Speaking to the Sandringham branch of the WI recently, Queen Elizabeth poignantly said: “As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view, coming together to seek out the common ground, and never losing sight of the bigger picture.”
This advice seems especially important as our country faces crisis and deadlock over Brexit, the most significant, life-changing decision in our country’s history since 1939.
Unfortunately, it’s hugely difficult to find ‘common ground’ on Brexit, as Brexiteers deal in beliefs and assertions and Remainers deal in facts and evidence.
For instance, when Craig Jackson, writing in The Voice (Jan 24) says: “This Government would have my full support; and the support of the millions who voted for freedom and liberty; to move forward with the Super Canada deal proposed by David Davis MP – the former Brexit Secretary – or in the event of no deal, a WTO World Trade Deal”, he’s actually proposing to make everyone locally worse-off on the basis of his beliefs and assertions, rather than facts and evidence. So, how am I supposed to respond in the light of our Queen’s advice?
Personally, I’d be happy to meet with Craig to explain – supported by facts and evidence – why his “Super Canada deal” would be bad for our country and his “no deal, WTO World Trade Deal” catastrophic. However, will Craig Jackson agree to meet with me to engage in a dialogue? I’d love to know.
Obviously, I favour the UK remaining in the EU, on the preferential terms we currently enjoy, and leading the progressive development of the EU from the inside. This would be brilliant both for us and the EU. However, I’d be willing to compromise and accept that rejoining the EEA might, possibly, be the ‘least-worst option’ for us leaving the EU. However, I get no sense that
Craig Jackson and other Brexiteers locally may be willing to compromise around this option.
So, in terms of respecting the outcome of the EU Referendum in 2016 and moving forward constructively, I’m, instead, proposing that Parliament:
- Revokes Article 50 temporarily, safe in the knowledge it can be re-triggered at any time in future (fact).
- Makes clear to Eurosceptics that they must now define, in detail, precisely what their unified, ‘Clean/WT0/No-Deal Brexit’ proposition would look like, if they wish this to be put to the electorate.
- Insists that any ‘Clean/WT0/No-Deal Brexit’ proposition must be sufficiently clear (in terms of describing this version of Brexit and its consequences in detail, complete with a credible roadmap and timescale for its negotiation and implementation) for voters to understand it… much like the SNP developed a detailed, 607-page prospectus for Scottish Independence in advance of the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014.
- Decide if and when this Eurosceptic Brexit proposition has been expressed in sufficient detail for voters to understand it and vote on it.
Eurosceptics cannot complain about this approach, as they originally proposed, in Parliament, a ‘two-step’ EU Referendum process – first defining the proposition, then inviting the electorate to vote on it – see Hansard.
Personally, I see this as the fairest way forward, seen from all perspectives. However, I’m still open to feedback and dialogue with Brexiteers locally, assuming they’re willing to engage in a constructive conversation.
Alan Meekings
Holbeach
