It showed in their eyes the morning after; blank stares, looking into the distance and not knowing where their chosen path led. Muddled Johnson, driven Gove, they had won and suddenly realised that they could not keep their promises.
Only the demagogue Farage looked triumphant, knowing that he would not have to take responsibility. ‘UK independence day’ he celebrated, before going to the EU parliament to taunt his colleagues there and further fan the flames of an anti-UK fire. Thoroughly depressed that today’s people should contain a majority who bought the produce of such snake oil salesmen, I wrote that we still had a chance to overturn this referendum and rejoiced that Scotland and Northern Ireland at least had not voted to leave the EU. Our UK parliament is sovereign, I wrote.
And then the unforeseen consequences…Cameron, the weak and superficial prime minister, resigned; Johnson was knifed by Gove who in turn was rejected by his erstwhile colleagues; Farage left his party of malcontents and retired to draw his MEP’s salary in progressively more valuable euros; the taciturn Mrs May was appointed prime minister and in turn appointed a dubious triumvirate behind Brexit to cabinet positions. We began to realise the consequences of a Conservative commitment to a referendum intended to preserve the party rather than for the benefit of the nation. May made clear that she accepted, on our behalf, that the UK would leave the EU, that the people’s voice was final.
The money men looked at us and smiled. National chaos brings them opportunities. They saw the conspirators standing up in parliament in positions of power. Flaky Johnson, reinvented as foreign secretary, dubious Davis and foxy Fox in cabinet, with supporters like Rees Mogg and Cash applauding from the back benches. Listen to them. Could these be the people that the UK’s least advantaged and poorest had envisaged saving us from European tyranny?
The pound crashed, putting a stop to many people’s foreign holidays and making their already difficult lives more costly; the FTSE100 rose as speculators and big international businesses saw opportunities from the likely failure of small businesses; the well-off became better-off. The fall in the pound caused Britain to lose its position, much highlighted by the leavers, as the world’s fifth largest economy. Farage spent some of his euros to go to support Trump in USA.
The notably inflexible May stated, in the most meaningless definition ever uttered by a politician, that Brexit means Brexit. ‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ Foreign residents in England increasingly complained of abuse and assault in the streets. I remembered Jo Cox. Those of us who argued that the whole issue required parliamentary debate and a vote, or a general election, before making a decisive and irreversible decision were characterised by the media as remoaners.
Brexit means…what? Humpty Dumpty’s answer to Alice’s question was that the maker of the word was master, that the point was impenetrability, and in turn this meant that he had had enough of the subject. You will remember that this led to ‘Jabberwocky’ – how apt a parable! Is Johnson the Jabberwock, whiffling through the tulgey wood? Bandersnatch, Jubjub bird? At least the borrogove has been seen off.
Well, I for one haven’t had enough of the subject. As I wrote in June: ‘In putting us in the position we are in, in having a referendum to solve a difficulty in one political party without doing the classical risk assessment that the civil service once performed, our MPs and our disastrous prime minister have signally failed the United Kingdom. They should be given one last chance to show courage and reject the decision of the masses for the good of the nations that constitute it. History will be their judge’.
That disastrous prime minister has been followed by another who at a stroke challenged our constitution by concluding that a referendum compelled parliament to take a particular course of action, no matter how dangerous, no matter how small the majority, no matter how misleading the information conveyed to the electorate by the campaign (Turkish hoards, vast sums for the NHS, etc). Although only a small minority of British people are affected by immigration or even fear its consequences, this became the principal issue; few debated the economic effects until the predictions of the derided experts started to come true.
The country, divided down the middle in the vote, remained divided. The Conservative Party started to show its cracks, and a few brave souls stated what was obvious to many, that the result if pursued would lead to economic disaster, the break-up of the UK and, when the exit voters realised how they had been conned, even rioting in the streets.
It needs to be said that wisdom does not necessarily lie in the will of multitudes. Referenda tell us what people feel at that time about a particular issue, but (as anyone who has carried out research using a questionnaire knows) great care is required in framing the question to be asked, taking account of the level of understanding of those to be asked. It is right to pay attention to the result, particularly if the majority is very large, but that result should then be looked at by informed people in terms of possible consequences if implemented; that is, by our elected representatives.
Popular opinions are not necessarily morally or economically correct. Just think of the rise of Hitler. In our case a device to prevent damage to a political party by its extreme right-wing is leading to constitutional chaos and the likely end of the UK. Should this not be discussed, debated? Elections provide results that are enacted by constitution but can be reversed if disaster ensues; debate does not end, nor should it after a referendum.
It is quite wrong to accept this result as binding without debate, and very soon we shall see why. Until then, those of us who believe this heralds disaster should say so loudly. After all, there are at least 16 million of us, including Mrs May, who voted to remain. Let our MPs, MSPs and MEPs debate the consequences. There is an opportunity, if they work together, to defeat this right-wing take-over and vote out the so-called Great Repeal Act. We should let them know what we feel. It takes courage for them to speak out, but I remain hopeful.
Drawing of Boris Johnson by Bob Smith
By Anthony Seaton | October 2016