The prism of the UK Parliament has, this week, has spilt the white light of the Anti-EU referendum into a spectrum of Pro-Brexit colour rivals. Being Anti-EU can no longer equate to any single Pro-Brexit position. In doing so, Theresa May's premiership has also been deconstructed. It has been revealed to be a hapless coalition founded on political opportunism and erroneous logic, from start to finish.
If the recent impasse in the UK Parliament has taught us anything, it's that the much vaunted anti-EU majority only ever equated to a number of pro-Brexit minorities that were in conflict with one another. It is a political truism that in our democracy, it is much easier to unite in a vote against something, than to figure out exactly what it is we want to vote for. This disease has infected our democracy since ever we were more interested in voting out a ruling party than voting someone in. All newly elected candidates begin with a full tank of public trust, a sort of fuel based on human capital, which is slowly spent, often in words per printed page per scandal, over the course of their political careers, until it eventually runs out of ink, or trust, or scandals.
The PM has not been able to negotiate a deal that unifies the various factions of the pro-Brexit minorities. Why? In theory it is because she drew her red lines around the UK Economy rather then around UK Sovereignty. This was a mistake.
In my view, the anti-EU vote was a vote for the UK's Sovereignty, for its currency and for its unwritten constitution, i.e. the Symbolic Monarchy. The evidence for this is that plenty of immigrants from the old Commonwealth countries voted for Brexit. The Empire is dead in administrative terms. But there are significant gains to be had for the Old Commonwealth countries who still have significant invested interests in the UK. The infrastructure of Colonial capitalism survives, exporting its English language and Anglo-Saxon economics, through a global currency of educational, religious and class practices.
It was a vote against ever increasing federal union with the EU, against the single currency, and against further devolution of the UK's legislative powers to its constituent Nation states and regions. A vote against immigration from the EU but for increased immigration from the Commonwealth. The Sovereignty of the UK still has some trading status in these terms.
Anything less would have led to a serious weakening of one of the most important Monarchic dynasties in Europe; the Commonwealth has been a necessary part of the jigsaw that has kept peace and stability throughout Europe since the war.
However, I think it was a mistake for Theresa May to stake her premiership on it's success. This is because there was no unity among the pro-Brexit minorities. Right-wing fascists from the Farming communities, in bed with migrant landlords from the Provisional municipalities, a.k.a. UKIP?, was always going to be a recipe for disaster.
To draw her red-lines around the economy in such circumstances was a foolish endeavour. No-one can predict the post-Brexit economy in the necessary detail to be able to make any sensible decisions. Based on the political evidence, and voting records of MPs, May's red lines now need to be redrawn around the UK's Sovereignty. For instance, as a Sovereign country we would always retain our rights to defend our borders with the ultimate force if necessary. So the clause to commit the UK to having "no hard border" with the EU is, and always was, a complete farce.
The ploitical declaration was taken off the table a day after I first posted this article. Any future attempts in that direction need to answer questions like: how can the UK Parliament protect the UK against "ever increasing Federal union within the EU" without destroying any of the benefits of trading with/within the single market?
This includes questions that have not really been answered on:
1) devolving executive powers to the parliaments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
2) maintaining legislative autonomy in the face of the overwhelming economic competition from the EU.
3) regulating Sterling in relation to the Euro and/or the world's financial markets.
4) negotiating access with international competitors across a range of economic markets.
Because the UK Government, i.e. Theresa May's government, has so far failed to dictate a coherent policy strategy in these areas, the only conclusion can be that the UK has already conceded so much of its Sovereignty in these areas to the EU, that the EU still effectively retains its Sovereignty over us. The only "deal" left to be made, is the terms of the UK's surrender, or rather the terms of the UK's anti-EU majority's surrender, to the EU/pro-EU UK, recognising it as it's Sovereign power.
There is an alternative, which is obviously about going to war with the EU (and the pro-EU UK), but in reality the anti-EU majority is likely to be split on this issue as well. Years of austerity have left the necessary will, among civil and public servants, if not the general public, severely wanting. May has effectively exhausted her troops and squandered the political capital of the referendum. She may not have had many alternatives to chose from during her time in office, but the choices she did have to make were bad ones. History has spoken and her supporters in Parliament now need to listen.
