Read on Twitter
A short thread about Brexit and why I am so critical of it: not so much the idea, but the process by which it has happened, which betrays both those who voted remain *and* leave. I do not think Brexit will make the UK better off, but that is not the focus here. /1
The winner-takes-all approach of first past the post has infused Brexit in a way which ignores (a) almost half the electorate (b) Scotland and NI (c) the different shades of what 'leave' means. The present situation bears little resemblance to what was promised in the ref. /2
For a state to *join* the EU takes 10+ years, even if they already have a democratic system, market-based economy and level of integration with the EU. The efforts taken over a long period of time are huge: regular checking, national consultations, parliament scrutiny etc. /3
It is never the case that a state decides on a whim or comes down to last-minute frantic negotiations on key matters. Information campaigns about what becoming a member means, preparing business etc are crucial. There are always problems and questions over readiness but ... /4
If joining takes so long (even just in terms of adapting the law), then a good rule of thumb is that leaving the EU and untangling integration according to an agreed plan should take around the same length of time. /5
In the UK, we have a manifesto commitment in 2015, a referendum in 2016, and then the 2-year Art 50 process triggered before the UK had any idea what it wanted. And there is still no plan: Global Britain remains a slogan, and ending free movement the only product of it. /6
The 2 year period of Art 50 was never meant to be a carefully-calculated time period for withdrawal, hence the in-built possibility of extension. And as a leaving state, it has to be the UK that decides what it wants *not* the other way around. /7
Unlike other countries, where there is a carefully thought-out process before any major constitutional change *before* a vote, the UK has hurtled into a process whilst trying to work out what it wants to be - and systematically change the whole basis of its economy. /8
And this is why I am critical: the UK might mitigate some of the damage, and be prepared for it, if it had acted according to a plan for the before, during and after of Brexit. Instead, the UK has left the EU and now has only 2 months (in the middle of a pandemic) to act. /9
Brinkmanship has no place here: at stake is the UK's short and long-term future and relationship with the continent whilst 50 years of integration are undone. Instead, we are promised 'quick' fixes whilst business and citizens are urged to prepare for an uncertain future. /10
And at stake is not some abstract idea of what the UK should be like. It is about the real changes that should have been planned over a period of years, and ideally before a referendum. Brexit was not over on 31 Jan 2020 and will not be over on 31 December 2020 either. /END
