Christopher Gill – Brexit dithering has cost us dear
Pro-Brexit campaigner Christopher Gill writes one year on from the historic referendum.
Twelve months ago the British people voted to either remain in or leave the European Union. They did so in the reasonable expectation that the Prime Minister, having given his undertaking so to do, would, forthwith, implement their decision. In the event, rather than deliver the Brexit that people had decisively voted for, David Cameron quit.
Then followed a period of great uncertainty whilst the Conservative Party cast around for a new leader. Their choice was a Remainer, Theresa May, who stalled a whole nine months before eventually serving formal notice under the Article 50 procedure of Britain's intention to leave the EU and then, only a few days later, threw matters into total confusion by calling a totally unnecessary general election which she now, of course, regrets.
With an overall majority of 17 in the House of Commons Theresa May could have delivered Brexit, just as former Conservative PM, John Major, with a scarcely bigger majority, managed to get the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) through Parliament 25 years ago – and that in spite of a hardcore of resistance on his own backbenches.
After June 23 last year the people of this country were entitled to expect that their expressed wish to leave the EU would have been honoured by the immediate implementation of Article 50, instead of which the ensuing delay created a heaven-sent opportunity for those who refuse to accept the referendum result to initiate hearings in courts of law questioning the legitimacy of the Government's intended course of action.
In the interim the entire terms of debate had been subtly changed.
On our ballot papers we were given the choice of either voting Leave or Remain and nowhere was there provision for us to vote to "Negotiate Withdrawal" which is what the Government then chose to do, thereby opening up the possibility of endless and possibly totally fruitless negotiations, during the course of which our case is immeasurably weakened because we have put ourselves in the position of being a supplicant at the EU table.
Better by far to have played a straight bat and immediately after the referendum result was announced to have triggered Article 50 and simultaneously informed the European Commission that whilst we were leaving the EU structures we would, nonetheless, be willing to continue trading with them on the existing terms. The choice would then have been theirs and given the massive trade imbalance in their favour they would have been very ill-advised to turn us down.
Theresa May now has the unenviable task of trying to find a way forward that will accommodate not only the known differences of opinion amongst the English and Welsh Conservative MPs but also the different and differing views of the 13 newly elected Scottish Conservative MPs and the 10 Democratic Unionist MPs upon whom she is now so totally dependent.
