Jump to TL:DR or read on.
Before I expose it to the harsh criticism of your judgement though let me set the scene a little, as I see it.
In many respects it feels like the Brexit end game has now begun.
The Tory's are descending in to civil war and Boris Johnson has launched an all out assault on parliamentary democracy, trying to carve out a new place for the executive, unshackled from parliament (where the public's representatives sit and both give any exec its authority and hold them to account on our behalf) taking a leaf out of the old Nazi playbook and claiming to be directly plugged in to the 'will of the people', painting themselves as a defender of that will against a malign and self-serving parliament.
fascists and dictators are big fans of the gov alone deciding how to discharge the 'will of the people'
The hypocrisy of the most self-serving and amoral man in British politics claiming this is pretty nauseating, even without the dark undertones of fascism lurking within such moves. It's also absurd for him to be suggesting that no deal, which could see citizens die from lack of medicines, see that will place further burdens on people already unable to afford to live right now - let alone when prices rocket as goods become more scarce, a plan that would have been called fear mongering during the referendum of 2016 if anyone had actually considered suggesting that our position would ever become so desperate (they didn't - no one entertained the idea of leaving without any deal at all back then)... that this plan could ever be considered an expected consequence of the vote to leave the EU.
And, if MPs are self-serving, or incompetent (or both) at least they are accountable to us. And really, who's fault is it they are there; who elected them? We did. Maybe we should pay more attention to who we elect. Johnson is completely ignoring the fact that holding our MPs in parliament to account is our job, not his, and he has no right to appropriate it.
In other ways it feels like just another groundhog day, another cycle of the endless repetitive loop that exists because the public voted for a product that was impossible to deliver (a Brexit which makes us better off) and because MPs actually do have a duty, a primary duty, to the best interests of this country and believe it or not, underneath all the party politics, many still take that duty seriously.
Partly the reason for this nightmare deja vu is that Boris Johnson is really just repeating everything Theresa May did, and whilst it may feel like there is more 'oomph' to it, there isn't, he's just running the same record on a faster speed, making it more grating and jarring than it previously seemed.
But, the other reason it feels like just another spin cycle is that one fact hasn't changed: neither side has any real solution.
Team Johnson and the radicals still have their disastrous non-plan of just crashing the UK (you could say crashing the UK out of the EU but really the last few words are superfluous to describing what it'll do). We could play the game of pretending to believe them that they want to negotiate a deal (something almost no one really gives credibility to, and there is zero evidence of), but even that is just another snake taking us right back to the 'there are no alternative solutions to the backstop' square of 2018.
Team Remain, well... it isn't really team remain it's 'team anti- no deal' (there is a team remain, but it's smaller than the group currently opposing Johnson), doesn't have much of a plan either, they have a life raft. It may, as Ian Dunt believes, be a well crafted life raft but it's a life raft all the same. It's not a plan to get us to safe harbour. As Ian Dunt also says: "It's a first step".
Steady as she goes. One step at a time. First of all, neutralise his attack. It seems very sensible to me.— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) September 2, 2019
That is what I want to set out here: a plan. An actual plan.
Firstly this plan will take time, more time than the 'rebel alliance' current proposal to buy time until January 2020 by blowing up his no-deal deathstar. We have to be realistic about this - any sensible route out of this Brexit quagmire requires more time, because despite all the time we have already had, we have spent it all chasing will-o-wisps round and round in circles.
No doubt the more radicalised leavers will scream about this, whilst the majority of the nation will utter a weary sigh. But, the leave campaign said during the ref that leave may well take 10 years to achieve so they can hardly act surprised, and the majority of sane citizens can take some comfort that a genuine way forward is, at last, being presented, and one that will, if not take Brexit out of the news, at least provides something to report other than the bitter and pointless partisan posturing that has been the endless staple of media coverage to date.
There are two ways of achieving this extra time: extension, or revocation. Both have challenges.
