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 & #39;leave& #39; 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& #39;s short and long-term future and relationship with the continent whilst 50 years of integration are undone. Instead, we are promised & #39;quick& #39; 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
