I listen to a lot of stuff and guff about the impossibility of joining the EU anew, much of it from Remainers either in an apoplectic rage or terminal depression about Brexit carnage. It’s easy to fall into such thinking traps. They are unhelpful. I’d respectfully suggest that both states of mind don’t help to garner concerted action to right the wrongs of the Brexit decision.
To promote a different perspective on the challenge I’ve used a musical approach, what I call the myths and riffs of Brexit. In music, a riff is a popular hook that people tend to repeat in a song. Brexit myths, once repeated become riffs. If we listen to and embrace these riffs too much, they can keep us in a state of ‘learned helplessness’. Understanding this helps us recognise that Brexit was based on a number of myths, gaslighting us into apathy and depression.
Myth I: Nobody cares about Brexit anymore
This Westminster-centric myth is promulgated by both Conservatives and Labour alike. Both parties have metaphorically chained themselves to a post saying Brexit is done in the English Channel whilst the tide is coming in. Labour ideologues on Twitter point me to UKICE’s research – UK in a Changing Europe. They insist that Brexit is now regarded as less important than parochial issues and shouldn’t be a priority for future election campaigns. They do this because they are hooked on Labour’s Brexit riff, the no turning back ideology, rather than any serious analysis of what people actually think. At a session where the UKICE research was discussed in detail which I attended it became evident to me that the reality is rather more nuanced than the Labour ideologues would have us think.
The report begins by saying “With Brexit seemingly of less concern to British voters” – ‘seemingly’ is the operative word here. Although Brexit scores number 5 in the list of issues of importance, the top 4 issues occupying voters’ minds are either wholly or partly rooted in Brexit.
Labour leader Keir Starmer states that he does not wish to do ‘sticking plaster’ politics. If he speaks the truth, he needs to acknowledge that Brexit is the root cause of many of the ‘injuries’ he does want to talk about. Changing the music to think about the ‘Brexit iceberg’ can lead us to a different type of riff.
The iceberg connects front of mind, parochial, and often short-term issues with the underlying causes. Like an iceberg, something like 80-90% of the real issues are invisible to the huddled masses, especially if they are busy, befuddled by or simply bored of Brexit. However, fixing symptoms in life does not heal the wound. Labour’s strategy to focus on symptoms is, at best, disingenuous, misleading and, at worst, downright dishonest.
Secondly, Scotland did not vote for Brexit and recent polls continue to demonstrate that lack of support. Scotland is experiencing exactly what was predicted by the Brexit vote, in some cases disproportionately so. And when it comes to Brexit, Starmer and Anas Sarwar appear to be inseparable, almost in a civil partnership on the matter, in order to take SNP seats back at the next general election. Please see this appraisal as to how Brexit has impacted Scotland here.
For fair and transparent democracy, people must be properly informed about the issues they will vote on. Brexit remains below the water line of many of the issues people face not only in Scotland but more widely across the UK. Brexit is far from ‘done’. Far from being forgotten and off the agenda as the riff creators would have us think, with Brexit impacts rolling out until at least 2029 and, as we shall see, Brexit can be ‘undone’.
Myth II: We’ll have to have another referendum
I fully understand why some people feel they must have a referendum again as a democratic device to settle the Brexit question. I also share the pain of what that might mean in terms of reigniting the dialogue and division amongst an increasingly small number of people.
Reflecting on the binary referendum demonstrates that instigating such a process without understanding the implications of the decision either way was possibly the worst choice of device to settle Brexit in 2016. It quickly became obvious that there were many views on what Brexit meant within the UK parliament, let alone the population at large. Creating a myth that the solution to our problems can only be a repeat of a process that sought to solve a complex problem via a binary referendum is dangerous and is a course of action that remains a mistake in 2023. We need to break the riff that to put things right means an exact repeat of a process we got wrong.
There are different paths to settle the matter. I first set these out in my article for London for Europe. They are:
- Let parliament settle the matter now that nearly two thirds of people believe it was a mistake.
- Settle the matter via a general election.
- Use a second referendum, but this time with an informed public.
- Resolve via a government of national unity or a coalition.
We might come to think of a referendum as an optional confirmatory step, more like a christening service, but the evidence is now incontrovertible that Brexit has failed. However, Starmer and Labour remain an obstacle on the path to rejoin. My conversations with transparency leader Gina Miller conform that a hung parliament may be the best outcome from a general election, with the SNP, Greens, Lib Dems working in partnership for a better country.
