Searching for a silver lining to the Brexit cloud is like looking for a needle in a haystack. But if there is one, it is that the chaos that has spread throughout British politics should deter any other country from even contemplating such an ill advised and poorly executed exercise in self-harm on such a colossal scale.
This drama was never for the fainthearted, but the unprecedented scale of the defeat of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal has thrown the UK and its political system spinning even further out of control in a manner not experienced since before the Second World War. The margin by which she lost — 230 votes, the largest defeat for a sitting UK government — leaves the country disorientated and in complete disarray a little over two months before end of the two-year deadline to leave the European Union. This was set by the triggering of Article 50 in 2017, nine months after the referendum. The defeat has narrowed the options available to the UK and made the prospect of crashing out of the EU without a deal more likely, which is a scenario that should send shivers down British spines considering the potential consequences of this on international relations.
Tragically, at the helm of this Brexit voyage is a prime minister who is perceptually rather limited, is by nature intransigent, and who has not the faintest idea how to steer the country to safety before the March 29 deadline.
Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the deal May negotiated with the EU, but at the same time there is no sign of majority support for any other course of action. This leaves the country and the EU in a dangerous limbo. Only one thing is sure: At no stage during the past two and half years have British MPs demonstrated the intellectual flexibility combined with leadership qualities that the Brexit process required. Too many of them have put party and personal interests ahead of the needs of the country and the people who sent them to the Palace of Westminster.
In truth, there is probably no deal with Brussels that can gain the support of Parliament, although most MPs are in favor of remaining in the EU. Whether simplistically or disingenuously, many of them argue, with little conviction or persuasive power, that they are supporting Brexit in accordance with “the will of the people” as expressed by the result of the 2016 referendum. This is a narrow and unsophisticated interpretation of the role of parliamentarians in a representative democracy.
Those MPs who have believed all along that Brexit harms the country’s interests have a responsibility to go back to their constituencies and fight to remain. This was especially the case when May presented them with a golden opportunity to do so by calling a general election in June 2017. That they failed to take it shows how many Remainers lacked backbone and integrity by not remaining true to their beliefs at such a crucial juncture in the country’s history.
Tragically, at the helm of this Brexit voyage is a prime minister who is perceptually rather limited, is by nature intransigent, and who has not the faintest idea how to steer the country to safety before the March 29 deadline.
Yossi Mekelberg
Returning to last week’s vote in Parliament, those who rejected May’s deal can be placed in one of four main groups. First, there are the Europhobes who, with their xenophobia and loathing of Brussels, would prefer a “no-deal” scenario in which Britain crashes out of the EU over a deal that retains any trace of close relations with Europe.
The second group comprises those who genuinely believe that the deal presented to them was not good enough and that a better one can be negotiated. Then we have the Remainers, who believe that the more incompetent and clueless the government appears, the more likely a second referendum is.
Lastly, there are the opportunists, including the ones in May’s own party who want to depose her, and those among the opposition who sense a chance to seize power — Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, for example, who has vacillated in his approach more to increase his chances of occupying 10 Downing Street than from a desire to lead his party to avert a disaster called Brexit.
To add to the confusion, the government’s defeat of a no-confidence motion the day after losing the Brexit vote can hardly make sense to a neutral observer. How could a parliament that rejected outright the government’s centerpiece policy then express its confidence in that government 24 hours later? Does anyone really believe that there remains a shred of confidence or credibility in May’s government, whether in Parliament or anywhere in the country?
One might at least hope that the shocking scale of the defeat of May’s Brexit deal might inject some common sense and courage into the political elite and force them to deal with the Brexit realities as they are, and not as the fantasies that were presented to voters during the referendum. In 2016 people voted for an abstract notion, with no details, of leaving the EU. By and large they had no knowledge of the enormous consequences of such a decision on their everyday lives and their country’s relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. There was no real discussion of what it would mean to abandon the single market, the customs union and European human-rights legislation, or the effect on the soft border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
During its negotiations with Brussels, the British government adopted a make-believe approach. It imagined that the EU would make whatever concessions were necessary to appease enough British MPs to gain majority support for a deal. It never took into consideration that EU negotiators had red lines and priorities of their own, to preserve the European project and fend off pressure from individual states.
So now, since a better deal is not going to surface all of a sudden and there is enough of a consensus that no deal is the worst of all outcomes, it is time to go back to the people and ask them for their preference: Either accept the deal as it is, or stay in the EU and put the sorry saga of Brexit behind them.
Maybe, just maybe, the nation will take the opportunity this would provide to have a grown-up debate about the pros and cons of being part of the union, based on a sober evaluation of the EU’s contribution to the peace, stability and prosperity that the continent has been enjoying for decades.
- Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg
