Brexit - Secret Option Number Three

There's talk of riots if Brexit doesn't go ahead. It's hard to know whether this is a serious possibility – a proposed protest at the Supreme Court in December was hastily cancelled at the last minute when barely a few dozen showed any interest. But let's just for a moment assume it is a real and credible possibility. The prevailing narrative over-simplifies the choice – implement the result of the referendum or don't. Implement it and cause certain impoverishment to our nation. Ignore it, and risk riots and undermining the cause of democracy. But why is our vision so narrow? What if there is a secret option number three?

There are five Ws that help us get to the bottom of a story – What? When? Who? Where? And Why? The first four are essentially fact-based and are in themselves often rather dull. They are answered easily enough with regard to the referendum result. The interesting question is the last one – “why”. And over a year later, we are still no clearer as to why we are doing this.

Bizarrely, our politicians seem to be caught in the headlights of the facts and entirely unwilling to engage with the why. This is not to diminish the importance of facts or to advocate a Trumpian world of “alternative facts”. But facts form only stage one of the thinking-person's journey – rather as mastering the alphabet is essential but nothing more than a stepping stone to being able to read Shakespeare. Establishing the facts of the referendum is only the beginning – true understanding and a plan for the future comes from organising those facts into a coherent and plausible narrative. By way of analogy, imagine noticing that there is no food in the cupboard. There are an infinite number of explanations that could go with that scenario – you forgot to shop, someone else in the house ate everything already, you shopped but left the bags in the car, you couldn't afford to shop, a friend helped unpack and put everything in the wrong cupboard etc etc. Merely establishing the fact of the empty cupboard achieves little with regards to a sensible next step. Any response would need to try to unravel why the cupboard was bare. If it was because you couldn't afford to shop, then rushing off to the supermarket would achieve nothing – you would again return empty handed and the cupboard would remain unstocked. The big fear with our current Brexit trajectory is that we are doing nothing to address the underlying causes that led to the vote in the first place and we may even be making things worse.

So why did people vote to leave? Was it just unfocussed anger aiming to give Cameron a bloody nose? Was it that infamous promise of £350m on the side of a red bus? Was it because of bendy bananas? Or immigration? Or sovereignty? If Brexit is to be anything other than a cynical pursuit of increased power and wealth for the very few, then it must be the case that we need to know what people voted for. Otherwise, how can it be delivered? And yet, an entire year has gone by and no-one has had the decency to ask. If people were voting to save the NHS, then isn't it a travesty of democracy if the resulting policy actually leads directly to its further decline? If voters were desperate at the lack of affordable housing, then isn't it a betrayal of those voters if Brexit reduces the ability of private developers to answer the need, whilst simultaneously distracting the government from doing anything about it themselves? If communities were venting anger at stagnant wages, isn't it a cruel trick indeed to damage our economy in such a way that those wages will remain stagnant for a further unidentified period of time?

We desperately await the emergence in Westminster of someone prepared to grasp the nettle. Blindly implementing the outcome of thereferendum is an utter dereliction of duty. If mere implementaion of plebiscites was all that the job of government entailed, we could dispense with MPs altogether and rely exclusively on unelected Civil Service Bureaucrats. Edmund Burke must be shuddering in his grave as we recall his directive: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

This, then, is the sercret option number three. Appoint someone as leader who is actually listening. Listening to what people's real fears and frustrations are. And then address those issues from a position of knowledge and expertise. It will certainly involve mess and compromise and long-term thinking. It is unlikely to be neatly summed up in ludicrous soundbites such as “take back control”. But with attentive listening and skilled oration, a courageous leader with insight and charisma could perhaps do it.