The more I read about the legal and constitutional issues raised by Brexit, which are absolutely huge, I see perhaps a last hope we have that it can be avoided in some way.
A balance needs to struck by firstly weighing up the difference between the status quo and whatever the new settlement with the EU will be, bearing in mind a Norway style agreement with extra migration controls is very close to what we have now.
Against this "improved" deal which satisfies Brexiters, or at least enough of them, that we have regained sovereignty and control must be balanced the cost of achieving it, considering:
1. The massive hit the economy will suffer if companies, especially banks, relocate to the EU. The most vulnerable in society, even though the majority voted for Brexit, will suffer if jobs are lost and services cut.
2. The amount of government and parliamentary time that will be absorbed over decades arguing and debating the the withdrawal, the new relationship with the EU and picking out what EU law to repeal, keep or change. It is a phenomenal challenge.
3. The potential for judicial and parliamentary challenges here in the UK even before article 50 is triggered and then the European legal and constitutional issues affecting, firstly withdrawal and then the new trade arrangements. Withdrawal needs to be approved in the EU by QMV but any new deal by unanimity with governments, parliaments and even plebiscites able to derail it at any time.
4. Most people will notice no difference at all. Even those who do will probably not think of it as being unshackled from the EU just some microscopic change to some theoretical status.
Will the gain actually be worth it all? This question may become central if, as some people expect, in the intervening period, the EU moves to a looser arrangement with free movement restricted to nations with similar income levels, for instance. After all the trouble we may ask if the price wasn't far too high.
No comments:
Post a Comment