No doubt the more radicalised leavers will scream about this, whilst the majority of the nation will utter a weary sigh. But, the leave campaign said during the ref that leave may well take 10 years to achieve so they can hardly act surprised, and the majority of sane citizens can take some comfort that a genuine way forward is, at last, being presented, and one that will, if not take Brexit out of the news, at least provides something to report other than the bitter and pointless partisan posturing that has been the endless staple of media coverage to date.
There are two ways of achieving this extra time: extension, or revocation. Both have challenges.
Another extension is only partly in our hands; it requires the EU to agree to it. The EU are no doubt getting less and less willing to do such a thing every time we keep telling them that we haven't done our homework yet and can we please have a bit more time, then watching us spaff that time up the wall (to borrow a reprehensible phrase from the reprehensible PM). On the plus side this would be a concrete proposal we could make to them to ensure we don't do the same thing again. because of this necessity an extension is likely to put more a of a time constraint on what we need to do. On the plus side doing this within an extension would mean that this plan could reasonably be put to leavers as a 'put your money where your mouth is' way forward (you'll see why). This is the option if parliament seeks to find a way forward that avoids any new election. Its the more 'compromise' position. It may also serve well as a red line for any Remain alliance working together with Labour after a General Election.
Revocation would give us more time to do it properly, but the obvious downside is the howls of outrage and opposition from the Brexit radicals, who would no doubt paint it as some kind of trick to keep us in (some might even pull out the old ridiculous 'it wos the EU wot forced us to stay' nonsense). Still, revocation is something we know we can do unilaterally, so it remains a last resort and makes any crashing out without a deal a deliberate choice by the UK not to revoke.
This is the direction I would see a remain alliance taking as the outcome of them being the largest group after a general election. It would certainly make sensible Liberal Democrat policy on Brexit going in to any General Election. Probably only a General Election won by a remain party or alliance could do this with any real sens of respecting democracy. That said, if the radical leavers, or the EU rejecting an extension, bring things to a direct choice between revocation or no deal, then this proposal could make revocation a more tolerable alternative for some.
The other issue with revocation is compatibility with EU law. There will no doubt be people who, reading this, have legitimate concerns that revoking A50 to carry out the above process may meet challenge in the EU about whether we genuinely intend to remain (a condition stated by the CJEU when they determined the UK had the right of revocation). That's a fair concern and this route does mean that question changes from 'should we still leave' back to 'should we still remain'.
This is why I think revocation to carry it all out would have to be after a remain alliance, or even party, winning a General Election. A remain alliance would have enough credibility, politically, to say they can implement a remain option... however, to defuse the time-bomb of leaver anger, to stabilise that decision and to address the democratic deficit of just cancelling the whole thing it would be imperative to go through with something like the below plan. I think it could be argued that not leaving is genuinely the government position, but that it needs ratification. There has also been some speculation that if we did revoke and then later chose to leave again, the EU would simply restart negotiations where we left off - this solution has already built that in to the proposal.
At a push I would hope the EU/EU members would be pragmatic enough to hold back any challenge, being presented with a far better position than we are all in right now.
Even utilising revocation it is important to point out that the proposal is very different to the current mess in setting out a clear alternative to being a member; fundamentally, however we get the extra time people will still be being given something new, something defined, the choice of "this relationship, or that relationship", and that choice will be one they helped to shape.
Enough of how to get there... what is the plan!
Let's look at some problems first (sorry, plan later).
1. Both sides make bold claims about what people voted for. Neither side actually knows (and the answer is manifold anyway). Remain wants another referendum, but don't really know on what. Leave have appropriated brexit votes to support whatever type of exit they want (and have steadily been dragging that towards a more and more extreme position as it becomes more apparent all forms require compromise and cooperation of some kind). It is legitimate to point out the referendum vote cannot be taken to support any old Brexit, but it is also legitimate to ask what another vote would actually be based on... what, really, is different now?
