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