The attempts by the PM and those
around him to play up the possibility of riot and disorder unless the
UK leaves the EU on 31st October are clearly entirely
deliberate. Making anger more widespread
and turning it into street action is an unconventional ploy to say the least,
and one which is potentially very dangerous.
But the way that they are now framing Brexit no longer has anything to
do with the supposed benefits, and everything to do with the alleged
frustration of democracy. And I can
understand why people will be angry that having been asked to vote on something
and having given their opinion, the promised outcome has not yet been delivered. A degree of anger is justified, but things
are more complicated than that. (And it
isn’t one-sided either – Remainers are also entitled to feel a sense of anger
that the result was, in any event, achieved on the basis of a false prospectus,
something which would be illegal when selling anything other than politics.)
What exactly are they angry about? It’s true that the majority (a minority of
the electorate, for sure, but under the rules of the game, a majority of those
voting is what counts) voted to leave the EU, but there was nothing on the
ballot paper which defined either how or when the UK would leave. Those questions were implicitly left to
parliament to decide, and to date parliament has been unable to reach an
agreement on them. In that regard,
parliament is simply a reflection of the wider populace – there is no consensus
about the how or the when. Anger expressed
as being about ‘denial of democracy’ is really anger about the refusal of the
majority to accept that the minority have the right to determine answers to questions about timing and method which the referendum didn’t even ask.
In terms of who is to blame for parliament’s
failure to agree, well, like everything else associated with Brexit, the buck
ultimately stops with the Conservative Party.
Had Theresa May made any attempt to seek consensus around a Brexit
negotiating position at the start of her premiership, I rather suspect that the
UK would have left by now, on the sort of terms which the Brexiteers themselves
talked about during the referendum campaign, i.e. a close relationship probably
involving continued participation in the single market and Customs Union whilst
being outside the political structures. The
Tory extremists would have voted against, of course; but if such a path had
been adopted in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, enough opposition
MPs would probably have felt bound by the referendum to deliver such an
outcome. She decided, however, that
maintaining the unity of her party was more important and laid down a series of
red lines which stemmed primarily from that consideration rather than from the
result of the referendum per se. From
that point on, whether Brexit would be delivered or not depended entirely on
her ability to convince her own side and, as we’ve seen, depending on Theresa
May’s ability to do something isn’t exactly a recipe for success.
Part of the dishonesty of the current PM
and his government is that they are seeking to blame the opposition, the
judges, the EU – anyone and everyone except the real culprit here, namely a
disunited governing party. And in the
process, they are diverting the anger away from those who made a sensible
Brexit (to the extent that there is such a thing) impossible, and on to those
who would have been willing to deliver a more consensual outcome.
There is another element to the dishonesty
as well, which is the assumption that anger is to be found only on one side of
the debate. Unless they are arguing that
Leave supporters are uniquely prone to anger and to expressing that anger
through violence (which would be quite an admission in itself), their talk of
riots and disorder ignores the possibility that the same degree of anger could
end up being expressed by the other side if some of the worst scenarios arise. What makes them think that some people’s anger
at having their votes ‘stolen’ from them would be greater than other people’s
anger at not being able to get medicines, losing their jobs and incomes, or
losing future opportunities? Implicit in
their current approach is the idea that one sort of anger from one side in the
debate has more legitimacy that any other sort of anger and is more likely to
be expressed in street violence. That
latter part is in serious danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy,
especially when whipped up by wild talk from irresponsible politicians.
There’s another disturbing aspect to this
as well. Even supposing that Leavers’
anger is more justified than that of Remainers, and even supposing that
Leavers’ anger is more likely to be expressed violently (both of which are core
to the threats emanating from Downing Street), when did it become a tenet of UK
politics that the politicians must do what the mob demand, when they demand it? Yet that’s what threats of riots and disorder
amount to.
Stripping aside the rhetoric, the
situation in which we find ourselves is remarkably simple to understand. A majority voted to leave but left parliament
to determine the date and terms of that departure. Parliament has so far agreed three different
dates but has been utterly unable to agree the terms. The solution to that quandary isn’t to call
for riots, it is either to elect a new parliament or else to hold another vote. The first of those looks unlikely to resolve
much (a hung parliament remains far and away the likeliest outcome), but either
is easily achievable. However, both
require a delay in the departure date.
The real obstacles to progress on either are an obstinate PM who refuses
to contemplate any delay and a divided opposition, some of whom seem to be more
concerned about which individual should become temporary PM than about resolving
the issue. That's where the anger - on both sides - should more properly be directed.
Posts