2. Which leads us to: the Withrawal Agreement doesn't actually settle any of the big questions about what we want for the future. It deals with divorce matters, sets out a transition period (to transition to... something...), gives some limited assurances to EU27 nationals in the UK and provides a fail-safe for the Good Friday Agreement. The Political Declaration is non-binding, and really doesn't say anything anyway. It really isn't good enough that we are considering walking away based on so little certainty about the future, and it's hard to argue we are in a better position to have a new vote.
3. No deal is unconscionable, no democracy should allow a radicalised minority to inflict such a thing on the whole country, our parliamentary democracy exists to prevent such travesties happening. Similarly simply cancelling Brexit outright really is a democratic outrage now the referendum has happened. Both of these are the two extreme positions that could be taken (as an aside it is ridiculous to paint those arguing for another referendum as somehow being extremists, saying "maybe the people should get another go at it" is not an extreme remain position - it's barely a remain position at all, and it certainly isn't if you really believe people haven't changed their minds). Neither is acceptable.
4. It is clear that the extremists like Farage will claim any deal agreed between the UK and the EU is a betrayal (this all started with a claim of the UK being betrayed by being in the EU, and that narrative is not one that is going to be let go of any time soon). If a referendum is put to the people between a deal or remain, then they will shout betrayal. This won't be a majority of people, but it'll be enough to poison our politics and without taking the wind out of it's sails could just hijack every election for decades to come.
The 2016 referendum was the start of a policy, a huge policy, an era defining policy. It started with an overly simple question and to make matters worse the two sides advocating the answers failed abysmally to set out what it meant. Parliament (wrongly in my view) abrogated that question to the people, yet didn't ask for anywhere near the level of information to take their answer and do anything meaningful with it and allowed the leave campaign to present Brexit as something totally undefined and abstract; this is why they are in such a total mess now. MPs are guilty of the mess we are in, but not because they can't agree what to do now, that's expected given the horrendous mess left by the referendum, how can you take an abstract concept which was many things to different people, and rejected by nearly half of them, and find a way forward for the country? They are of creating that mess in the first place.
It's time to put that right. It's time to invite the people back in to the process. This is what should always have happened. It's an outrage that the public were excluded after being required to make such a momentous decision, with so little to go on. It's time to get them to give some clarity to the 2016 vote that only they can legitimately give.
I don't mean we should just give them another vote. I think one clearly is needed and it's natural that the end of the process is also a decision point. First we have to define what that vote is on.
The big problem we have had is that this has been carried out by politicians. It has been subject to partisanship, hidden (and not so hidden) agendas, spin, spin and yet more spin, toxic nationalism, outright deceit and the marginalisation of expert advice. Nobody trusts anything anyone is saying, and both sides have lost any credibility with the other. Both sides claim to be on the side of the people, yet neither can make a convincing case for being so. It doesn't help that opposing this policy, something that is a normal part of democracy, is now seen as unthinkable by many, just because it was instigated by a referendum vote.
We need a new deal. That much is patently obvious, but what kind of deal?
The Withdrawal Agreement is not really about a deal, it's about separation, closing off things we are currently doing with the EU. It contains some (disgraceful emphasis on some) surety for EU27 citizens, a transition period to implement... something, and it provides a fail safe for protecting the Good Friday Agreement. Despite the protestations of the leavers, and the obsession of our media, there really isn't anything worth discussing even if it were re-opened. Everything of importance is kicked in to the future negotiations, even the Irish protocol (backstop) is simply there as an insurance against those future talks failing to find a better solution and doesn't kick in until after the transition period. The arguments over it are a total red herring.
The Political Declaration should be where it's all at, except it isn't. The difficult negotiations are yet to come and they are so difficult that even the document that is supposed to provide a framework for them hasn't been able to get agreement for anything more than a vague "something, something, good will, something, something, close relations, something, something". It's total rubbish. It's an abrogation of responsibility to let us relinquish our current relationship with so little known about what our future one will be.
