Yesterday the Brexit Deal negotiated by Mrs May got the approval of the other twenty-seven EU member countries, and now she has to get Parliament's approval too. The vote is next month. It's anybody's guess how the vote will actually go, but at present there are many boos and hisses at what she managed to get agreed. So the outcome she wants looks very iffy.
One argument against going with this Deal is that it isn't what the country voted for. Well, let's consult the official pamphlets sent to every home in the run-up to the 2016 Referendum. I still have copies. We all got this pamphlet from the The Electoral Commission. It explained what the Referendum was all about, who could vote, and the mechanics of actually voting.
All pretty clear. Nothing frightening here. Anyone with normal intelligence would understand from this pamphlet exactly what to do if they wished to cast a vote either way. And although the two main for-and-against messages were summarised in the centrefold, the Commission wasn't pushing one of them more than the other.
However, we all got another pamphlet, this time from the government, in which the reasons for staying in the EU were strongly emphasised. On every page, things were pointed out to the reader that ought to make him or her think very hard about discounting, or ignoring, the government's recommendation - which was to vote to remain. Several key issues were discussed.
The point was made that already, before the Referendum, the UK had negotiated some big concessions from the EU on currency, border control and opting out of political integration.
Attention was drawn to what membership of the EU gave us in terms of job prospects and exports...
...and how leaving would make everything cost more.
Trade was touched upon. Would those container ships keep coming, if we left the Single Market? Would the dock at Felixstowe (in the illustration) instead be empty?
A 'reality check' on immigration.
How continued membership of the EU would mean a brighter future for young families.
And finally, the key points the government wanted to put across.
I had no quarrel with either pamphlet. I thought they were both informative and useful. But not all the issues that mattered to me were discussed. I didn't even think I was the voter chiefly in mind. You'll notice that nobody over forty-five appeared in the pictures in the government pamphlet. It was angled at younger voters, and not the vast and growing army of older (and possibly wiser) people. I did see that younger people would live longer into the future, and in that sense had more at stake. But it was quite possible that I'd be around, alive and kicking, for another thirty years, and I too - and plenty of people like me - would have a big stake in the outcome.
And it wasn't all about jobs, an ever-higher standard of living, and border issues. What about the maintenance of our distinctive British culture and ways of doing things? What about the soul of Britain? Would we really be able to resist the gradual Europeanisation of every aspect of British life? Wasn't it overwhelmingly likely that, at some point, within the next decade or two certainly, the British Parliament would have to adopt the Euro, accept over-arching Federal laws the same as any EU country, and a high degree of cultural homogenisation? That made me shudder. I'd rather have independence, and put up with the cost of enjoying it.
And clearly I wasn't alone. I was in the majority - although it must be the case that everyone who wanted to get out of the EU, as I did, had a boatload of personal reasons not addressed by these pamphlets, nor the politicians' media rantings. In their arrogance, politicians on all sides thought their words would be influential, decisive, and sway the vote. They were wrong. They are always wrong, because they are a breed apart and out of touch with what ordinary, unpolitical people think. And they don't listen. It's one reason why no government ever introduces policies that really get to the heart of the country's problems.
As the result started to come in on Referendum night, with a Remain win expected, there was at first no sense of shock; just surprise that there wasn't, from the start, a clear general vote to stay in the EU. Early on, around 1.00am, with only a few results in, it was still 'too early' to call:
Not long afterwards, with 15 results in, and 367 undeclared, the studio experts were still keeping an open mind - despite the Leavers already gaining on the Remainers:
But as the hours wore on, it became clear than the Remain lobby had not been persuasive. And a point came when a clearly-surprised David Dimbleby in the BBC studio had to announce some unexpected breaking news:
London, the Home Counties, and certain metropolitan areas had voted to stay. So, conspicuously, had Scotland. But elsewhere, and especially in the north and east of England, people had voted to go. There was an age divide too - younger people had generally voted to stay, older folk to leave.
But the overall position was perfectly clear: the majority of prople in the UK had voted to leave the EU.
The wranglings and recriminations began. The immediate spontaneous celebrations from the UKIP camp were in stark contrast to the rest. I was much struck at how the chief Leavers - Boris Johnson et al - were lost for words, and embarrassingly unprepared to make an adequate victory speech. Aha, I thought: you had made a lot of noise, but now you were caught by surprise! You had no plan ready.
But neither had the other politicians. They had all thought they knew what the outcome would be: stay in the EU, of course. They had taken it for granted. They hadn't even campaigned very hard. It was sweet to see them flustered and wrong-footed by the 'people's vote'. And it was, despite wrigglings to get out of it in the months that followed, a binding vote.
Looking away from the politicians, and instead at the reactions of people I personally knew, I was amazed (and concerned) at the dismay generally expressed at the Leave result. My local girl friends and their husbands were solidly for leave, as I had been. But other people in my life were in despair, and in some cases very angry. This made me feel pretty uncomfortable for a while. And yet, surely we had all given the matter our most serious thought, and we all had amply good reasons for the way we voted. I never met anybody who had approached the Referendum frivolously.
Well, there's a lesson here: referendums are as unpredictable as the Grand National. Governments should beware of holding them. No wonder Mrs May (for the Government) has absolutely ruled out another referendum on Brexit. And Mr Corbyn (for the Opposition) should hesitate too. You can't rely on the 'people's vote'. It can't be fixed. The electorate - us - isn't easily impressed. Did they really think that campaign buses with fancy slogans on them would ever make a difference? Or that big beasts snorting at each other in TV 'debates' had anything more than passing entertainment value? How naïve.
I don't know about you, but I always ask myself who is telling me this or that, and what their form is. I will dismiss them, and their messages, if I think they personally lack realistic vision, conviction, common sense and basic honesty, or if their party has been historically incompetent. And I have a long memory, having followed political events since the 1964 General Election. No promises of future good behaviour or economic wizardry will influence me, if a politician's background and track record is dodgy. Leopards do not change their spots.
And my guess as to how Mrs May will fare over the next two weeks, as she woos the general public and tries to promote the Brexit Deal?
Well, she has shown courage, tenacity and stamina, and still deserves the epiphet of a 'safe pair of hands'. I do think it's an achievement to have secured a Deal at all.
Of course its approval by Parliament cannot be counted upon. But then, if polls show that the general public are happy with what is on the table, and will revolt if the matter is made to drag on much longer, might not that influence how the voting will go in Parliament? After all, isn't Parliament supposed to reflect the 'will of the British people', even if individual MPs will choke on it?
