Report comment

According to Mr Martin "a more up-to-date electorate [i.e. a more sophisticated me than I was two and a half years ago] might prefer less then a full break and, rather than Yes/No, a more nuanced choice of what they will be happy to cast off from and what they don't want to lose."

Unfortunately such a nuanced choice is not, never has been, and never will be on offer. We spent 45 years striving to "reform Europe from within" - and see where it got us. There is, I'm afraid, a simple, unbridgeable gulf between the British notion of a Europe of friends cooperating closely on all issues of common interest and the Brussellian aim of a supranational bureaucracy wielding monolithic world power. The latter ideal may or may not be in the interests of the continental states (I doubt myself whether it is) but it certainly isn't in our interests: hence the referendum verdict. That verdict may yet be reversed by hook or by crook, but the fundamental divergence of interests won't be resolved and will bubble up to the surface a few years down the line, probably in much more disadvantageous circumstances for us than at present. Having done the hard work I think we would be better off now consolidating it, rejecting EU dictation in its latest version of the "May deal", and resuming the same sovereign political and economic status as such countries as Japan, Canada or Australia: surely not a very outrageous or unrealistic ambition. The 2016 referendum was a remarkable demonstration of the merits of democracy, of which we should always be proud (as AJP Taylor once said, "the people judge rightly on great issues"). Any future plebiscite - or People's Vote if you prefer the term - would be a manifest sham. But if that's what the Establishment want, no doubt that's what we will get.