What’s all this about more debate?

Here’s where my “remain” friends (and most of my friends voted remain) and me probably part company. I suspect most of them have been spluttering over their cornflakes and muttering darkly at TV news bulletins of late, because of the latest shenanigans at Westminster. And I understand why. They voted remain in the EU referendum (as did I) because they thought it was right and sensible. Probably, like me, they did not vote remain because the EU filled them with unalloyed joy (discussed further here). It’s a human institution with all the faults and flaws of any human institution (and a few extra ones to boot). But it made political sense to stay in, on the basis that many of the problems we face don’t respect borders and are better tackled as part of a larger political block. It made economic sense because the states of the EU form our largest and nearest market. Indeed the single market is as much a British construction as it is a European one. I could go on. But I won’t (at least not about all the reasons for voting remain). Leaving, they genuinely believed then and now, was and is madness. Leaving with “no deal” they regard as tantamount to national self-harm on an epic scale. I’m not sure I would put it that strongly. Time will, unfortunately, probably tell.

Their anger over Boris’ latest wheeze is genuine too. I have no reason to believe anything else. They see him as using illegitimate (if not strictly illegal) tactics to thwart the attempts of his Brexit opponents to scupper a “no deal” Brexit. Some, I have no doubt, think that the proroguing of Parliament is antidemocratic because it will deny the people’s representatives the opportunity to scrutinise the intentions and actions of the Executive. And with some justification they will point out that during the recent Conservative election campaign, Boris and a number of his current cabinet colleagues, sought to pacify moderate elements in the Conservative selectorate and garner votes by implying that they would not do what they have essentially just done. These various views are shared by a very large number of people. Last time I looked, well over 1.6M had signed a petition against proroguing Parliament. Polls suggest that there is currently a majority of that view by some margin. And there have been protests in many UK towns and cities.

As far as the proroguing issue goes, here’s my problem with those who have a problem. Their basic case seems to be that this is a manoeuvre to deny Parliament the opportunity to debate the issues around leaving the EU, particularly those raised by leaving without an agreement – the no deal scenario. But exactly what is there to debate that hasn’t been fully aired over the last three years? Who is there left in Parliament (or the country for that matter) that lacks the information required to form a view? The result of the referendum itself and how it should be responded to has been discussed to death. Early on the idea was floated that Parliament should simply refuse to act on what technically was an advisory vote. This was rejected. The overwhelming majority were clear that the result had to be honoured. Most MPs in 2016, and in the post 2017 House of Commons voted remain, and a minority of them have never reconciled themselves to the idea of leaving the EU. This I understand. But then, why did they vote 6-to-1 to put what was a complex and nuanced decision to the people in a binary referendum in the first place? Yes, David Cameron pushed the issue of a referendum for relatively selfish political and party management reasons. But he was aided and abetted by the political class as a whole, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Greens and others. They all abrogated their responsibilities are all guilty for the resulting chaos.The historians can argue about how the guilt should be precisely divided up when the dust has settled.

Post referendum, and post Cameron, we had a general election. There were pro-EU membership/anti-Brexit options on the ballot paper in the form of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and occasional others. But these were decisively rejected. We saw the return (although perhaps temporarily) of two-party politics.  Of those two main parties, both made clear they would seek a negotiated withdrawal from the EU, so honouring the referendum result. Labour went further. They were specific in their rejection of no-deal, and said they would reject it as an option if they formed the government. The election was a close run thing, but Labour didn’t form the government because the Conservatives got more votes (although a relatively small win in terms of votes cast was then magnified by parliamentary arithmetic). But the options were there.

It is the no deal issue that has galvanised many of my remain friends, petition signers, press and politicians on all sides. It is presumably no deal, so the argument goes, that won’t be scrutinised and debated if Boris gets away with prorogation. But hang on, specifically this issue has been the subject of debate for months. It has been voted on in the Commons. Parliamentary skulduggery has even been resorted to by the opponents of no deal, with active support from the Speaker of the Commons. It’s not just Boris and his acolytes who can dive through gaps in our unwritten constitution. The debate has produced more heat than light and precious little agreement. Some insist that no deal will be an unmitigated disaster, others see it as the ideal clean break with the EU. Most are probably somewhere between these extremes. But the notion that it has not been debated, or that further debate is going to make any difference is not sustainable.

I have no idea precisely what the effect of a no deal Brexit will be. I am sure that there will be disruption. There will be costs. I don’t really see where there will be benefits. Will it be a disaster on the scale of war or famine or plague? Probably (hopefully) not. But this was always one of the possible ways of exiting the EU. It was also always one of the potential outcomes of the Article 50 process that Parliament voted, overwhelmingly, to trigger. In the referendum campaign, we were warned about the potential hit to the economy and jobs if we decided to leave. I found the warnings plausible, many did not. Some may or may not have been persuaded by the fantasy promises of the various out campaigns. But with all of that ringing in our ears a majority of my fellow citizens voted to leave the EU. We’ve now had three further years of debate. There’s no evidence of mass buyer’s remorse or that another referendum would produce a very different result, although conceivably it might produce a different outcome. But that would hardly help settle things. If it was remain 52% vs leave 48% (not entirely implausible if the polls are to be believed), why should that result be allowed to stand when the first one was reversed? Parliament ducked its obligations and handed the decision to the people. The people took the decision. The debate has been had. The democratic thing to do is implement the decision. It will be messy. But if democracy means anything is it surely that we get what we (or at least the majority) vote for.

