THERE are two definitives within the Brexit process.
Each being driven by individual human beings.
The Conservatives, official government of the UK, and the Labour Party, Her Majesty’s opposition, both want it to proceed. They are driven by unique leadership dynamics. Teresa May, the reluctant supporter of Remain under the Cameron regime, has stepped forwards to fill the PM’s shoes, demonstrating her true colours as an arch Brexiteer.
Is it any wonder Cameron failed in his bid to win that referendum with such Judases standing by his shoulders?
May is clearly driven by both a personal ambition for power and an enduring dislike, almost hatred, of the EU and its institutions, one cultivated by successive defeats or reprimands on diverse subjects – immigration, basic human rights – or simple alignment with EU policy.
This Prime Minister is a Conservative of Victorian values, when “Britain ruled the waves” and much of the world suffered for her imperial might. She is also overseeing a fragmenting, dissolving internal Union of Nations.
In both cases she refuses to acknowledge the antagonistic outcomes which will be the natural end of forcing her personal beliefs on a largely unthinking state.
She has already proven herself fully capable of delays, lies, deceit, of stage-managed shows, all in an effort to accomplish her very personal goals. In spite of it all, her unwavering determination, like that of many despots before her, will win adherents.
Labour’s Corbyn is different; he’s a waverer, essentially, a political coward. Jeremy knows what the UK needs, and that’s not Brexit, but he refuses to lead, preferring an outcome which, if not charging to disaster, will certainly dance with it. When strength and leadership are lacking, elections are unwinnable, even against such a Cruella de Vil as currently opposes his path to power.
In such a situation, it will be up to Parliament itself, and its individual members, to exert their power in such a way as they have not for a century or more. Those MPs will need to search their conscience and vote accordingly, to cast aside the party whip, stand, and literally be counted. Some have already shown themselves capable. As a body, they have begun to reclaim their rights, to assert their individual and collective will.
This must continue. Cowardice with blind obedience must be cast aside.
We know the EU will not re-negotiate the Irish backstop, it’s simply not in their interest, and London has no stick to wield to force any re-assessment.
The choice becomes simple: the UK as a whole crashes out, burns, with the unthinkable consequences to the state’s wellbeing, and the individual personal impacts, followed by a quickly fragmenting “precious Union”, possibly ushered by civil unrest, especially in Northern Ireland; or Brexit is abandoned, likely after a second referendum.
It is a safe bet that if an Article 50 extension is requested, pending such a plebiscite, that our cousins in the EU will approve it. It will be a conditional approval, it will be “in or out” as in crashing out, for Westminster has not agreed – is incapable of agreeing – terms, and Teresa May is responsible while Corbyn has not pushed any alternative (has, in fact, ruled out alliances that might force such).
Before mid-March, we can expect a parliamentary vote, followed by a confirmatory referendum with an extension of Article 50, or we can expect to crash and burn alone.
The choice is now binary.
Ashley MacGregor
East Kilbride
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel