Another step on the road to somewhere

With opening apologies to those Rusters who have had a bellyful of Brexit-related matters and would really rather read of something/anything else, yesterday because of circumstances against my control I happened to watch a large proportion of the BBC’s coverage (fronted by Huw Edwards) of the Queen’s Speech in the Houses of Parliament.

I did so in the company of my father and his current carer – a native of Poland – who was somewhat fascinated, not to say wide-eyed, at the quaintness of the proceedings, the uniforms of some of the participants and the general setting.

As an EU citizen working in the UK, of course, he ‘has a dog in the fight’ and a habit of asking everyone’s views from a perspective that, whilst Brexit is a tragedy for the EU, if it were ever to happen it would be a Grade A catastrophe for the UK and therefore – for the general good – it was be best if the whole thing was called off. Fair enough, he’s entitled to his view.

Given our circumstances, however, the results of his inquiries can be variable.

For instance, at one stage yesterday my aged parent, whose concentration powers can be variable, responding in the context of the coverage on screen at the time featuring the Lib-Dem leader Jo Swinson, offered the observation “Crickey, she’s got big bosoms”.

I have to record that overall yesterday I found it difficult to disagree with the proposition that these unprecedented times show the UK and its political process in an unyieldingly poor light.

Separately, when out and about upon a shopping errand, I listened to the Emma Barnett Show [actually I’m not sure it is actually called that, but you know what I mean] on Radio Five Live which the lady concerned was fronting from a tent on College Green outside Westminster.

At one point she was interviewing an unidentified former Tory MP – I believe either one of those who have recently had the Tory whip removed and/or who then joined the Lib-Dems – on the vexed subject of whether there should be a Second Referendum.

Barnett, a broadcaster I admire, was doing the dutiful thing of pressing her guest upon the apparent lack of logic in his position, which was that it was absolutely ‘democratic’ to have a second (confirmatory) vote once it had become apparent whether a deal with the EU had been reached, or not.

In other words, he was proposing that on any Second Referendum ballot paper there would appear (1) either “the deal”, or alternatively the “no deal”, option; and (2) ‘Remain’.

Barnett put the points to him that in fact there had already been a People’s Vote (in 2016) and that it was disingenuous of him to espouse a Second Referendum just because he hadn’t liked the outcome.

He shot back with the lines that “People can change their minds” and at the time of the 2016 Referendum nobody who voted Leave had the slightest idea what the terms of doing so would be – at the time the leaders of the Leave campaign were saying that negotiating a deal would be the easiest thing in the world, which subsequent events had proved (with bells on) was not the case.

Surely (he said) it was therefore both logical and fundamentally democratic at this point to have a Second Referendum, now that (assuming, that is, that an agreement to leave is actually reached at all this week) the terms of leaving were at last known?

It would be all terribly simple: the voters would be asked “Do you actually want this deal, now that you know what it is, to leave?” or “Would you rather Remain?”

His supplementary, but intended knockout, point was that – looking at the Brexit issue in the round – how could anyone in the right mind countenance Leave when nobody had any idea what Leave would actually mean, well bar the fact that (all the experts agreed) it would make everybody in the UK worse off and terminally wreck the UK economy?

Barnett, which surprised me, did not put back to him what I would have thought was the obvious rejoinder, i.e. something along the lines:

“So, let’s get this straight – your slam-dunk dismissal of the Leave position is the future uncertainty that would result.

How can you put forward that view when you cannot possibly predict with any more certainty what remaining in the EU would bring?

Let’s take the examples of ever-increasing instances of billions of euros being wasted, squandered and unaccounted for each year and recent suggestions such as the creation of a EU military force and/or further steps towards federalism (plus God alone knows what else) – over all of which, if it remained in the EU, the UK would have little say or control?

It is not the case that remaining in the EU would provide guaranteed future stability and certainty, whereas Brexit would bring nothing but chaos and ruin.

The truth is that both offer nothing but future uncertainty. It all boils down to which uncertainty you’d prefer to face.”