Britain sees Brexit’s threats more clearly

It is now more than a year since the British voted to leave the European Union and nearly four months since Prime Minister Theresa May formally started the two-year clock to negotiate the divorce, and so far the only results are increasingly gloomy prognoses for Britain.

Mrs. May, her party and her standing weakened in a general election last month, has had trouble controlling feuds within her government; banks are considering leaving London; investors are wary; and a campaign to reverse course is gaining momentum. A letter in The Financial Times on Friday signed by, among others, Lord Kerr, a former ambassador to the United States and to the union, called for a halt to Brexit, saying that the “disastrous consequences” were becoming clearer by the day.

Friday also brought the news that Bank of America had chosen Dublin as its future European Union hub, joining Citigroup and others in making contingency plans for the day when London loses the “passporting” privileges under which a lender licensed in one EU state can work in all. Businesses are equally nervous that leaving the European customs union would disrupt supply chains.

With grandees in Mrs. May’s Conservative Party sensing vulnerability, the knives are out, with people in or close to the party denouncing one another as “pirates,” “lazy as a toad” or “government morons.” The infighting has heightened the sense that the government lacks a coherent strategy, while making it even more difficult for it to shape one.

Officially, Mrs. May is still seeking a clean break with the bloc, one that emphasizes full British control of immigration and the courts more than the interests of the economy. But the chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, has championed a “soft Brexit” that prioritizes the economy. Last month’s election further muddled matters by revoking the Conservatives’ majority in Parliament.

As negotiations progress, visions of a painless divorce and new opportunities for a “global Britain” will most likely wither further, but the infighting will not. Calls to halt Brexit will grow, but that way is also not easy. Blocking the process would be seen as a rebuff of the public will. The idea of another referendum is not popular, and the result would be uncertain.

But there is nothing undemocratic about reviewing the pros and cons of Brexit as the trade-offs become clearer. A move this fateful should not be declared off-limits to a continuing national debate. That would be undemocratic.