Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.
It’s not quite The 101 Dalmatians, but a number of dogs are not barking in this general election campaign. To name two: Britain’s near-bankruptcy and Brexit.
Given that Get Brexit Done was instrumental in delivering an 80-seat majority in 2019 after more than three years of bitter social division and political deadlock, the Conservatives’ near silence about Britain’s departure from the European Union is almost as remarkable as the secession itself.
Instead of acknowledging the achievement, the Government is treating Brexit like an unwanted gift given by an embarrassing relation, best hidden away in the back of a cupboard and forgotten about.
Like it or loathe it, the UK’s rupture with the EU will be seen as a seminal moment in this country’s history. Almost 200 years on, the Repeal of the Corn Laws is still cited as a political milestone in Britain (and Ireland): Brexit easily eclipses it.
Above all else, Brexit is emblematic of democracy; a reminder that we, the people, are sovereign. To paraphrase the Constitution of the United States, while we the people surely want to “promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, 17.4 million Brits decided that “forming a more perfect Union” with Brussels was not necessarily the best way forward.
Like any election, the 2016 referendum was an exercise in democracy. Had the result gone the other way, it is worth speculating whether so-called “loser’s consent” would have been withheld. Drawing a distinction between “sore” and “gracious” losers, one academic blog suggests that the latter “contribute to the stability of democratic regimes”.
During the Great Denigration of 2016-19, anti-democratic sore losers viewed their fellow citizens whose opinion differed from theirs as deplorables: thick, racist gammons.
Immediately following the referendum, David Lammy demanded that Parliament ignore it. Unable to accept the result, he was one of several prominent figures in the Party who sought a second referendum. Sir Keir Starmer, then Shadow Brexit Secretary, clung to the option even in the wake of the 2019 European elections, won decisively by the Brexit Party.
Why are we unsurprised he flip-flopped over the issue of free movement?
Had “graceful losers” prevailed after the referendum, more than three years would not have been wasted. After all, the hysterical sound and fury generated by sore Remainers between June 2016 and the 2019 election ultimately signified nothing and was counterproductive: no customs union; no single market; no free movement; no second vote; no membership.
In another display of democracy, voters passed judgement on their slow-learner rejoiner critics – and awarded the Boris Johnson-led Conservatives a landslide.
Five years on, most politicians are apparently content to let the sleeping dogs of Brexit lie. Perhaps they fear re-opening old wounds; equally, they could be mindful that EU membership has tumbled down voters’ list of priorities. In September 2019 YouGov found that 72 per cent stated that it was among the most important issues facing the country: today that has fallen to 13 per cent.
But in side-stepping Brexit, politicians are refusing honestly to confront its downsides. Unless problems are acknowledged, they cannot be solved. Leaving the EU was always a process rather than an event.
The Windsor Framework, which amended the Northern Ireland Protocol, reflects that policies can evolve to mutual benefit; there is surely scope for streamlining the paperwork which affects small export businesses on both sides of the North Sea.
This week, a clip of Clement Attlee’s warning about the Common Market becoming a “dictatorship of civil servants” became a meme. It coincided with alarm over the European Parliament election results, which saw the Green vote smashed and wins for the hard right in France, Austria and Germany. (Younger German voters, perhaps even those allowed to vote at 16 for the first time, ditched the Greens for Alternative für Deutschland)
What did the Eurocrats expect? Clearly, they failed to register the pan-European farmers’ protests in January against the Green Deal. Hampering businesses with costly green tape, this top-down bureaucrats’ dream of a policy symbolises the EU’s democratic deficit – rather like the rubber-stamping EU Parliament itself.
Ironically, the fallout from the EU’s democratic cosplay gave a jolt to legitimate national politics. Immediately the results were known, the Prime Minister of Belgium resigned, followed by the shock announcement of a general election in France.
The disenchantment felt by voters across Europe led them to vote for insurgent parties. Until 5 July, no one knows whether voters on this side of the Channel will do the same.
But unease with immigration was a factor in the Euro-vote, as it will be here. Estimated migration into the UK was an 1.2million people last year; net migration was 685,000. Such an unsustainable influx undermines a central plank of how Brexit was sold: “Take back control”.
The Conservatives could be making a positive case for Brexit. After all, Labour is hardly clamouring for meaningful change in the EU context, as its manifesto makes clear: “With Labour, Britain will stay outside of the EU … There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.”
Conversely, the Liberal-Democrats want to rejoin the single market and, ultimately, the EU. (And dump the Pound for the Euro?)
Probably the only Euro event most voters are excited by kicks off this evening in Munich at 9pm. But, especially during an election campaign, they should be reminded that Conservatives will always respect their vote, because they are on the side of democracy.
The post Sarah Ingham: Just five years on from 2019, and Brexit is seems scarcely to warrant a mention in this election campaign appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Dr Sarah Ingham
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.