I strongly suggest that we let parliament do the job we elect and pay them for and make a decision based on the impact of Brexit on a basket of STEEPLE factors. Using STEEPLE to consider the social, technological, economic, environmental, political, legal, and ethical elements of the impact will provide a balanced appraisal of where we have reached.
The appraisal that says that very soon 70% of people will agree that Brexit has failed. Despite Starmer’s wish for a Brexit-free general election, we must ensure that Brexit is an issue in 2024 by any means necessary and removing the myth of the need for another referendum is an important part of the process.
Myth III: Rejoining will take decades
Leave voters like to play the riff that “what is done is done, it can’t be undone”. Rejoiners frequently mention how difficult it will be as well. Of course, Brexit was difficult and the longest of journeys begin with small steps.
The EU is a rule-bound organisation (and there’s nothing wrong with rules btw) and macro deals do need to have all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed. So Brexit will take time to reverse. All that is needed is political will to do so. In a recent article on Bylines Scotland Michel Barnier, Brexit chief negotiator, was quoted as saying the door is always open in the EU for the UK to return. Barnier continues to promote this view and recently spoke out on Robert Peston’s programme on the matter.
As public opinion moves from 63% towards 70% who believe that Brexit was a mistake, politicians will be in danger of finding themselves on the wrong side of history. Ultimately, if public opinion continues to shift they will be forced to move if they wish to retain their seats. Whilst it is true that applications to join the EU by member states can take ten years to process, the UK is not exactly a new applicant. As Professor A C Grayling suggests, the process does not need to take that long. The key determinant is political will, currently absent. Once again, Starmer’s Labour is facilitating the riff that nothing can be done by his empty promise that we must make Brexit work.
Myth IV: We’ll have to have the Euro, Schengen etc
I find consistently that some Remainers are very skilled at placing as many obstacles in the way of joining the EU as possible. Some of the ‘hardy perennials’ they mention include the need to have the Euro to replace the pound – it’s a catchy tune that people have been humming for years, Schengen and so on.
It is true that Old Albion will need to learn some appropriate humility as part of the joining process, instead of the English exceptionalism which characterised the Brexit vote. However, it is unwise to place more constraints in the way of success than is necessary before negotiations begin. When I reflect on the conversation I observed with Barnier, I know that rejoining is possible. Yes, it will be difficult and everything will be on the table. If Britain decided that it must keep the pound for example, I’m sure it would be considered. Since all is a trade, the EU may come with some other things we may have to move on to keep the pound, perhaps in the finance domain. For example, we have just seen concessions on Northern Ireland traded with changes to the Erasmus scheme. Nonetheless, what we must do is establish the principle of rejoining and political will to do so. Once that is secured, we must then leave the negotiators to do the work, as we did in the Brexit negotiations.
Myth V: The EU won’t want us back
It is true that some adjustments of the relationship will be needed. Importantly, the EU would need confidence that we would not be rejoining only to have a ‘hokey cokey’ Brexit (in, out, shake it all about). Barnier and others have repeatedly stated that the door is open. Indeed, there is economic and social advantage for both parties (more for Britain) and political advantage in terms of demonstrating to other member states the folly of leaving. Removal of more Brexit culture carriers from power will be needed to reassure the EU that we are serious. That said, Nigel Farage is now a spent farce. Jacob Rees-Mogg’s power base is in serious decline, having retreated to his portacabin at GB news.
LET’S CREATE A DIFFERENT RIFF!
Many more myths will need to be busted, as new riffs are created in the desperate desire to hold on to a failed ideology.
This is why we must work on three levels:
Individual: we must work to move the dial from 63% to 70% via what I call Brexorcisms to change minds on Europe and Brexit.
Parliamentary: lobbying MPs to break parliamentary paralysis via all the usual means; letters, surgeries, meetings, petitions and so on.
Mainstream media: become occasional or regular contributors to mainstream media, newspapers, radio TV. By changing the diet of what people consume for ‘breakfast’ we can affect greater levels of change. Marina Purkiss stands out as an example to us all of what one person can achieve in the field.
The gentle art of what I call ‘Brexorcism’ is the core skill needed for success in having these difficult conversations with leave voters in remission or regret.
Create a new riff – Brexorcise a friend or fiend today!
