Theresa May's FLYING CIRCUS

The UK needs a second Brexit vote but instead gets Monty Python politics...

THE United Kingdom, at the moment, is anything but united. In my view, this disunity is coming from the very top. The crisis of politics in Westminster is indicative of the difficulties ahead for the country. They have a government there which has little or no authority, led by a political party that is divided down the middle. They have an opposition which doesn’t seem to know which way it should go, other than watching the further political discomfiture of its opponent.

Despite the constant drubbing that prime minister Theresa May has received, both in Westminster and in Brussels, she continues to keep her head down and just carry on, undaunted. Despite the fact that, after last week’s events, her chances of getting the Brexit deal through have drastically lessened, she still rejects any possibility of a second referendum.

Reports have suggested that some of her leading supporters are now coming around to this possibility. Mrs May has justified her position by saying that a failure to respect the 2016 referendum result would undermine trust in politics.

I would respectfully suggest to her that the Monty Python-esque politics in Westminster are far more likely to reduce the British public’s faith in their politicians.

And it’s not just me saying this. This week, the UK’s five main business groups have stated that they have ‘watched in horror’ as their politicians have focused on ‘factional disputes’ rather than on practical steps for planning for Brexit. On top of that, the TUC, the UK trade union federation, referring to ‘political chaos’, has called for a suspension of the Article 50 exit procedure. Voters, on many occasions, need to be led by their politicians.

THE total lack of consensus in the House of Commons for any option is surely a reason why their system should revert to the public for their opinion. The fact is that the 2016 referendum was only advisory. It’s the politicians, mainly, who feel that they are morally bound to implement it, as they see fit.

And yet, after two years, they have even less of a clue how to do this. In my view, a cuter politician could say that the original referendum was held at a time when the voters were not fully au fait with the issues involved, whereas, after two years of constant bombardment on Brexit, they now know better what’s on offer.

Whether they like Theresa May’s deal or not, the British public are now much more conversant with the pros and cons of an exit simpliciter from the EU. Surely the electorate now realise that some of the more outlandish claims made by hard Brexiteers are no more than a ball of smoke?

That great aspiring statesman Boris Johnson famously told the EU to ‘go whistle’ for the money that the UK legally owes to the EU, and yet, a year later, without batting an eyelid, he was part of a government which has pledged to pay €40billion to Brussels.

The slogan on the side of a bus, promising £350million a week for the NHS, has proven to be yet another hollow promise.

Even some of May’s own mantras, for instance, ‘taking back control’, are proving to be virtually impossible to fulfil.

So a lot has changed in the last two years, something which May and her government could have used in order to justify going back to the people. And yet, she comes out this week, implacably opposed to this course of action. May could have decided to give the voters a number of choices in such a referendum.

The referendum questions could be broken down into subsets such as remaining or not in the Single European Act and also in the customs union. A number of May’s Cabinet colleagues are publicly advocating free ‘indicative’ votes in parliament in order to gauge the level of support for different options.

This would allow MPs to give their views on a suite of options such as May’s deal, ‘Norway-plus’ and a second referendum. Again, it would appear that May has set her face against this, despite the fact that, politically, it could ‘get her out of the woods’.

However, some of the level of debate in British political circles would drive one to despair. I have heard some leading political figures calling for a ‘best out of three’ referendum, in the event of a second one being held.

That’s the type of infantile argument one would hear in a school playground. This attitude suggests that those who suggest it are not really interested in getting the least worst deal on their country’s exit from the EU. It has been clear for some time that the MPs in Westminster cannot decide on the best course of action in order to implement Brexit. It seems to me that the options in relation to Brexit are beginning to narrow down to just two: namely, a nodeal crashing out, or an extension of the exit period. Given that Christmas is now upon us, and that nothing will happen in either the UK or Irish parliaments until mid-January, the chances of any concrete actions being taken, in the time left before the end of March, are very slim.

BOTH governments and indeed the EU are currently finalising papers which will outline what is ahead of us in a no-deal situation. They refer to many unpalatable actions which will need to be taken. With more and more detail as to the adverse effects of a nodeal situation coming to light, this will, no doubt, concentrate the minds of British voters even further.

One thing that caught my eye recently is a report that the European Commission has indicated that Britons will have to pay for a visa waiver in order to enter the EU, once EU law on freedom of movement of union citizens ceases to apply to Britons, who will then be treated as third country nationals. On top of this, UK citizens will need to pre-register for a threeyear electronic visa waiver. With hundreds of thousands of Britons using European countries such as France, Spain and Italy as their holiday playgrounds, this type of imposition might make them come to their senses at a future referendum polling booth.

Because of all of this turmoil, May, in my opinion, should not set her face against a second referendum.

Rather than this being an affront to democracy, surely it can justifiably be said that going back to the people, now that things are somewhat clearer, is actually the very essence of democracy.