George Smid

What do we want? Brexit! When do we want it? Now.

This might sound like a good chant for a demonstration, but with less than 270 days left before the UK leaves the EU (on March 29, 2019) the chant stands for a serious, political declaration.

Everybody agrees; ‘We have to get on with Brexit’. The problem is we still don’t know what we should get on with. The government is creating committees, subcommittees and sub-sub-committees (I am not joking) just to specify what leaving the EU means!

So far, the only agreement about Brexit is that nobody agrees what Brexit is.

What does Brexit mean? is a question haunting the Government, the opposition, the parliament, the voters. The government ministers, like the cardinals in Sistine chapel, will not be let out of the Chequers this weekend until they agree the White Paper which will specify what Brexit is.

The Cabinet might unite, the country might not.

Brexit, as has been since the time of the referendum, means all things to all people. We are divided about what Brexit is and therefore what the impact of leaving the EU will be. The result is that we are stockpiling supplies of food and medicine. The last cabinet which had to do that was Churchill’s during the war.

In the same way the referendum result was left unspecified by the religious tautology ‘Brexit means Brexit’, the same indeterminate way we now deal with the myriads of Brexit issues: Brexit means ‘a’ custom union, but not ‘the’ custom union; Brexit means free trade agreements, but not the free trade we have now; Brexit means borders, but not border controls…

It appears we entered a ‘quantum Brexit’. Like a quantum particle which can be in two places at the same time, David Davis proposed Norther Ireland to be in the EU and in the UK at the same time.

But we cannot implement ‘Brexits’ (plural). We must reduce all the possibilities into one – but which one?

The majority of public is against ‘off-the-cliff’ Brexit. Three quarters are ‘dissatisfied’ with Brexit negotiations. But that does not mean three quarters want to remain in the EU now.

Yes, the latest opinion polls indicate a ‘slight’ majority to remain in the EU. But within plus minus two percent, the population is still divided 50-50.

When people can unite only in rejection of the current situation, finding the unity for what we want might seem futile. The emotions are running high, the arguments have been replaced by accusations, the logic and facts by dogma and shouts. But if we want to ‘get on with it’ we need to build consensus.

The common ground could be exactly what is dividing us: Brexit. We must come to the understanding why Brexit is dividing us.

The government might be aware of that. If the reports about the forthcoming ‘white paper’ are correct, the white paper will list options, rather than the final definition of ‘what we want’. The next step is then how we move from these options to choose the ‘preferred option’?

We can define two extreme ‘Brexit limits’: no deal, on one side, continuous membership of the EU on the other. Anything in between is a compromise with the middle point perhaps a Norway/Switzerland concession.

The beauty of ‘disunited we stand’ approach is that it is intellectually honest. We know Brexiteers are divided, we know Remainers are divided. On both sides there are some who are prepared to compromise. And some who claim that a compromise is the ‘worst of both worlds’.

Somehow, we must find a way out of this. A ‘quantum Brexit’ of being and not being in the EU is not possible. The same way the quantum particle collapses in crash with reality, Brexit reality requires a defined position. We cannot have our cake and eat it – which has been so far the position of Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.

Once both leaders accept that all of their proposals are unworkable, they can indeed specify ‘the options’. The parliament, in a free vote, should then select ‘the preferred option’. The parliament then authorises the government “to get on with it”.

This will change the tyranny of Brexit into a democratic process. Of course, negotiations are about compromises and it remains to be seen if the UK government can achieve the ‘best deal’ with the EU. Thankfully, the democracy has a way of dealing with it. Once ‘The Deal’ is known, present it to the people who will be the final arbiters.

We voted on what we did not want, we must have a vote on what we want. This time without lies, fake news and foreign power interference.

There is a ‘Brexit fatigue’ malady going around the land. It is affecting Leavers and Remainers alike. The disorder disturbs the mind – whenever the affected person sees, hears or reads anything about Brexit (which is every day) he or she exclaims “for God’s sake get on with it’ – and don’t bother me anymore.

To deal with this disorder is simple. When ‘get on with it’ is exclaimed, a question ‘get on with what?’ should bring the person down to earth. Because, less then 300 days to the intended departure from the EU (29. March 2019) nobody knows what Brexit means. Not knowing what ‘it’ is, we cannot get on with ‘it’.

The cabinet is split into two working groups to evaluate two conflicting scenarios. Neither the government, nor the opposition parties are able to say what ‘getting on with it’ means. Brexit simply means too many things to too many people.

For Brexit supporters, Brexit is the answer to their frustration with NHS, housing, schooling and declining living standards; for some Brexit is the vehicle of their ambitions.

For Brexit refuseniks Brexit is a danger to NHS, social provisions and already causing further decline of living standards — detrimental to exactly the things Brexit was supposed to fix.

For at least one person Brexit means brightly painted ‘Dumbo Jet’ for personal use.

Brexit is, already, diminishing the control of our money (devaluation), control of our laws (Parliament replaced by executive orders) and losing control of our borders (see the proposals for the UK to open its border with no control). This cannot be dismissed as ‘project fear’; this is ‘project real’, it has happened.

The government, the Parliament, the country, the families are divided about the wisdom of Brexit and about the cost and benefits of leaving the EU.

Gone are the simple days of soft Brexit, hard Brexit, no deal Brexit. These days we discuss nitty gritty of custom arrangements, Good Friday agreement, Euratom, Galileo, access to medicals, repatriating criminals, security, supply chains … And we cannot make up our mind on any of these.

Bizarrely, the more complicated issue, the less time allowed – the Withdrawal Bill presented to Parliament has only two days allocated. Talking now about Parliament taking back control is farcical.

We are led by a government which dodges the difficult choices and it is not honest with us.

We know the easiest trade deal in history is not going to happen. But we do not know which trade deal, if any, is going to happen.

We know the UK will be paying £40 billion by October. But we do not know what deal this payment is supposed to secure.

This is hard to accept. Not knowing what Brexit means leads to more divisions.

Is there a way out of this schizophrenic attitude? Can we reconcile Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Can we treat this collective identity disorder? If unity is strength will we fall divided?

We might fall, but we don’t have to. We can come together. How? We need to understand ‘the other half’. We need to build a consensus.