How do we know what the electorate actually wanted from EU Leave vote?

Photo: Unsplash

Life very rarely throws up questions that have a black and white ‘yes/no’ choice does it? I can’t quite help think that this hasn’t helped with the EU referendum. With a question of such complexity and magnitude boiled down to one simplistic question, chaos was probably always likely.

I last blogged on the eve of the ballot. A lot has happened since hasn’t it? Yet one thing is clear, no-one really knows what to do next.

Whether I like it or not (and I’m still convinced that it’s a terrible decision) the electorate chose to Leave. The trouble was, while there is a mandate to negotiate an exit, it’s not clear what else there is a mandate for. What did the people actually vote for?

The black and white nature of a yes/no referendum also allows people to make sweeping and inaccurate statements about both camps. Remainers aren’t all whiners just as much as Leavers aren’t all racist. Yet, because the cap fits for some in those respective sides, others are tarred with the brush.

Some Leavers want a strangely very similar relationship to the EU to that we have now. Others want a Norway style deal, some are keen on a more distant position and others want us to be as far away as possible. Some won’t countenance ‘free movement’ of people, others are happier to accept this. All of this variation is under the umbrella of the ‘no’ in the yes/no vote... and that’s not even considering the shades of grey within those arguing for yes.

So, what do we do? Blunder along into a position that is bound to be unsatisfactory? That’s the way it seems. Consider this: a negotiation that adopts a Norway-style relationship is likely to upset the 48% who voted to Remain AND all of the most vehemently anti-EU elements of the Leave voters. The mandate suddenly becomes a little flimsy.

People like Boris Johnson certainly don’t have the answer. Having been royally shafted by his fellow Leaver Michael Gove, Johnson ducked out of the race. Yet, let’s face it, he had no idea how to implement the result he’d helped to win anyway. He’s probably relieved to be able to snipe from the sidelines rather than having to do anything, passing the poisoned chalice to a colleague in the process.

Gove is a man who regularly repeated the assertion that he doesn’t think he is up to the job and proved too toxic to run the Department for Education. I still don’t think he really wants it. He’s probably achieved what he wanted by dashing Boris’ dreams. A playground-style rivalry played out at the highest level.

It’s certainly a precarious position. David Cameron – having let loose a yes/no question to this tricky topic – is the lamest of lame ducks. A decision on Heathrow and a debate on Trident have been parked until his successor is named. Nothing, it seems, can be achieved until the politicians sort out their squabbles. A final failure that will surely define Cameron’s premiership.

Then there’s George Osborne. The Chancellor had failed to wipe out the deficit in five years of ‘the coalition’ as promised and now, post Brexit, says it won’t happen by 2020 either. His sole purpose destined to be left unachieved. He now seems to think that by repeating the phrase ‘I want to offer reassurance’ that people will actually feel reassured. Why not try giving us some words and ideas that are actually reassuring George? Is it because you’re keeping your powder dry in the hope of clinging on to a job?

And what to make of the mess on the opposition benches? Right now, in the country’s hour of need, there is no opposition and no Government. Cheers guys.

I know some people feel Jeremy Corbyn has been hard done to in recent days but I can understand why his parliamentary colleagues have lost faith in him. His performance during the referendum debate was poor. We’re told he’s a man that sticks to his principles and convictions yet you get the impression he is a Eurosceptic and is happy to leave. So, why not say that? Irrespective of that, the man doesn’t command enough of a party to form an effective opposition any more and has to go. It might not be nice but that’s politics.

I can understand why some people have chosen to march, demonstrate and protest. It seems ridiculous that others now say they shouldn’t do so having argued that they are ‘pro democracy’ during the referendum. The trouble is that I doubt there’s a consensus solution among the marchers about what they think should happen next either.

We’re left awaiting the result of the Conservative Party leadership election to see how we’ll go forward. The final two candidates will, at least, offer differing visions of the future relationship with the EU but it feels a little unsatisfactory that 150,000 party members will get to choose that vision (having had their ‘final two’ whittled down for them). Some grim irony given that we apparently voted to end the rule of unelected and unaccountable figures.

Maybe we should’ve been given a better range of choices in the referendum? Maybe we should never have had one in the first place, leaving the politicians we choose to represent us to make the tough decisions on our behalf? Maybe we should be given a chance to say whether we agree with the final deal thrashed out with the EU? Maybe we should all pretend this never happened in a very British way and try to move on? Maybe Remainers should just step back and hope things aren’t that bad? Maybe Johnson and Farage should’ve had the decency to see through what they started?

So many maybes, so few answers. We’ve said ‘no’ to a question that really wasn’t a yes/no problem and all it has done is throw up other more complex questions. Questions of the nature that probably should’ve been thrashed out before the vote instead of tawdry nonsense, spun statistics and guff written on buses.