Straws in the wind

Back to North Berwick and The Law again. A different view this time compared to the other day. Still have hay bales but in addition this time dried grasses too.

I was down to meet the solicitors to sign off the application to the court for confirmation of our mother’s estate. It took just a few minutes but followed some months of work. Hopefully that will come through quickly as her flat is now in the market.

Then it was into her garden to tidy up and take home some items. It was a beautiful October day. Still air. Sunshine. A bit of warmth and leaves crunching underfoot. But I’d had to scrape the ice off the windscreen at 9 am!

The news continued to whirl around the law ( the Court of Session decided to wait a bit longer); the application of precedence in Parliamentary procedure; and the increasing determination of the Government to railroad through the Bill.

One of the telling comments I heard today was that the referendum “Brexit” (unspecified) was the “will of the people”. Then Theresa May’s deal was the “will of the people”. Now Boris’s deal is the “will of the people”, despite being different in content and future direction of travel.

So which is it? IF Parliament can agree on what a Brexit deal looks like ( and nothing so far that I’ve seen is welcome to me) then we should have a legally binding referendum ( as opposed to the original advisory referendum which the politicians said they would respect). The choice should be between the proposed deal and the direction of travel and remain.

I am a firm remainer. I am willing to accept that there may be a long term ( very long term) economic argument for being able to negotiate free trade deals. But I’ve yet to be convinced by any argument. And the evidence of USA policy on tariffs does not bode well. And that pales into insignificance alongside the loss of cooperation and social exchange.

I would reluctantly accept a vote to leave, based on a better understanding of what Brexit might mean. we now are inching towards that better understanding compared to 2016. It is not helpful that the language used to describe what Brexit might offer puffs up the deal as offering some sort of emotional vision of a past which no longer exists.

But for me, all the clarification over the past 3 years of the benefits of
-just in time cross-country production in a customs union,
-of pooling research, security information exchange,
- medical supplies,
-educational exchanges,
-regulated health and food standards,
-recognition of professional qualifications,
- social and cultural exchange
have simply reinforced my view the remaining in the EU with its imperfections is far far better. And that before we get n to the protection of workers’ rights and so on.

Immigration may have been a dog whistle during the original campaign. But immigration will continue - just more from outwith the EU: and potentially subject to tough standards which will constrain businesses to achieve their production aims.

But if, after all of that, another vote decides we should leave, then I would recognise that vote.

In the absence of a people’s vote however and just being told it is the “will of the people” has such a hollow ring (to me and no doubt those who voted remain) that I cannot see the nation being brought together in a unified way.

Yes, I want Brexit done, as we are constantly being told by the UK government. But I want Brexit done by rescinding Article 50.

A general election would muddy the key issue. So for me a people’s vote is the only way to resolve this.

Today there are straws in the wind.