Not yet a week has passed since the electorate of the UK narrowly voted in favour of leaving the EU. It is less than clear that they knew exactly what they were hoping to leave or why. Two themes that emerged during the campaign were a claim that the UK ships £350 million a week to Brussels (presumably, one of the famous cash mountains…) and that by “taking control” of her borders, the UK could control migration which was placing an intolerable burden on the NHS; housing; education and forcing wages down by making Brits compete with “cheap” EU workers for what are plainly British jobs. This is, and always was, nonsense.
The claim about the size of UK payments to the EU was hotly contested and now Nigel Farage (UKIP leader) has distanced himself from the claim. It also emerges that the Leave team do not expect to be able to funnel the cash to the NHS. They also appear to be backing away from the claim that immigration to the UK can be controlled post-Brexit – so it would seem that many who voted for Leave have been hoodwinked. There has been an upswing in racist attacks and vandalism against immigrants (both from the EU and from ethnic minorities from the rest of the world) as the scum of British society seems to believe that the vote gives them carte blanche (but I’d have to explain what that means to them first, of course) to exercise their narrow minded hatred against sectors of society that they perceive to be different. Britain is an island and even if it had signed up to Schengen (which it didn’t), it could never have open borders in the sense that her European partners have. The UK border has always been controlled and the state can and does prevent unwanted individuals from entering, so this concern was also bogus.
Cheerleader-in-chief for Leave, Boris Johnson, has done nothing but make placating noises ever since the vote, claiming that the nation is not turning its back on Europe and will continue to have access to the single market. This would mean that the UK must continue to accept free movement of people and join EFTA which involves compliance with all EU trade directives and payment of dues to the EU. This is the status quo, except that currently, as a full member of the EU, Britain does have a veto in substantive matters and can influence legislation and decision making. It also has representation to the European parliament and British staff working within the EU Commission and EU bodies. It makes no sense at all for the UK to adopt this stance. It seems to me that Mr Johnson’s intent was to fight a brave fight for Leave, narrowly losing, and increase his public exposure and gravitas in a bid to become leader of the Conservative party – by screwing this up and winning, he has place the nation’s economic fortunes in grave danger.
The position of the political mainstream is that the electorate has spoken and so we must leave the EU, but this should not be at all costs. The parliament is there to act in the country’s best interests and exercise their own judgment. One hopes that any post Brexit future will be compared to the situation if we remain, set out clearly and starkly and, if needed, be presented to the electorate again to verify that it is really the course that the United Kingdom wishes to pursue. To do anything less would surely be the gravest dereliction of duty by our elected representatives.
Currently, Britain is in the EU and remains so until two years after it triggers Article 50 which signals its intent to leave the organisation. No other nation, or grouping of nations can force the UK out, but our partners have the right to clarity from the UK. The British people have the right to fully understand what the reality of being an ex-member of the world’s largest trading bloc will mean for them and this nation’s future.