It is easy for those who wanted to stay in the EU and help lead it to feel disheartened. Most MPs who backed remain – from both the Tories and Labour – have run to the hills. The House of Commons, which used to have a large majority for remain, has now swung behind Brexit.
Meanwhile, Theresa May seems heading for hard Brexit. That’s not just because the three Brexiters in her cabinet – Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox – seem to want to pull us out of the single market. It’s also where the logic of the prime minister’s own position is driving her – even though she may not want it. This is because she is determined to end free movement of people and doing so seems incompatible with single market membership.
What’s more, even if May somehow managed to square that circle, could she really sign up to a deal that turned us from a rule-maker into a rule-taker? Even remain voters would baulk at that. We’d end up losing control, not taking control.
All these are certainly reasons to be worried. But the game isn’t over. With May saying she’ll trigger Article 50 by end-March 2017, there could still be two and a half years before we quit the EU. Two and a half years is a long time in politics.
Many of those who still want to stay in the EU feel cowed. They are told that the people have spoken and they should shut up. It is lonely and unpopular to say that we should stay.
But we should not allow ourselves to be silenced. Our voices need to be heard too. We must have the courage to come out of the closet.
But we must also do this without being militant. We must resist any temptation to attack those who voted Leave. We must not try to block the government from triggering Article 50. We must not wish that our economy will suffer or that the Brexit negotiations will end in disaster.
Rather, we must try to understand why a slim majority voted for Leave. Was it really because they hated Brussels? Or was it because they disliked a London metropolitan elite? Did they really against migrants? Or were they angry that the fruits of globalisation and free movement were not being shared fairly and that their communities were being left behind? Where their complaints are legitimate, we should help them secure their claims.
However, we can and should hold the leaders of the Leave camp to account for their lies and false promises. As Johnson et al try to wriggle out of pledges to axe payments to the EU and give the NHS £350 million a week, we must stay on their case.
We must also expose the contradictions, risks and absurdities of the government’s position. How will it avoid damaging the economy if it is intent on stopping free movement? How will it side-step border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? How will it stop the SNP pushing to break up our country? How will it prevent a decline in our global power just when the world is getting more dangerous.
Though we should not try to stop the government triggering Article 50, it must tell us its aims and let parliament debate and agree those goals before starting negotiations. And we must call for the talks to be as open as possible, so voters know what is being done in their name. It would be an affront to democracy for the government to conduct them behind closed doors, as Davis seems to want.
And if the Brexit deal May eventually produces is significantly different from what the Brexiters promised – as it most surely will be – we should push for a referendum on those terms. Giving people a chance to confirm then that they really want to quit would be right and democratic.
Hugo Dixon is co-founder of CommonGround as well as editor-in-chief of InFacts. You can sign up as a supporter here.
This piece was updated on October 2 after May announced she would trigger Article 50 by end-March 2017.
Hugo, This is a welcome rallying call but be we must be careful not to concede things in the name of sounding reasonable that should not be conceded, certainly not at this stage. A few short thoughts.
1. There is no reason to passively wave through Article 50 invocation without parliamentary approval or until Ms May has produced a credible plan.
2. The key reasons which decided a narrow majority to vote Leave are probably unknowable, endless debatable, not necessarily always irrational or reprehensible, almost certainly influenced to a significant, probably decisive extent by massive disinformation and deception, and grossly under-informed abou actual possible outcomes, their costs and their limited ability to satisfy leave voters’ desire and expectations. The key point now must surely be that neither Hard nor Soft Brexit are likely to command majority democratic support once the public knows what they mean.
3. It is vital to raise awareness that A50 invocation is not irrevocable – that the UK could very probably still pull out of the process, if the outcome looks manifestly worse than no change. We must not be bullied into timid fatalism! Remainers do not have to give up, either as of now or after A50, fighting for something better than a least worst Brexit.
4. It is extremely important to raise awareness of the body of powerful expert evidence that UK governments have had border control powers already available to them within the EU Freedom of Movement regime which they have chosen for various reasons to waive, ignore, deny or conceal. The possibility of satisfying core public concerns about population movement within existing Treaty arrangements ought to have received, and ought still to receive much more careful examination before committing the UK to a suicidal economic price for minimal real gain in terms of effective sovereignty or actual outcomes.