But one final note. Recently I’ve been thinking about the life and times of a character in the Bible called Jonah. He lived in turbulent times. His own nation had been on the up, and under the current regime things seemed to be going well. It looked like the King (Jeroboam II) was doing well, militarily, politically and economically. I bet the King Jeroboam thought so. But it turned out there was a whole other level of reality that the King, and many people of the day in Israel, were missing. Their success was far more to do with providential timing and God moving the pieces on the international chess board, than Jeroboam's genius. He was working His larger purposes out. We know this because it’s helpfully recorded in 2 Kings 14:23-27, and explained further in the books of Jonah, Amos and Hosea. We live in turbulent times, nationally and internationally. This is not all and only about us, votes, debates, protest, politics and tactics. Providence may be merciful to us, and may come through these present difficulties unscathed. It might not. But the likes of Jonah, Amos and Hosea have a lot to say to us today. About the humility required of leaders if nothing else. Their own people, in their own time, did not listen to them. Perhaps we are in danger of making the same mistake.

The election that never should have been

I’ve just been to vote. That isn’t a strange occurrence in a Western democracy of course (notwithstanding frequently appalling turnout figures).  But this was an election I should never have had the opportunity to participate in. Over the next few days, all over the European Union, about 400 million people will have the opportunity to vote for the EU parliament. But I took part in another vote back in 2016, and the outcome of that vote (the EU membership referendum in the UK) meant that I should no longer be a citizen of the EU and entitled to vote in its parliamentary election.

For what it’s worth, in the referendum I held my nose and voted to remain in the EU. I held my nose because there’s a lot not to like about the EU. It could be argued that it is both a corrupt and corrupting organisation. Its own auditors frequently have a problem with its accounts, and have been consistently critical of both central EU institutions and member states. EU civil servants and MEPs seem to be on a gravy train that is opaque to public scrutiny and immune to criticism. And an insulated, self perpetuating elite seem to perpetually benefit, while all over the continent all sorts of people struggle to obtain life’s necessities. It is great at coming up with rules big and small, but equally capable of bending or breaking them when it suits. Although it should be all for one and one for all, the big states often seem to bully the small states, the North exploits the South, the East bridles under the strictures of the West, the French want to be in charge, and Luxembourg is. I get all this. 

But, many of these criticisms can be levelled at the bureaucracies and politicians in the member states as well. And on the other side of the ledger the EU has provided a forum for wide European debate about pressing issues that is far superior to the way we used to settle arguments in this part of the world. Many of these issues, like climate change or migration, or Trump or China, are much better handled by Europe acting in concert. The EU has brought real economic, educational and social benefits to many European states which might have been much the weaker without them (with consequences for us in the UK). It has brought direct economic and social benefits to the UK, sometimes in the teeth of UK Government resentment and opposition (just look at Glasgow’s experience during the 1980’s). By and large we’ve consistently punched above our weight within EU institutions, and at least in financial terms have got more out than we put in – particularly in science, technology and education. The UK pushed for the single market and radical expansion of the EEC which became the EU, having a major influence on the direction it took to get to where it is today. Finally, at the time of the referendum what weighed heaviest with me were the economic consequences of withdrawal. I confess the importance of the common external tariff passed me by, but I heard and understood the warnings about the consequences of being cut off from membership of the EU single market. I always reckoned the land border on the island of Ireland would be a problem. So I voted to remain.

And I was on the losing side.

I wasn’t on the losing side because all those who voted leave were stupid or lazy. I wasn’t on the losing side because a majority of my fellow citizens were seriously misled. I was on the losing side because for a whole complex of reasons,  that it is pointless now to psychoanalyse,  more people voted to leave than remain – simple as. And now we all have to live with the consequences. I think a lot of them will be bad consequences. But what kind of democracy do we have if some small group gets to decide when we have to be protected from ourselves?

We have a representative democracy where these issues should have been settled in our representative institutions, primarily in the House of Commons. The issues are complex, and needed to be debated and thought through in a way that was never going to happen in a binary referendum campaign. But the political class, whether because of lack of courage, or sense, or just political morality, bottled it, and abrogated their responsibility. They gave us a binary choice, and we chose. I might not like the choice, but that’s life, and that’s democracy. Or at least it should have been.

For complex reasons, the politicians then compounded their folly by conniving to subvert the choice made in the referendum. There’s not really much to choose between the hard brexiteers and the remoaners, and all the other splinter groups that have emerged. Giving us another choice will not atone for their guilt. In fact, we did have a subsequent choice in a general election, when by an overwhelming majority people did not vote for those saying the referendum result should be ignored. That choice was an option on the ballot, and very few opted for it. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it’s genuinely difficult to see any way forward, let alone one which is attractive. So we’re stuck. And because we’re stuck in the EU, I had to go and vote this evening.

It wasn’t difficult, and it wasn’t dangerous. I didn’t have to join a long queue in baking heat and wait for hours. I don’t have any doubt that my vote will be counted (although whether it counts is another matter). Things were well organised, free and fair. It was a warm spring evening, and the staff at the polling station were polite and quietly competent as they went about their business. These are all things to be grateful for. I’m glad that once again I got to do it. But I really shouldn’t have had to.