This is actually the reason a number of MPs are opposed to May's deal and voted it down... but of course we never hear about those ones, the government, and media attention, always focuses on those who oppose the backstop. It's a deliberate strategy to continue to airbrush out any sane voice or hint that people might 'want' to stay in a close relationship with the EU. It's always ignored that there is another way to passing Brexit, which is to actually soften the approach, rather than harden it beyond the point of reason.
I digress, so straight to it. What we need is a citizens assembly. I know this has been mooted before, but I've never seen it laid out as part of an actual plan. We don't just need a citizens assembly, we need to use it to create a 'peoples deal' that can then get approval from the whole public, or rejected meaning the end of Brexit. Either way it provides much more certainty than accepting the current WA and PD does.
The proposal is thus:
Extend or revoke (as discussed).
We take the Withdrawal Agreement and we accept it as PART of the solution. Firstly this takes the hard work done to date, whilst getting us past the 'no reopening the WA' block. It's unnecessary to reopen it anyway, there is no issue which limits our future except the backstop, which we'll deal with below.
We convene a citizens assembly with the express purpose of looking at what our future relationship should look like. We must make all the advice and evidence that the government has available to them. We must give them access to the necessary experts, and provide opportunities
This should definitely include looking at the solution to replace the backstop, and this should include actual visits to the border, meetings with the communities who live there and the organisations who represent Northern Irish businesses, farmers and industry. If they can't find an alternative then we have to accept that: 1. the Good Friday Agreement doesn't have an 'exit clause' and the UK is bound by it, and that it is both immoral and unethical to undermine it by reimposing border infrastructure. If they find an alternative, great the UK can start to look at implementing it. If a solution is seen, but, as is almost certainly likely, the timescale can't be guaranteed, then the Assembly should give their opinion on whether it'd be better to ask to extend the transition period, or to implement the backstop.
Other key decisions they should consider are: Freedom of Movement - should it end? Should we join EFTA (permanently, because we are talking about our actual future relationship)? What other initiatives should we seek to be a part of (and they must be able to access good advice on the likelihood of being accepted in to these, along with the consequences of doing so).
It should be made clear that this Assembly is seeking to find a future relationship outside the EU. Some may feel that remaining is the best option, and any final conclusion from them could contain such a statement from those who do, but it is important they reach a conclusion on what a non EU member UK should look like.
These recommendations should then go to a cross party negotiating team to flesh out the Political Declaration with the EU. It would really help if there was a government of national unity at this stage, but it's not necessary so long as parliament has oversight and the government chooses, or is made to properly facilitate it.
This deal will have been shaped by the public. It will therefore be much harder for the the likes of Farage and Rees-Mogg to shout down (although no doubt they will try).
Somebody has to then sign this off. It seems insane to bring the partisanship and parliamentary poison back in to things after all that, and whilst the Citizens Assembly will be kind of representatives of the wider public, they shouldn't have to carry the responsibility of having made the final decision. This deal should go back to the public to vote on. It's right that it does. It has always been right that the public gets the final say, having been forced to have the first one. Rejection of this Brexit, the only one that can genuinely lay claim to being what people may have voted for in 2016, should lead us back to the status quo, to remaining a member, either by revocation, or by not seeking to leave again (depending on how we dealt with the extra time).
There is no doubt the above is still going to be divisive, I don't think anyone can see any options now that are not. Despite it all though I still trust the people of the UK, even those I have bitterly fallen out with over this, when actually sat down together and going through the documents, advice and direct conversations with those affected, to get to grips with the reality we face - to be pragmatic and realistic, to be humane and considerate. I trust them much more than a government led by proven liars, or the unknown agendas of many of our politicians. More than that I think we need to take the partisanship and political agendas, the vested interests and the insulation many MPs (especially those on the leave side) have from any of the effects of Brexit due to their substantial wealth. Who else, really, do we have to turn to? The public's apathy and inclination not to engage with politics may just be the antidote we need right now.
It's time we demanded that politicians put there money where their mouth is. If they really believe that they are pursuing their Brexit solutions in the name of the people, then they must let the people in to the process, to give them control over their future... as they once promised to do.
This is the direction I would see a remain alliance taking as the outcome of them being the largest group after a general election. It would certainly make sensible Liberal Democrat policy on Brexit going in to any General Election. Probably only a General Election won by a remain party or alliance could do this with any real sens of respecting democracy. That said, if the radical leavers, or the EU rejecting an extension, bring things to a direct choice between revocation or no deal, then this proposal could make revocation a more tolerable alternative for some.
The other issue with revocation is compatibility with EU law. There will no doubt be people who, reading this, have legitimate concerns that revoking A50 to carry out the above process may meet challenge in the EU about whether we genuinely intend to remain (a condition stated by the CJEU when they determined the UK had the right of revocation). That's a fair concern and this route does mean that question changes from 'should we still leave' back to 'should we still remain'.
This is why I think revocation to carry it all out would have to be after a remain alliance, or even party, winning a General Election. A remain alliance would have enough credibility, politically, to say they can implement a remain option... however, to defuse the time-bomb of leaver anger, to stabilise that decision and to address the democratic deficit of just cancelling the whole thing it would be imperative to go through with something like the below plan. I think it could be argued that not leaving is genuinely the government position, but that it needs ratification. There has also been some speculation that if we did revoke and then later chose to leave again, the EU would simply restart negotiations where we left off - this solution has already built that in to the proposal.
At a push I would hope the EU/EU members would be pragmatic enough to hold back any challenge, being presented with a far better position than we are all in right now.
Even utilising revocation it is important to point out that the proposal is very different to the current mess in setting out a clear alternative to being a member; fundamentally, however we get the extra time people will still be being given something new, something defined, the choice of "this relationship, or that relationship", and that choice will be one they helped to shape.
Enough of how to get there... what is the plan!
Let's look at some problems first (sorry, plan later).
1. Both sides make bold claims about what people voted for. Neither side actually knows (and the answer is manifold anyway). Remain wants another referendum, but don't really know on what. Leave have appropriated brexit votes to support whatever type of exit they want (and have steadily been dragging that towards a more and more extreme position as it becomes more apparent all forms require compromise and cooperation of some kind). It is legitimate to point out the referendum vote cannot be taken to support any old Brexit, but it is also legitimate to ask what another vote would actually be based on... what, really, is different now?
2. Which leads us to: the Withrawal Agreement doesn't actually settle any of the big questions about what we want for the future. It deals with divorce matters, sets out a transition period (to transition to... something...), gives some limited assurances to EU27 nationals in the UK and provides a fail-safe for the Good Friday Agreement. The Political Declaration is non-binding, and really doesn't say anything anyway. It really isn't good enough that we are considering walking away based on so little certainty about the future, and it's hard to argue we are in a better position to have a new vote.
3. No deal is unconscionable, no democracy should allow a radicalised minority to inflict such a thing on the whole country, our parliamentary democracy exists to prevent such travesties happening. Similarly simply cancelling Brexit outright really is a democratic outrage now the referendum has happened. Both of these are the two extreme positions that could be taken (as an aside it is ridiculous to paint those arguing for another referendum as somehow being extremists, saying "maybe the people should get another go at it" is not an extreme remain position - it's barely a remain position at all, and it certainly isn't if you really believe people haven't changed their minds). Neither is acceptable.
4. It is clear that the extremists like Farage will claim any deal agreed between the UK and the EU is a betrayal (this all started with a claim of the UK being betrayed by being in the EU, and that narrative is not one that is going to be let go of any time soon). If a referendum is put to the people between a deal or remain, then they will shout betrayal. This won't be a majority of people, but it'll be enough to poison our politics and without taking the wind out of it's sails could just hijack every election for decades to come.
The 2016 referendum was the start of a policy, a huge policy, an era defining policy. It started with an overly simple question and to make matters worse the two sides advocating the answers failed abysmally to set out what it meant. Parliament (wrongly in my view) abrogated that question to the people, yet didn't ask for anywhere near the level of information to take their answer and do anything meaningful with it and allowed the leave campaign to present Brexit as something totally undefined and abstract; this is why they are in such a total mess now. MPs are guilty of the mess we are in, but not because they can't agree what to do now, that's expected given the horrendous mess left by the referendum, how can you take an abstract concept which was many things to different people, and rejected by nearly half of them, and find a way forward for the country? They are of creating that mess in the first place.
It's time to put that right. It's time to invite the people back in to the process. This is what should always have happened. It's an outrage that the public were excluded after being required to make such a momentous decision, with so little to go on. It's time to get them to give some clarity to the 2016 vote that only they can legitimately give.
I don't mean we should just give them another vote. I think one clearly is needed and it's natural that the end of the process is also a decision point. First we have to define what that vote is on.
The big problem we have had is that this has been carried out by politicians. It has been subject to partisanship, hidden (and not so hidden) agendas, spin, spin and yet more spin, toxic nationalism, outright deceit and the marginalisation of expert advice. Nobody trusts anything anyone is saying, and both sides have lost any credibility with the other. Both sides claim to be on the side of the people, yet neither can make a convincing case for being so. It doesn't help that opposing this policy, something that is a normal part of democracy, is now seen as unthinkable by many, just because it was instigated by a referendum vote.
We need a new deal. That much is patently obvious, but what kind of deal?
The Withdrawal Agreement is not really about a deal, it's about separation, closing off things we are currently doing with the EU. It contains some (disgraceful emphasis on some) surety for EU27 citizens, a transition period to implement... something, and it provides a fail safe for protecting the Good Friday Agreement. Despite the protestations of the leavers, and the obsession of our media, there really isn't anything worth discussing even if it were re-opened. Everything of importance is kicked in to the future negotiations, even the Irish protocol (backstop) is simply there as an insurance against those future talks failing to find a better solution and doesn't kick in until after the transition period. The arguments over it are a total red herring.
The Political Declaration should be where it's all at, except it isn't. The difficult negotiations are yet to come and they are so difficult that even the document that is supposed to provide a framework for them hasn't been able to get agreement for anything more than a vague "something, something, good will, something, something, close relations, something, something". It's total rubbish. It's an abrogation of responsibility to let us relinquish our current relationship with so little known about what our future one will be.
This is actually the reason a number of MPs are opposed to May's deal and voted it down... but of course we never hear about those ones, the government, and media attention, always focuses on those who oppose the backstop. It's a deliberate strategy to continue to airbrush out any sane voice or hint that people might 'want' to stay in a close relationship with the EU. It's always ignored that there is another way to passing Brexit, which is to actually soften the approach, rather than harden it beyond the point of reason.
I digress, so straight to it. What we need is a citizens assembly. I know this has been mooted before, but I've never seen it laid out as part of an actual plan. We don't just need a citizens assembly, we need to use it to create a 'peoples deal' that can then get approval from the whole public, or rejected meaning the end of Brexit. Either way it provides much more certainty than accepting the current WA and PD does.
The proposal is thus:
Extend or revoke (as discussed).
We take the Withdrawal Agreement and we accept it as PART of the solution. Firstly this takes the hard work done to date, whilst getting us past the 'no reopening the WA' block. It's unnecessary to reopen it anyway, there is no issue which limits our future except the backstop, which we'll deal with below.
We convene a citizens assembly with the express purpose of looking at what our future relationship should look like. We must make all the advice and evidence that the government has available to them. We must give them access to the necessary experts, and provide opportunities
This should definitely include looking at the solution to replace the backstop, and this should include actual visits to the border, meetings with the communities who live there and the organisations who represent Northern Irish businesses, farmers and industry. If they can't find an alternative then we have to accept that: 1. the Good Friday Agreement doesn't have an 'exit clause' and the UK is bound by it, and that it is both immoral and unethical to undermine it by reimposing border infrastructure. If they find an alternative, great the UK can start to look at implementing it. If a solution is seen, but, as is almost certainly likely, the timescale can't be guaranteed, then the Assembly should give their opinion on whether it'd be better to ask to extend the transition period, or to implement the backstop.