On point 3 I did a summary here. https://www.facebook.com/colin.gordon.714/posts/1121967071227046
On point 4 see the excellent brexit853 blog’s post: https://brexit853.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/fom-isnt-the-problem-the-problems-are-uk-governments-failure-to-implement-properly/
I am very pleased that In Facts is still there fighting for Britain in Europe. But there are two things that I can’t understand. (1) Why, when the Brexiteers have proved to be such a shower since 23 June, do they still seem to be calling all the shots? And (2) How do we impose a serious political cost on the Brexit MPs – rub their noses in their own shit, and make sure the public gets a good look? Your piece above is full of ‘we must’, but concrete suggestions for a very aggressive, very personal campaign against the leaders, not the followers, of Brexit would be most welcome. My MP is John Redwood. Best AK
“We must not try to block the government from triggering Article 50.”
Why the hell not?
Always remember that “the people have spoken” is a specious argument.
17.5 million voted out
16 million voted remain
13 million didn’t vote at all
17.5 million is NOT a majority.
I feel depressed, but not cowed. As I see it the referendum was an abuse of democracy and it was only ever about who controls the Tory Party. The hard-line Brexiteers, it appears, will not be happy until the country has completely turned its back on our European friends and neighbours. They seem to hanker after the days of Empire, and can only tolerate people from other cultures when they are lording it over them.
We must remember that 17 million plus voted leave …..
We must remember that ‘Any Actions’ taken as a reaction to that vote will effect
more than 65 million UK individuals and future generations as well….
We must remember that a much larger majority voted remain in the first referendum, the one with ‘less porkies being told’ ……
We must remember whatever happens to fully follow, due process in accordance with ALL the laws, rules and regulations of the UK ……
We must remember that whatever the final ‘outcome’, it will not only effect the UK, but will also effect the EU, the World and in fact the Whole of Humanity.
‘We’ should All aim to act wisely. – Nameste 🙂
I don’t think there is any point “banging on” asking what the plans are. Only an idiot shows his hand to the other side before start of play. I voted Remain but we are where we are. I trust May to get the best deal possible. She is clever, astute and has massive levels of experience and knowledge from being Home Secretary. I think we will end up with immigration “as required” and that trade will survive ultimately. And her appointment of Hammond and Green in their respective posts is a sign that the right wingers won’t rule the roost on the home front.
If 3.66% of leave voters wanted us to remain in the Single Market, then that would mean a majority wanting to retain access. If 3.66% of leave voters didn’t want to cut immigration levels, then that would mean a majority wanting the status quo.
The government is claiming to have a mandate which just doesn’t exist.
There are only two valid mandates they can claim:
1) In the referendum, a majority voted to leave the EU.
2) At the 2015 general election, they were voted into power with their manifesto promising retained access to the Single Market.
Even these involve ignoring the large numbers of non-voters, but that’s pretty standard in elections. The only mandate they could possible claim is for a soft Brexit.
I don’t think any democrat could object – on democratic grounds – to *parliament* triggering Article 50. However, I see no reason to accede to the idea that “we must not try to block the government from triggering Article 50”. To have Theresa May and the three Brexiteers invoke Article 50 without the consent of parliament, given such a marginal mandate, is a deeply undemocratic. Hence:
https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-should-decide/
(People’s Challenge to the Government on Art. 50: A Parliamentary Prerogative.)
The idea that a referendum result lets the government bypass parliament and as it increasingly appears, the devolved governments, sets a dangerous precedent for the ‘great repeal bill’. This will undoubtedly not receive anything like the necessary parliamentary scrutiny it should entail (as has been admitted by its proponents) simply because of the logistics of changing so much legislation, so fast. This will be a blank cheque for the Tories, via an army of high-paid consultants, to redraft the UK’s law to their liking, again largely bypassing parliament.
It’s not 100 days after Brexit! We are currently pre-Brexit, not post…