By Vanora Bennett, TES Europe Editor
Like a bad dream or late era Monty Python sketch, the slow-motion insanity that is Brexit continues with no end in sight. No option appears to command sufficient support in Parliament, reflecting the irreconcilable demands of multiple opposing factions within the major parties. Meanwhile Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are trapped in what must be the most awkward fruitless negotiations ever, and a Tory leadership contest is under way to replace May, lending a further lack of clarity to any potential near-term developments. Three newspapers set out the unholy mess in all its glory.
Philip Stephens, FT chief political commentator, argues that with Britain exhausted by three years of Brexit arguments, with the country divided and the government paralysed, it’s tempting but wrong to settle for a fudge – a cross-party majority in parliament ready to accept a “middling Brexit” – not too soft, but not the damaging rupture sought by nationalists, and avoid the embarrassment of European elections in May.
- That’s mistaken, however, because it would solve nothing as future relationship questions would remain unanswered; Mrs May’s successor will not feel bound by her deal so this wouldn’t draw a line under the subject; and another transitional period (currently applying till end-2020) with the status quo preserved would soon bring Britain to another cliff-edge.
- Stephens says leaving the EU is an act of self-harm which will damage the economy – it’s a turn towards protectionism when Britain has thrived as open market/society. Bilateral deals with US/India/Brazil would not compensate for costs of new barriers across the Channel and illiberal immigration policy.
- He argues that Leave voters were not told this before the 2016 vote but given an “entirely false prospectus”.
- Although he says referendums are a “rotten” way to take decisions in a parliamentary democracy, he argues that the only way left now to legitimize Brexit is to give voters the chance to change their minds now they have at least some facts.
Guardian columnist Martin Kettle writes the political has argument has changed around Brexit: the centre/soft Brexit option has collapsed, taking us back to extreme pro- and anti-Europe positions for 2019.
- Since 2016 pro-Europeans have had to live with a dilemma – they saw vote to leave EU as a disaster, but had to accept it was the democratic wish of the majority and the pro-Europeans had lost the vote. Their only option was the softest Brexit possible.
- The situation has now evolved with time and bad handling by Conservative leader Theresa May – both no-deal Brexit and May’s own medium-hard Brexit deal. The centrist soft Brexit that has seemed more possible in recent months, especially when talks began between Conservatives and Labour, is again unlikely. 11th-hour cross-party talks with Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn are failing. There are three issues: The terms of a future customs union/single market alignment; future-proofing any deal against the next Conservative leader; the role if any of confirmatory second vote. But neither side is ready for needed compromise.
- He concludes (a) that Parliament’s March efforts to take control of Brexit from government and soften it have failed and (b) that the centrist idea of soft Brexit itself is no longer viable, as the failure of inter-party talks proves.
- So now there’s no centrist option left, pro-Europeans don’t have to try and reconcile their preference with the need to accept Brexit. A general election is ever likelier. Reluctant Labour is crucial to outcome of new Brexit crisis –everything hangs on Labour election manifesto promise – a referendum? Before or after more EU negotiations?
- With the collapse of a centre option, we’re back to extremes, but 2019 style – with some supporting no deal as promoted by May’s successor/much of Tory party, and others (he hopes Corbyn’s Labour) calling for a second vote.
In The Spectator, columnist James Forsyth argues that the Brexit crisis and splintering of the Conservative party shows the poor quality of the governing class, both politicians and civil servants. He argues for the current rule that the PM can’t be subjected to a no-confidence vote until December, because she survived an earlier one last December, to be changed. He criticizes parliamentarians for inexperience and points out the shortage of elder statesmen giving up high office and returning to the parliamentary back benches. He blames the UK for failing to understand how complex the Irish border question would become in EU negotiations. And he suggests that if Brexit ends up being the catalyst for reforming these failures of British government it will leave Britain in a better position to deal with the future.
Vanora Bennett is an Orwell Prize-winning opinion writer and novelist.
