELLING US WOT TO DO, £350 MILLION A WEEK TO THE NHS (BUT NO DARKIE DOCTOR'S), NO BENDY BANANA'S (OR IS IT STRATE BANANA'S I CA'NT REMEMBER).
The soft Brexiteers want a rational Brexit that delivers on the referendum promise to leave the EU, but without causing incalculable damage to the economy. However, this fails to square the circle. Very few members of the British public want the Withdrawal Agreement deal that May negotiated.
So with the Leavers split, there is no majority for any way forward.
Hard Brexiteers number no more than about 70-75 MPs (ERG Tories + DUP).
Revoke Article 50/ People's Vote MPs - probably around 200 now.
Supporters of May's Deal - probably around 200 now.
Lexiteers (Labour MPs wanting to leave the EU, but believing they'd negotiate a better deal with the EU than the Tories) around 140.
Impasse! You need 321 for a Parliamentary majority!
Post a Comment