The inevitable Brexit post…

Hello, it’s been a little while…

So, this is it. Theresa May has signed the letter, and the two years of negotiations to take the UK out of the European Union begin.

The UK is leaving the European Union.

The UK is leaving the EU.

I still can’t quite get my head around that sentence. It just seems weird (as well as catastrophically wrong). We’ve been part of the EEC/EU all my life, it’s just been normal to me that that’s how things have been. It’s not been a bad thing, I can’t think of any time when I’ve thought “damn you, EU” and shook an angry fist in the vague direction of Brussels. To think that in two years’ time that won’t be the case just seems strange.

But leave we will, assuming that the negotiations don’t go pear-shaped and we end up not leaving (well, a man can dream, can’t he?). And if Theresa May and the right wing of the Conservative party get their way, it will be a hard, non-Single Market Brexit.

I actually, genuinely don’t understand it.

I don’t understand why David Cameron called the referendum in the first place. Sure, if you asked people if they wanted a referendum, they answered “yes”. But my understanding is that when people ranked how important EU membership was to them, it never ranked as a particularly important issue. Essentially, then, we’ve been railroaded into this by a few people for whom leaving the EU was an obession. Cameron appears to have been frightened by them and so called the referendum.

Which he lost. And then ran away from. And Mrs May took over. And that’s where things get interesting, and more than a little depressing…

The aftermath of the Referendum

Now we get to the part that makes me even more puzzled and, if I’m honest, slightly sad and angry about: what happened between the referendum result and the triggering of Article 50 that happened today.

The result of the referendum was close: 52-48. This was by no means an overwhelming majority in favour of Brexit; this was a close call.

But somehow, this got taken up by those most in favour of Brexit and labelled “the will of the people”, as if this was a unanimous, or near-unanimous, vote in favour of leaving. It wasn’t; nowhere near it.

But the loudest Brexit voices were the ones that prevailed. Only the bald fact that Leave won the referendum mattered. That 48% who voted against – over 16 million people – didn’t count. The people had spoken, the narrative went, with one voice: we want out.

Now, you might think given the closeness of the vote, that a wise and sensible government would tread cautiously. The outcome of the vote, and the sheer divisiveness of the campaign, showed a country that was deeply split, almost down the middle. Surely, in these circumstances, the best thing to do was for Mrs May and the government to seek consensus, to move slowly, to try and work to bring on board those of us who had voted Remain. There would no doubt be some, perhapd many, who would refuse. But that was no reason not try. If Mrs May was serious about the “Unionist” part of the “Conservative and Unionist” party she boasted she belonged to in her speech on taking up office, surely reaching out to Remain-voters, seeking to include them and their wishes and preferences in what came next would’ve gone a long way to healing some of those deep divisions.

In a similar way, Mrs May could’ve respected the fact that Scotland voted Remain and worked closely with Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government to find a way of dealing with Brexit that could have accommodated them. This was surely especially important, given the fact that the SNP would surely be looking to use the Brexit vote as a trigger for a second referendum (which, of course, they did; and while I fervently hope Scotland stays in the UK, I can’t say I blame them).

And in dealing with the EU post-referendum, surely seeking to maintain the best possible relations with the 27 countries with whom we’ll have to negotiate was the best way forward. The message to Brussels and those 27 countries should surely have been, “While we intend to enact the result of the referendum, we recognise it is vital for the UK and the EU to come to the best possible agreement to allow us both to flourish after Brexit. We therefore intend to work closely with our partners and friends in the EU to ensure that what emerges from the Article 50 negotiations will be as mutually beneficial to us all as possible, allowing us to continue to work closely together post-Brexit”. Or even just, “sorry! It’s not you, it’s us”.

But, no.

Brexit became “the will of the people”, as noted above. Ardent hard-Brexiteers, such as Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, were appointed to the cabinet in key positions. Theresa May tried to ignore her previous pro-Remain sentiment and made hard Brexit her priority: “Brexit means Brexit”, apparently. She needlessly sidelined and antagonised Scotland and paid little or no attention to Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party conference that autumn at times represented a giant two fingers stuck up at the rest of the EU. No one in the government showed any appreciation of the deep divisions in the country, or the effects that rushing headlong into a hard Brexit would have on Scotland and the rest of the EU.

Labour’s response

Surely Labour could be relied on to stop this? I mean, they campaigned in favour of remaining, didn’t they?

Sigh.

