Go to the profile of Johnathan Agnes
Johnathan Agnes
CEO @constantdotco, into literature, applied arts, travel, design, THFC, politics, economics, fatherhood, etc.

There’s a simple solution: Parliament gets its shit together.

Parliamentarians should be focused on repairing the damage that’s been done by failing to plan for the aftermath of a vote to leave the EU, not on leadership challenges

It‘s extraordinary that we heard next to nothing from the leaders of either the winning or losing sides of the referendum debate yesterday (the Sunday immediately after the vote). We got a platitudinous essay from BoJo that felt ‘phoned-in’ in the Telegraph, but that was it. The kindest interpretation of their silence is that they were working hard to plot a path out of this self-inflicted chaos and urgently back-channelling with their European counterparts. But I suspect European leaders, impatient with the British political establishment’s (and particularly David Cameron's) own goal, won’t be taking informal calls for convenience right now, and I’m guessing that Gove, Patel, Hannan, et. al. are basically feeling caught in the headlights — exhausted by campaigning and reluctant to take the bull of post-brexit planning by the horns. We do know that Johnson was playing cricket (yes, really).

It seems to be a genuine possibility that we’re suffering from a complete vacuum of leadership — both as a country, and in party political terms, and, by extension, (and most frighteningly of all) in parliamentary terms too. And that’s bad, because Parliament is probably our best bet in terms of damage limitation.

Johnson and Gove, looking ecstatic to have won themselves responsibility for taking us out of Europe without wrecking our relationship with the world’s biggest economic bloc — while simultaneously steering the economy off the rocks, holding the United Kingdom together, and maintaining social cohesion at a time when nationalists (and their less savoury cousins) are growing increasingly strident.

This is what Parliament needs to do, urgently:

Quickly debate a motion on the referendum outcome that acknowledges the slim preference of the UK electorate for the UK to leave the EU, that re-emphasises the non-binding, advisory nature of the referendum, and which commits it to framing and passing a bill within 90-days which includes two main initiatives:

  1. the definition of an EU validated set of principals applying in the event that the UK provides an Article 50 notice to the EU (these could be validated via a Memorandum of Understanding — MOU — with the EU)
  2. a series of sensible legislative measures* that will apply in the event the UK public decides that a departure from the EU on the basis of the MOU is not desirable and which, importantly, address the fears of the those who have voted leave in frustration at Westminster's apparent indifference to the challenges they are facing (particularly those relating to austerity and immigration).

The general public can then make an informed choice via a final, binding referendum on the UK’s departure (the outcome of which triggers an Article 50 notice) which will be based on the public’s acceptance or rejection of concrete measures contained in an actual Act of Parliament, not FUD, speculation and bus side graphics.

That’s the mechanism that can deliver us either a relatively stable exit from the EU, negotiated under circumstances where our departure isn’t actually a foregone conclusion, or a way back into the fold while still addressing the concerns of a significant proportion of the 52% whose beef was less with the EU than with the Westminster elite’s indifference. Most importantly it delivers in just 90 days a framework for a post exit settlement which will reassure the markets, our trading partners and an alarmed public — something I think will be vital to stave off recession. If the EU don’t play ball (i.e. they refuse to agree an MOU, or the one that they do agree is onerous or punitive) then we will at least know sooner rather than later what we’re contending with/letting ourselves in for.

Delivering this mechanism relies on both main parliamentary parties agreeing that it’s more important to manage the challenge of exiting the EU than it is to in-fight aggressively for leadership of their respective parties, perhaps by accelerating their leadership selection processes, or more helpfully, slowing the process and in the meantime mandating their caretaker leadership (Tom Watson and David Cameron, we assume) to negotiate and deliver key legislation of the type that might not normally be delivered under caretaker leadership.

Or, we could just keep floundering for the foreseeable future, with parliamentarians devoting their energies to working through post-campaign grievances, and jockeying for leadership, while our allies and trading partners look on aghast. It’s Parliament’s call.

(* These should probably include a quantification of and commitment to the predictable costs involved in administering Brexit, e.g. the significant investment we will need to make at UKTI/the FCO to be able to simultaneously negotiate dozens of trade deals to urgent, accelerated timetables, etc.).