A Tale of Two Leaders

The following is a fiction that merely happens to fit some of the available facts, and makes other facts up from whole cloth. Much of it is formed of suppositions while we wait for further facts to emerge. I do not claim that any particular part of it is true. Anything contained herein that *is* subsequently confirmed to be true is merely a bitter irony.

A joint press conference given by The Right Honourable Prime Minister David Cameron, and Boris Johnson.

The place: Downing Street

The time: Real Soon Now

DAVID CAMERON:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, many thanks for joining us here today. You’ll all recognise the colleague to my right here, Mr Boris Johnson. We’ve jointly discussed the post-referendum situation and decided that we need to make the following statements. I hope you’ll excuse me if some of them are a little difficult.

As you’ll all well aware, of course, I recently campaigned to keep the UK in the European Union. Now that the results of that referendum have been returned, many have called on me to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

I am, I have to say, unable to do this.

Firstly, because I have always pledged to work in the best interests of this country. I cannot, in good conscience, believe that those interests are best served by immediately starting an irreversible timer on the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. To this end I have engaged to oversee a transitional period while we attempt to resolve numerous questions about how the process of exit could be carried out by Her Majesty’s Government, and by whom.

Secondly, because it is currently uncertain that Brexit can be achieved under the current constitutional framework. Given that the sovereignty of Parliament was foremost in the motivation of many who voted to leave, we will clearly need to involve Parliament fully in these discussions. We will of course also need to fully involve the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies while we seek to understand constitutionally what input or control they may legally exert over this process.

Thirdly, because I am unsure that the vote as recorded represents an adequate mandate from the electorate of the United Kingdom. We know that the result was close, ironically the precise percentage quoted by Mr Farage as “not fully answering the question”. We also know that following the vote, and the subsequent economic and social damage that has already occurred, not to mention the withdrawal of numerous claims and promises, many who voted are dissatisfied with the votes they cast. They feel, in particular, that they were not given adequate information to make an informed choice.

You may also be aware that a petition for stronger requirements on such referendums has now passed 3 million signatures. This is by far the largest online petition that Parliament has ever seen. Clearly, the electorate is not content with the current state of affairs.

Nor, it has to be said, are our European colleagues. You will be aware that they have called for us to immediately trigger Article 50. However, as I have just said, I am unable to do this. Nor am I able to absolve myself of the responsibility for doing so by pretending that the Referendum is legally binding on me.

This has left both the UK and EU in a position of significant uncertainty, and I and my colleague here are fully aware that we bear some significant responsibility for this.

I personally would seek to start resolving this difficulty with an apology. An apology to the electorate, to our European guests here in the United Kingdom, and to our diplomatic colleagues overseas.

The first part of my apology, of course, is for failing to adequately put the case for Remaining to the electorate. But I cannot pretend that this was my only failing. Indeed, I failed in large part because of my own actions prior to calling the Referendum. It is a difficult admission for me to make, but I have lied to the electorate.

In British politics it is of course difficult to admit to uncertainty, error, impotence or falsehood. This means that a party of Government has to have an explanation for any difficulties the country faces which does not reflect an error or failing on the part of that party. We have historically, in the Conservative Party, given two explanations for these difficulties; Immigration and the EU. As the difficulties increased, we became trapped in a situation where we had to step up the blame on these parties, and we took the United Kingdom to a very dangerous place from which we proved unable to return.

To be very, very clear on this matter; the EU is not to blame for these problems. Immigrants are not to blame for these problems. Both are in fact greatly beneficial to the United Kingdom.

But of course I may not be the right person to tell you this, having recently campaigned to remain in the European Union. So at this point it’s appropriate that I hand over to my colleague.

BORIS JOHNSON

Uh, hello.

You… may be aware that prior to my role in the Leave campaign I have had… other responsibilities. One of these of course was the honour of being Mayor of the world’s greatest city, London. A vibrant, international city that has recently voted by 60% to remain in the EU. Prior to that, of course, I have been known to write a few books and articles, frequently on the topic of Europe. I have the honour of being considered by some as something of an authority on this topic.

So it means that I too know the value of the EU, and of immigration to the UK. I think I’d rather hoped that more in the UK realised this value too.

However, you may be aware that I am something of an ambitious man. Many have seen me as a candidate for my honourable friend here’s job in the near future. I have to say I was rather fond of this idea myself, so when the chance to take a visible position in the biggest political campaign the UK has seen in a generation came up, I jumped for it.

I thought this would be rather a smashing wheeze; that we’d make a strong, highly visible showing, but ultimately be defeated. Even as the results were being counted this plan still seemed to have been successful. Instead it seems I may have made the largest mistake of my career; I have brought the country to the most difficult position it has faced in generations. And we didn’t really plan for what would happen at this point.

So I need to be clear, and echo my Honourable friend’s apology. I, and my colleagues in the Leave campaign, have misinformed you about the economic results of Leaving and on the facts of the European Union. The United Kingdom would be weaker outside of the EU, but now we risk having to survive without it — if we could even find any way of moving in that direction.

At the moment we appear to have crossed the Rubicon. Our choices appear to be limited to standing on the bank and moving forwards into chaos. Our European friends and our trading partners won’t accept the stagnation of inactivity, and our economy may not handle it.

Therefore, my honourable friend and I propose an alternative solution, which I will now allow him to elucidate.

DAVID CAMERON

The United Kingdom spoke in the Referendum, and the European Union listened. Therefore, the only way to resolve this in the certainty that the government and country speak as one is for the people to speak again.

We shall have to have another referendum, but an honest, clear referendum that can be trusted and considered fair by all sides. I know that many will view a repeat of the last few weeks with dismay, so we shall have to change the terms and the tone of the upcoming campaign. We will be laying new legislation before Parliament to make it an offence to mislead the electorate during referendum campaigning, and we will give the Electoral Commission the authority, the duty and the resources to censure or penalise those who fail to do so or to make a full and visible public correction. At the same time we will be launching a full and independent inquiry into the conduct of this past referendum and its effects on our society.

We shall also be liaising with the National Assemblies of the United Kingdom to ensure that their concerns and rights are respected. Given the magnitude of the change that leaving the EU would cause to all nations, we will also consider whether a simple majority of the electorate across the United Kingdom forms an adequate mandate, or whether a supermajority or a majority in each of the constituent nations is required. We will announce the date and terms of this new referendum, which I expect to be legally binding, only once we are certain that is fit for purpose, as neither the United Kingdom nor the world will tolerate any further repetition of this uncertainty.

Neither my honourable friend nor myself will be campaigning in this upcoming election. As I have said already I will be tendering my resignation by the end of October; I hope this will be adequate time to fully prepare this referendum, but it will not be rushed.

Ladies and Gentleman, thanks you for listening today. And if anyone knows where George Osbourne is, please ask him to call his family, as they’re starting to worry.