THE NEWS EDIT: BREXIT ANALYSIS

Establishing the principle of leaving the EU was simply not enough in the 2016 Referendum, as voters were not given the chance to vote on the form of the relationship we might have with the EU, once we were out of it. It is this fundamental error on David Cameron's part which will prove to be the greatest haunt of UK politics in the years to come. Here we are, two years after we took to the ballot box and the UK's future relationship with the European Union remains just as unclear as it ever was. With the UK's departure date fast approaching and the EU Summit deadline set for October,  it seems unlikely that we will even reach the next hurdle on time, on the long road ahead to Brexit. Conservative MP's growing disenchantment with their own leadership is palpable and the people demand answers. We are at a political boiling point. 

Since the outcome of the referendum in June 2016, there has been plenty of speculation as to how a new relationship with the EU should pan out. But in doing so, it has exposed fundamental differences of opinion within the main parties and collapsed any sense of solidarity or shared sense of direction within government itself - hard Brexiters' efforts to undermine the Chequers summit are testament to these widening divisions. Not even the creation of some sort of new Centre party, to reflect the widening political alignments demonstrated by the Brexit vote, could pave the way for a smoother Brexit process. 

Many Conservative MP's are insistent on the fact that Brexit can and should take one form only; the departure from the single market and the European Economic Area and no engagement with any customs union with the European Union. 

But if Brexit really is to mean Brexit, there are simply no other viable options for the UK's divorce plan from the European Union other than a soft Brexit, embraced by Theresa May herself. Enough of the 'half in-half out' criticisms. All of the twists and turns of the Brexit negotiations thus far have perfectly demonstrated that a hard Brexit deal would be a fatal error, given the lack of political solidarity needed to properly plan and communicate a new independent trading policy. Indeed, better a softer Brexit than a calamitous no deal, which would represent one of the greatest crisis' in our modern history. It was announced just today in fact that the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has already been busily preparing sobering documents of guidance, in the case of a no-deal outcome. Doesn't it just fill you with optimism and hope on the matter?

Ideally, MP's should be working together, irrespective of their political party ties, to block the fruition of either of the two dangerous outcomes as discussed. While it is my belief that prevention of either of these outcomes is a matter of national interest, ties of loyalty are such a profound aspect of power politics within parties themselves, this eventuality seems doubtful. 

I have long since given up on trying to persuade people that there is nothing undemocratic about holding a second in-out referendum on the matter, based on far better information on the matter, and to give voters the chance to really decide on what kind of deal, if any, they would want. But if we truly are to honour democracy by negotiating a new future for the UK-EU relationship, why aren't we holding a secondary referendum on the final details of the Brexit deal? How can it be right, that the final details of the Brexit vote are decided upon by a warring and fragmented parliament? Surely it should be open to the people in a nationwide referendum, to cast some light (at last) as to what kind of relationship the people of Britain would actually want for our futures.  

Antonia x