Many of us knew it was a bad idea in the first place. Many more of us know now just how bad an idea it was. But, 10 years on, Brexit has lost much of its mystical force as a dividing line in British politics – so much so that Andy Burnham considers it’s a risk worth taking to open up the question of our relationship with the EU on the first day of the new political term.
Since we packed our bags and voted to leave the EU in 2016, we have had so many shocks to the system – the Covid-19 pandemic, a war on our borders, an American President running amok, political instability at home, the march of AI – that, truthfully, no one can say it’s directly the fault of Brexit that our economic and social situation is so unpromising. But even the greatest advocates of leaving the EU would now find it hard to mount a case that Brexit has been a good deal for us, particularly as the Office for Budget Responsibility says that at least 4 per cent of our GDP has been lost as a result of the vote.
Nevertheless, the argument has to be framed differently today. It’s a waste of time to parody that Monty Python sketch. What did membership of the European Union ever do for us? Apart, that is, from frictionless trade, inward investment and political influence. Yes, but apart from that? Well, access to the European labour market, freedom of movement for tourists, workers, artists, musicians, pan-European healthcare arrangements and student exchange programmes. And apart from that? It’s possible to continue the joke, but it doesn’t really get us anywhere.
No one is quite sure what the public appetite is to rejoin the EU, either with or without another referendum. Certainly, recent polls by YouGov and Ipsos suggest more enthusiasm for closer ties with Europe rather than a wholesale repudiation of the 2016 vote. Either way, it’s fair to infer from the polls that about 60 per cent of the British public would support the Prime Minister’s position that leaving the EU has done us more harm than good.
It’s an interesting position: how does a sovereign nation admit it has made a big mistake, and how does it repair the damage? A Downing Street source, paving the way for Burnham’s speech in the House of Commons, told The Guardian: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised. But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be.”
This is a clever reframing of the argument, in that it suggests the blame, such as it is, lies not with the electorate for making the wrong decision in 2016, but with a political class which has spent a decade ignoring the shifting circumstances and refusing to recognise a new reality. It is as if the humiliation in admitting a wrong turn is worse than allowing the country to suffer the consequences of going in that wrong direction. This is one of the reasons why the article of trust between politicians and the voting public is so broken.
Burnham now has a chance to restore faith in government’s ability to improve the life of the nation by challenging an orthodoxy that has been proven to be based on sophistry. We haven’t taken back control. Immigration problems have not eased. And £350m a week hasn’t gone to the NHS.
It is, sadly, a case study in how politics works. Politicians make promises, discover that reality is more complicated and then spend years defending the original promise rather than adapting to the evidence. Brexit, of course, is the most conspicuous example of this, and Burnham has an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership by persuading the public that even a referendum result, and one with an enormous amount of emotion around it, need not necessarily be a forever thing.
This is clearly something of a risk for a nascent Prime Minister. Positing the idea of a new settlement between the UK and Europe – already given a warm response in France, Germany and Spain – would require him to win an argument that is loaded with political freight, and which has entrenched opposition within the media: namely, that respecting a democratic decision does not mean refusing to learn from its consequences.
The position expressed by the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch at her party’s conference last week that it would be “a terrible idea” to “reopen the Brexit debate” is plain wrong. Why should Brexit be considered a holy writ? The public is invited to reconsider its political allegiances every five years, and, in a world that is changing more rapidly than ever, why shouldn’t we be given the chance to adapt our opinions to take account of different circumstances?
Brexit was supposed to restore British sovereignty. Instead, it has left British politicians terrified of exercising our sovereignty to change course. Burnham is showing a degree of political courage in opening up the possibility of a generational mistake being rectified.