Neither The Public Nor MPs Can Duck The Brexit Challenge

Following the defeat of Prime Minister May’s Brexit proposal, the debate over whether it is Parliament’s responsibility to sort out the Brexit issue or the public should have its say in a second referendum has heated up. But that is to miss the larger point. Both MPs and the general public are ducking responsibility for the most momentous decision facing the country in nearly 80 years. It’s time they both owned up to the task.

The path since June 2016 has been highly instructive. Neither major party has articulated a coherent, honest and unified plan for implementing a Brexit. Both have largely stuck to simplified and misleading talking points to defend their stances. It has been staggering to hear even cabinet ministers reveal their ignorance of basic facts about the U.K.’s economic and political linkages with the European Union.

More disheartening has been to hear, even now, Tory claims that modifications to the backstop component of the withdrawal agreement can ensure that it is only temporary. Realistically, it will only be temporary if the government agrees to a trade deal with the EU that allows the free-flow of goods, services, people and capital across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border (with potential leakages into the rest of the U.K.). Otherwise, the options appear limited to abrogating the Good Friday agreement or allowing a customs border within the U.K., neither of which seems politically feasible. But to believe that the EU will betray a member—Ireland—to satisfy a departing country—the U.K—is delusional.

MPs on both sides of the aisle have tarnished Parliament’s reputation by failing to educate themselves and the public about the true consequences of Brexit. That was the case before the referendum, but the failure has been greater since then. Thirty months after the vote and many MPs are only now coming to grips with the enormous responsibility they have to lead the nation into the future.

Wait, that’s not quite correct. Many, including the head of the Labour Party, have not yet come to grips with that responsibility. For all Mrs. May’s faults, and they are legion, at least she developed a clear proposal. Although claiming that a vote against her proposal risked losing Brexit sounded more like a selfish political survival tactic than one taken in the best interest of the nation.

Equally disconcerting is the public’s apathy or disdain toward the Brexit issue. A common refrain from the public is that it just wants Brexit to be over. After all, the vote was held in mid-2016; didn’t the public fulfill its responsibility then and hand over the task of implementing the decision to its elected representatives?

Well, no. Because the referendum was poorly designed, there was, in fact, no clear mandate from the public about how to deal with the many legal, economic, social and political consequences of the decision. The referendum left all the implementation details to be worked out by the government and Parliament. Surprise, surprise, it turned out that the devil was in the details and sorting everything out is a huge and difficult task. Politics is always about determining winners and losers and involves compromises. Almost inevitably, the bigger the decision, the more difficult the implementation.

Both main parties have been afraid to acknowledge the losers from any outcome for fear of jeopardizing their electoral position. Consequently, with the March 29 date looming, there is still no clarity on what the public or either major party actually supports or can accept.

In the end, a decision will be taken, and the U.K. will learn to live with it. It is a fantasy to believe that some form of Global Britain will emerge to bestride the international landscape and allow it to continue to “punch above its weight”. If it wants to punch above its weight, it can remain in the EU, which is one of three geopolitical heavyweights (albeit ranking third) and within which it exerts significant influence. But even outside the EU, life will carry on.

The bigger issue, even than Brexit, and is what it means to be a democracy and what responsibilities that requires of the public. The referendum was always a diversion, meant to allow politicians to escape the responsibility for making difficult decisions. The public, in turn, was happy to allow its elected representatives to do so.

Yet ultimately it has always been the public’s responsibility to govern itself. The public gets the leaders it votes for. If it wants change, it needs to direct its representatives to effect it. Not via some simple, vague referendum-based declaration, but through the day-to-day work of educating itself, liaising with its representatives and holding the latter accountable and making tough decisions. Who ever said democracy would be easy?