Other key decisions they should consider are: Freedom of Movement - should it end? Should we join EFTA (permanently, because we are talking about our actual future relationship)? What other initiatives should we seek to be a part of (and they must be able to access good advice on the likelihood of being accepted in to these, along with the consequences of doing so).
It should be made clear that this Assembly is seeking to find a future relationship outside the EU. Some may feel that remaining is the best option, and any final conclusion from them could contain such a statement from those who do, but it is important they reach a conclusion on what a non EU member UK should look like.
These recommendations should then go to a cross party negotiating team to flesh out the Political Declaration with the EU. It would really help if there was a government of national unity at this stage, but it's not necessary so long as parliament has oversight and the government chooses, or is made to properly facilitate it.
This deal will have been shaped by the public. It will therefore be much harder for the the likes of Farage and Rees-Mogg to shout down (although no doubt they will try).
Somebody has to then sign this off. It seems insane to bring the partisanship and parliamentary poison back in to things after all that, and whilst the Citizens Assembly will be kind of representatives of the wider public, they shouldn't have to carry the responsibility of having made the final decision. This deal should go back to the public to vote on. It's right that it does. It has always been right that the public gets the final say, having been forced to have the first one. Rejection of this Brexit, the only one that can genuinely lay claim to being what people may have voted for in 2016, should lead us back to the status quo, to remaining a member, either by revocation, or by not seeking to leave again (depending on how we dealt with the extra time).
There is no doubt the above is still going to be divisive, I don't think anyone can see any options now that are not. Despite it all though I still trust the people of the UK, even those I have bitterly fallen out with over this, when actually sat down together and going through the documents, advice and direct conversations with those affected, to get to grips with the reality we face - to be pragmatic and realistic, to be humane and considerate. I trust them much more than a government led by proven liars, or the unknown agendas of many of our politicians. More than that I think we need to take the partisanship and political agendas, the vested interests and the insulation many MPs (especially those on the leave side) have from any of the effects of Brexit due to their substantial wealth. Who else, really, do we have to turn to? The public's apathy and inclination not to engage with politics may just be the antidote we need right now.
It's time we demanded that politicians put there money where their mouth is. If they really believe that they are pursuing their Brexit solutions in the name of the people, then they must let the people in to the process, to give them control over their future... as they once promised to do.
TLDR
1. Extend or revoke A50 to give us time
2. Accept the WA as a starting point and...
3. Convene a citizens assembly to look at the future relationship,. including what alternative will/can replace the backstop. Give this assembly access to all the expert advice currently being horded by ministers, or filtered through partisan politics and a sensation seeking media.
4. Trust people.
5. Negotiate a more substantial Political Declaration based on the citizen's assembly advice.
6. Put this, the peoples deal, a real, concrete proposal, built on public engagement and not the screaming partisanship of politicians or hidden agendas, to the public to ratify. After all no one else knows whether the public will think it's still worth it and it is fundamentally democratic that the option to say 'screw that let's just not do this' is always an option... just as it is for every policy that gets introduced in to our parliament.
2. Accept the WA as a starting point and...
3. Convene a citizens assembly to look at the future relationship,. including what alternative will/can replace the backstop. Give this assembly access to all the expert advice currently being horded by ministers, or filtered through partisan politics and a sensation seeking media.
4. Trust people.
5. Negotiate a more substantial Political Declaration based on the citizen's assembly advice.
6. Put this, the peoples deal, a real, concrete proposal, built on public engagement and not the screaming partisanship of politicians or hidden agendas, to the public to ratify. After all no one else knows whether the public will think it's still worth it and it is fundamentally democratic that the option to say 'screw that let's just not do this' is always an option... just as it is for every policy that gets introduced in to our parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I support open and frank discussion, so long as there is an intent to discuss, however rude, abusive or nonsensical posts will be deleted - unless they make me laugh.