Why is May so determined to lead her people to a mass
suicide attempt, when it is abundantly clear, or it should be, even to her,
that the agreement she has negotiated does not carry the support of her own
Party, far less the support of the majority of MPs? Is the Prime Minister so
pig-headed that she cannot see that there are alternatives to her agreement or
a no-deal Brexit? Is she simply stupid, as the Labour Party leader has said? Is
she so committed to remaining in power in the Conservative Party that she is
willing to lead her Party to destruction, rather than face the real facts?
One is tempted to compare Mrs. May’s stance with that of
Adolph Hitler in the dying days of the Third Reich, when he refused to accept
that he had led his country to catastrophe, insisting on fighting to the last
man to support an ideology that was abhorrent to the vast mass of Germans. One
can only hope that she, or, more likely, some of the more
democratically-inclined members of her Party will come to understand that the
decision made two years ago to leave the European Union was a decision made on
the basis of incomplete information and a world situation that was vastly
different to the one that prevails today, and that the decision now needs to be
reevaluated by those citizens in the light of the facts and projections by
experts available today.
Even the best case scenario of a Brexit with an agreement
shows no significant advantages to Britain, and it discloses risks that would
make any thinking voter uneasy. It is unlikely that such a best case scenario will
be realized, and much more likely that the worst case scenario will be closer
to the truth. In this case, the economy of the United Kingdom will fall by around
ten per cent, the jobs market for those who voted for Brexit in the first case
will collapse, the cost of food, health care, travel and many other elements of
the life of the average Briton will be adversely affected, possibly to a
greater extent than was caused by the 2008 financial meltdown, and Britain will
revert to the status of a struggling island nation, trying to find its place in
the world. It is sure that Britain will be isolated in a hostile world, with
Russia and China ascendant and the USA in decline under an equally pig-headed
and economically illiterate President, with a damaged European Union standing
by as it watches the illness develop in its near neighbor. The EU will then be
disinclined to assist Britain to any greater extent than it sees necessary to
protect its own interests, and it may, probably will, be more inclined to
exacerbate Britain’s suffering, even at its own cost, in order to demonstrate
the evil effects of such an EU exit attempt by its remaining members. Certain
Brexiteers have claimed that the EU cannot afford to have Brexit fail. Of
course, what they do not say is that Britain represents only one sixth of the
European population, and that the suffering of the average Brit will be at
least four times that of the average German or French citizen. That would be a
small price to pay to make a point that will reach the minds of even the most
obtuse EU citizens.
On the question of whether to ask the people to reconsider
the question of whether they wish to leave the EU, one must ask what is the
function of the government. Surely, at is basis is the imperative to give
reasoned effect to the will of the people. In the case where the politicians,
always willing to pursue their own agenda unless the threat of a withdrawal of
the support of the voters is dominant in their minds, can come to no clear
consensus on what to do, the democratic imperative, the only democratic imperative,
is to refer the question to the people, this time with clear facts and reasoned
arguments. No longer will it be possible to argue that a Brexit will save £28
billion – that amount and more has already been wasted in the period of futile
negotiations with the EU. No longer will it be possible to argue that it will
be possible to reserve British jobs for Britons – for every EU citizen who
comes to Britain for work, there is a British employer who needs that employee
and is unable to find a Briton who is willing to do that work. Those jobs will
be filled by immigrants from other nations, not by the non-existent Brits who
don’t really want those jobs. British industry is already complaining that it
will be starved of workers when the EU supply dries up. And, most of all, those
EU workers pay tax in Britain, add to the economic activity, and push the
economy forward. No longer will it be possible to claim that the EU needs
British industry. It does need those industries, but it can attract them just
as easily by offering concessions to the industries to relocate to the EU. It
will not need those industries in Britain.
One of the factors that seems to be ignored is the Russian
interest in breaking up an economic and military power that has the capability
to stand in the way of Russia’s dreams of regaining its empire. The extensive
involvement of Russia in influencing the 2016 American elections has been well
documented, as has its continuing interventions in American politics since
then. Is there any reason to doubt that Russia was at least partly involved in
spreading fake news and ‘false facts’ during the Brexit campaign? Listening to
the views of some leading Brexiteers in recent months, one can hardly suppress
a suspicion that the whole Brexit issue was instigated and directed from
Moscow. Think of it. Russia does not need a single unified economic and
military power on its borders. It would much rather have a disputatious and disparate
group of countries to oppose its ambitions. It has already, to a large extent,
achieved that by buying the American President and spreading extensive
misinformation throughout the only remaining power capable of opposing it.
Brexit and the rise of the extremist political Parties in several European
countries are logical next steps in the plan.
The European Union was a glorious plan, a plan designed to
uplift the frequently-warring countries of Europe together. It has gone wrong,
as most democracies do, because the citizens left too much power in the hands of
anonymous bureaucrats, whose interests lie strongly in the extension of that
power. However, a democratic institution is subject to the will of its people,
even though those standing between the people and the implementation of that
will often use obstructive and divisive tactics to maintain and extend their
power. Surely Britain’s efforts would be better applied to reforming those
aspects of the EU that it does not like, than to walk away from it all at a
possibly ruinous cost? Any responsible leader of the people should put in the
effort to convince the people who voted for Brexit that their decision, based
on incomplete and improperly presented propaganda needs to be reevaluated in
the light of new and updated facts and responsible projections. It is surely
time for the British Government to come to the understanding that a re-referral
of a possibly wrong decision to the people is not a denial of democracy, but a
reaffirmation of it.
