A Guardian headline this morning, “Believe it or not, Nigel Farage can now be an inspiration for remainers” is intended to provoke. It is not that but Johathan Freedland’s opinion piece under it that makes me angry.
Why shouldn’t remainers draw inspiration from those who refused to accept the 1975 referendum ratifying Britain’s entry into the European club and agitated tirelessly for a second vote? Surely the dogged persistence of a Nigel Farage, Bill Cash or John Redwood is a model for the 48% to follow.
My 75th birthday was six days ago. I don’t have the time to play such a long game.
…that still leaves the possibility of an even harder Brexit – and pro-Europeans’ task now is to resist it. Admitting that several rooms are on fire doesn’t free you from the obligation to stop the entire house burning to the ground.
In practice, that means limiting the damage. It could mean arguing for greater access to European markets, even if that entails some jurisdiction by the European court of justice. Or urging new immigration rules that don’t seal up the border to all outsiders.
He completely ignores the possibility that many, including myself are fighting for – revocation of the Article 50 notice. It would be messy, nasty but we have a democracy where people have the freedom and right to change their mind.
The argument that the deed is done and there is no turning back has no strong basis. Yes the British Government and those seeking a Commons vote during the Supreme Court hearing assumed an Article 50 could not be withdrawn.
It is only the European Court that can decide whether or not that is true. A case seeking to clarify this is underway in Dublin.
The man who drafted the clause, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, believes it [revocation] is possible. Sky news reported:
Lord Kerr said: “You can withdraw the notification (Article 50) that she (Theresa May) is going to submit in March.
“Legally it would be perfectly possible to take it back.
“Politically of course, our partners might not be too thrilled if they’d wasted 18 months, 20 months negotiating with us, but I suspect it would be possible to get political agreement where you carry on as before.
“That looks at present an extremely unlikely contingency, but it is there as a possibility.”
As he points out it would become a political rather than a legal question.
Matt Kelly, editor of the European, The New European this week speaks for me when he writes:
If people start losing their jobs, their homes, if food prices soar, if the quick trade deals they promised us fail to materialise, the will of the people may change.
And when (no need for ifs on this one) the real cracks start to show in political parties as riven by conflict over Europe today as they have even been, the charade that prompted this whole debacle will be daylight clear, and the will of the people may change.
And if the will of the people changes, it will find a way – as it always does – to be heard.
The how of a reversal is harder to define just now. But obstructing that will of the people would be nothing short of anti-democratic.
Article 50 is, definitely, NOT irreversible. Donald Tusk says so. Lord Kerr, who wrote the article, says so. The price of a reversal will be a political one. We believe that’s fair. It’s politics that got us into this mess, and if politics has taught us anything in the last twelve months, it’s this: Nobody knows anything.
Stay angry. Fight Brexit.
I am angry. It is urgent as I don’t want to fight to my dying day, which seems to be what Johnathan Freedland advocates. It is about the British Isles being a place fit for future generations.