No, they didn’t. Jeremy Corbyn wanted to be nuanced and to show himself as anything but an uncritical supporter of the EU (especially given his previous anti-EU stance). But he just came across as lukewarm and not caring. While arguments still rage about how effectively he campaigned (and the point is well made that Labour voters voted largely in favour of Remain – a point we’ll come on to shortly), it has to be said he helped contribute to a sense that the pro-Remain campaign was half-hearted and more interested in poiting out the dangers of leaving the EU, rather than positively making the case for staying in.

Then Corbyn appeared to call for Article 50 to be triggered now, and praised Gisela Stuart for her role in leading the Leave campaign. Really? What kind of message does that send to Labour MPs and members who campaigned for Remain, as they thought their leader was, and who were left devastated by the result?

Then came the Parliamentary bill to trigger Article 50. And we must pause here and consider the supreme irony of Brexiteers who had campaigned for the UK Parliament to be sovereign once more (which it was anyway), opposing one measure that would ensure that sovereignty was a reality.

But back to Labour. They put up all sorts of amendments designed to protect the rights of EU citizens still living here, ensure that Parliament got a say on the final deal etc. They were all rejected. So, having seen these presuambly crucial amendments voted down, did Labour vote against the bill on the grounds that, while they respected the result of the referendum, to support Brexit in this way would go against what the party believed to be important?

They did not. They were whipped into voting in favour of the bill.

I cannot believe the immense stupidity of this decision. Still. Labour was cowed by that “will of the people” line, forgetting that 48% of the vote was for remaining; forgetting that between 60-70% of their own supporters had voted Remain – and were now effectively unrepresented by their own party. Theresa May now had and has a free hand. Corbyn and Labour have said “the fight starts now” (ha!) and of the tests that the eventual deal must pass in order for them to accept it.

But it’s too late. It’s. Too. Late. They’ve given May and the hard Brexiteers a free hand. How can they oppose it now? In voting in favour of Article 50, even without those amendments, they’ve effectively said “go ahead, Theresa, do what you will”. If they raise a squeak of protest, or try to vote against, they’ll be laughed at: “why didn’t you vote against Article 50 in the first place” is the obvious retort, “it’s too late now”.

Corbyn blew it. Big time.

Wither Remainers?

So, effectively, the 48% – 48%, a huge percentage – who support Remain are unrepresented. The Lib Dems, always a pro-EU party, are making a lot of noise and rightly so; the Greens are pro-EU. But aside from them and the SNP’s MPs, that’s still considerably less than 100 MPs giving any voice to the concerns of those who voted Remain. In a democracy (which doesn’t mean “winner takes all”, despite what many Brexiters seem to think), for 48% of those who voted to be effectively told, “sorry, you lost” is unthinkable.

There are two messages that have been directed at Remainers who dare to speak against what’s happening. One is, “You lost, get over it”: as if the fact we lost one vote means we should shut up forever (because when one party loses a general election, they just nod everything the new government does through… oh wait: they don’t!). The other is something along the lines of, “we need to pull together, put aside our differences, and all work together to make Brexit work.”

Well, sorry, it doesn’t work like that. You can’t spend nine months rubbishing 48% of the electorate, telling us we’re “Remoaners”, traitors, unpatriotic, that our votes don’t count… and then suddenly expect us to forget it all and come on board with something we profoundly disagree with. If you’d wanted us to be on board, you should’ve respected us, listened to us, worked to understand why we voted the way we did (48% =/= a “liberal, metropolitan elite”) and try and include our deep, deep concerns in formulating your Brexit plans.

UKIP (grrr…)

Of course, the bogey-man (or party) in this are UKIP, who have gained a power and influence on Brexit and the British political scene far beyond their support in the country. Until the weekend, they only had one MP. Their figurehead (even if he’s not their leader any more) has never won a UK parliamentary election. And yet the Tories and Labour act as if UKIP have this vast power to destroy them. Every action the two main parties have taken since the referendum has been with at least one eye on UKIP in general and Nigel Farage in particular. It’s been utterly astonishing to see the two parties work in such utter fear of such a small political party, simply because their former leader is good at pretending to speak for the ordinary people of the UK.

And if I say any more about UKIP, I might say something I’ll regret…

So I’ll leave it at that. This isn’t a systematic analysis of why we’ve come to this point, it’s not an unbiased account: I want us to stay in the EU and I hope beyond hope that something will happen in the next 2 years that will make that inevitable. It’s a part-rant, part-expression of utter disbelief at what has happened and the incredible (in the literal sense of that word) decisions, mis-steps and mistakes that have been taken since the referendum.

