Report comment

Not at all Mr Maloney. If the British people really want to exit the EU, then so be it – our politicians deal in political realities and therefore represent to us that they intend to act accordingly. However, without a written constitution (where the rules about how the constitution is to change would be clear) and with the structures of a Parliamentary democracy rather than of rule by plebiscite, the people of this country needed a mechanism that not only delivered clarity about what was wanted, but also the power and ability for the system to deliver the desired outcome. That really meant a general election, in which people could express their views by voting in the politicians willing to achieve what they want. That way, with a clear majority of either Leavers or Remainers in Parliament, as a result of an election in which those seeking election set out their stalls in detail, that majority would have the power to legislate (or refrain from legislating) in accordance with their stated positions. Instead we have a referendum in which a majority have said they want to Leave but with a Parliament that continues to include not only a mixture of Leavers and Remainers (mostly the latter by all accounts) but also differing views among the Leavers as to what sort of Brexit is desirable (keep the single market or stop free movement of labour?).

All this is of course hindsight and not very helpful in seeing a way forward – the real question is, where do we go from here? My point has been that, due to the number of different entities (28 nation states, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court) unravelling a structured relationship with them that has lasted more than 40 years, embodied in the large body of UK legislation and practices that has grown up around it, is going to take a lot more than a single, short Act of Parliament. In the context of the present discussion, the point is also that the legislation needed to achieve this unravelling must in the end go through Parliament. For this to happen, there needs to be an understanding and acceptance by the majority of MPs of what the legislation will achieve, both as a matter of principle and as to its detail. For that, the Government itself needs to be able to articulate what the purpose of the legislation is and provide a vision, acceptable to a sufficient number of MPs, of how it is expected to play out in the longer term. It is difficult to see how that can happen until the article 50 negotiations have taken place and their outcome known. And will that outcome be what the majority of people in the UK want (which is what will concern MPs voting on any legislation)? We will not know this in advance because the referendum has only delivered the negative outcome that the majority of those voting want to be out of the EU; there is nothing in the outcome that says what kind of post-EU future the majority of people actually do want and whether that is achievable.

So, to return to your comment, a way out of the EU will no doubt be found in the end, given the necessary political will, but what the post-exit future will look like and how palatable it will be is anyone's guess. And the process of getting there looks like it is going to be quite messy and convoluted, with uncertainty prevailing in the interim.