It has been revealed today that members from the Conservative government and the Labour opposition met last week to discuss how to ‘fix’ Brexit. You know, the Brexit that was perfect because we had an ‘Oven Ready Deal’ that Boris Johnson was going to deliver..?
High-level politicians were present: Michael Gove (Minister for Levelling-Up) and David Lammy (Shadow Foreign Secretary) were among the attendees, along with well-placed people from the worlds of business and banking so it is reported. According to the same newspaper (The Observer) the two-day meeting was described as a “private discussion” under the title: “How can we make Brexit work better with our neighbours in Europe?”
Always one for semantics, I note that the title implies that Brexit is not working as well as it could… from what is mentioned in the Observer article, much of the content of the two-day meeting was of a similar tone, apparently discussion topics included “…questions about forging closer links with the EU on tackling organised crime, illegal immigration and defence…” All of which (unless I am mistaken) Britain used to have through the EU’s internal links, and which now they don’t because of Brexit. It seems utterly ridiculous to me therefore to even begin to describe this as how to make Brexit work better – as opposed to simply admitting the truth and state “How can we undo some of this Brexit shit?”.
Some commentators see this as a positive step forward, as the first of many small incremental steps away from the hithertoo beligerently hard-line approach and the opening of a door to fixing some of the issues created by Brexit. And largely, I can see the merit is such argumentation… change is easier and less harmful if undertaken in small steps, and it is easier to bring people along with you with small changes rather than forcing people to challenge immediately and completely their world-view (whether or not it is based in reality). Nevertheless, the approach being taken here – is a secretive approach – and is one which does not admit of accepting the truth of the situation. It is therefore to my mind, inappropriate. The British government currently still refuses to openly question the sanity of the decision to leave the European Union. All public comments on the matter refute all suggestion that Brexit is the cause of the current dismay – issues are blamed either on the pandemic or the war in Ukraine. Even the leader of the main opposition (Labour Party) maintains that it is the party’s goal to make Brexit work rather than call it out for what it was – a very damaging policy made on the back of lies and media pressure. Therein lies the problem…
The political community in Britain is either unwilling or incapable of being honest about the issues that the country faces as a direct result of Brexit. Simply put: many of the symptoms being faced by the British people and economy at the moment are due to Brexit (and the manner in which it was implemented). This meeting would seem to suggest that the political establishement are aware of this (one should hope so really); whilst the secret nature of it allows them to continue to pretend that this is not the case in public. Is this simply a reflection of their egostitical need to not admit to a mistake or a lie? Or perhaps it is a manifestation of the political desire to save/ win votes by hiding one’s true feelings. Either way, it seems to me precisely the sort of behaviour which has provoked a complete and utter loss of confidence in politicians and politics.
To undertake such discussions in private whilst saying the opposite in public is simply abhorrent: have the discussion by all means, but have it openly and in public so that all can participate. This behaviour is proof of the disdain in which politicians hold the public. This demonstrates the ease with which politicians will lie to the voters, whilst telling the truth behind closed doors. The very fact that Brexit ‘reality’ can be discussed with figures from industry but not with the public, underlines the level of consideration that each are given in the political process. And the fact that all of this is conducted in secret shows exactly the regard in which the public are held in all of this… …
Surely if the political establishment is aware of the need to make a change, then it behoves them to announce this to the public so that they can understand how the public will react to this news – and hence understand how the public believe that this problem can best be addressed? If this can be agreed, then it follows that the only way to engender public understanding is to hold the debate in the open and to be honest about the impacts of the decision to leave Europe in the way that was done – anything else cannot hope to properly bring the voting population towards the view that changes are needed.
This approach is a masive “Fuck You” to democracy – and anyone who participated in or condoned this process is complicit – Conservative and Labour alike.