Thank you for reading it.

Advertisements

Cover to Cover Complete: Through the Bible as It Happened

I’ve just posted a review of this on Amazon (though it’s not shown up yet).  I tried reading it for 6 months (which I think is long enough to give something a proper go), but have, after much debating in my head, given up on it.  Not on the Bible, oh no! – just on this.

Why?

Well, firstly because of the way it treats the Bible and what’s in it: not as texts and stories to be read in their wholeness, but as verses to be chopped up and moved around to fit in with the extreme "chronological" approach the editors decided to take.  So, for example, not just chapters but whole verses appear out of place and sometimes follow verses they’re supposed to immediately precede.  The stories of Samuel and Samson are mingled up together, meaning you lose the plot of both of them (also, how chronological is that?).  It’s quite easy to lose the thread of a story and have to go back and pick it up again when the editors decide to re-visit it. I don’t, actually, think this respects the Bible at all.  I think it’s part of a modern view of the text that we can just chop it up, take verses out of context and do what we will with them, losing all sense of why they were there in the first place.  It’s why proof-texts get thrown around all over the place to support people’s particular views on anything from the meaning of Christ’s death, through abortion to whether the UK should be in the EU (according to one letter-writer in the Baptist Times a few years ago, we should leave because the Bible clearly shows that a small country should seek God as its protection – huh?).  It’s a poor way of treating the Bible,pays no respect to those who, under God’s inspiration, wrote these texts and makes for a frustrating reading experience. (Plus, it means that where parallel passages are put together, it’s easy to skip over the second passage as "I’ve already read that").

Secondly, the end-of-the-day comments for "thought and contemplation" really, really annoyed me.  They rely on catchphrases and cliches, make no attempt to engage with the texts in any way and offer no illumination or any real food for thought.  Some really rather tenuous links are made to Christ which do no justice to the OT texts themselves.  The stories of Israel in the desert are nearly all accompanied by messages that can be reduced to "obey God – or else": is that really the God we serve?  What might have been better was some kind of explanation of what was going on, especially for tricky books such as Leviticus.

Thirdly, the chronological approach means you have to wait for ages to get to the New Testament.  Now I appreciate that most people’s knowledge and appreciation of the Old Testament (including my own) is not what it should be and a lot of people treat it merely as the bit before Jesus, trying to interpret everything as point to Him (which this book doesn’t help with).  But as a different BT letter writer said, we follow Christ, who is found primarily in the New Testament.  So in a way it’s natural that we should tend towards that part of the Bible.  Many other Bible in the year plans pair OT and NT readings each day; this seems a much better way of doing it.  I missed reading the New Testament (apart from my sermon preparation). Finally, I’m not sure about the whole concept of reading the Bible in a year.  Yes, it’s good discipline and can help to bring to light parts of the Bible we’re unfamiliar with (which my 6 months in this book certainly did).  But it can become almost a virility test, as if there’s something better about you for having done it.  Plus, it can reduce the Bible to being the same as any other book, which we read from beginning to end.

But the Bible isn’t like that: it’s a book, not just to be read, but to be listened to.  It’s a book to be savoured, like great food or wine.  It’s a book to think about, ponder on, meditate on, argue with (!).  We don’t just read it: we take it in, we make it part of our lives.  We allow God to speak to us through it, something which can mean reading the same bit over and over again, for several days or even longer.  The Bible-in-a-year format can work against that: in the pressure to get through the book within the time scale (particularly when the book concerned encourages you to catch up of you’re behind), you can easily read a passage just to tick it off; it’s easier to not spend time with the passage and really think about it as you’ve got to get on to the next bit.

There is a lot to be said for broadening our knowledge of the Bible and reading the bits we don’t know or don’t like.  But this isn’t the best way of doing it (in fact, it provides a perfect excuse for skipping over those bits or only giving them a cursory glance, as you’ve got to "keep up").  God doesn’t judge us on how much of the Bible we’ve read, though I’m sure He’s disappointed that we don’t treasure it more.  But treasuring it means more than reading it in a year; it means making it the very centre of our lives and living out its message.  I don’t think this way of reading it helps do that at all. It took me a while to make the decision to stop reading it and it’s meant I’m left trying to find a new way of doing my daily devotions.  But I’m glad – and relieved – I did stop!