Report comment

What is one now to understand about the Brexiteer's vision for the future, when Mr Crawford disagrees with Nigel Farage about the £350 million a week issue? Without agreement on the basic facts, no wonder there are so many differences between the disparate interest groups that are nominally under the Brexit umbrella. No wonder too, the retreat into soundbites - Brexit means Brexit, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, red, white and blue Brexit. Until someone spells out for us what these phrases mean and, having done so, explains how they expect these visions to be achieved, at least in outline, we are left in the dark about what is intended or even hoped for.

The only indications of what is wanted differ from person to person as each expresses his or her views. Mr Crawford, for example, finds it offensive that many of our public service vehicles are made in Germany and Sweden rather than the UK and that his daughter's train is run by a German company. He wants all our "essentials, food and energy" to be generated from within. His vision for the future presumably involves us arranging our dealings with other countries so as to exclude the possibility of foreigners making the goods we use and supplying the services we enjoy whilst we live behind raised drawbridges, reliant entirely on our own resources. Yet, even if this vision could be realised, how can it be squared with the vision of other Brexiteers who would have the UK trading freely and widely around the whole world, not just the EU. Since trade in its nature works both ways, if the UK vigorously expands its trading network in this kind of way, then many of our public service vehicles in the future may be made by the likes of Chrysler, Tata, Hino, Toyota, etc. Obviously not Mr Crawford's cup of tea, yet the kind of vision that some in the Brexit camp want to see come to fruition.

So, I do not see any common understanding amongst Leavers about what benefits they want from our leaving the EU, nor any signs of how any of their disparate approaches might be achieved anyway. Yes, we have a popular vote in principle from the UK electorate that favours exiting the EU, but this is without any clarity about what kind of post-EU future was envisaged. Mr Maloney refers to the British people having been made "citizens" of the EU without ever being consulted in the matter. They were of course given the opportunity to vote on this in a previous referendum, but it may be he refers to the way in which the EEC, now the EU, has developed since then. However, the important stages in that development were voted on and approved by Parliament, which is the way things are supposed to happen in a parliamentary democracy.

And, when it comes to working out the details of our exit, it will necessarily be the Executive that carries out the detailed negotiations and Parliament that will give final approval to whatever outcome is achieved in those negotiations. Both sides in the recent Supreme Court proceedings conceded that, once article 50 is triggered, there is no turning back, so there will be no opportunity for the UK electorate to approve or disapprove the detailed outcome. To those who may in the end say "I voted to leave the EU, but this outcome is not at all what I wanted or expected" the answer will have to be "tough, you voted to leave and this is the best we have been able to come up with". And maybe the concerns I am expressing will prove to be too pessimistic. I certainly hope so, and if my views turn out to be wrong I will happily acknowledge this. But, as matters stand, nothing I have read here gives me any confidence on this point.