In August 1991,
hardline elements in the army and KGB staged a coup against Mikhail
Gorbachev, shortly after Gorbachev had agreed to reorganise the USSR
as a new confederation. To many this seemed like an end to the
reforms that Gorbachev had brought, as the coup leaders appeared to
have the support of the whole military. Yeltsin was defiant in
Moscow, but those who remembered the Prague Spring probably thought
the tanks would win out. Then the coup’s nominal leader, Gennady
Yanayev, gave a press conference in which he looked
nervous with his hands shaking, and it became clear that the coup
leaders were meeting serious resistance. It collapsed shortly
afterward.
I remembered this
when watching the proponents of hard Brexit shout down any concern
about what the government might agree following the EU referendum,
and attack anyone who pointed out the difficulties that leaving the
single market might bring. They too have carried out a sort of coup
against parliamentary democracy, and maybe declaring judges enemies
of the people is the equivalent of Yanayev’s shaking hand. They
cannot quite believe what they have done, and fear it may all
collapse when people realise what is going on. Our Prime Minister has
had to draw
on her faith in God to enable her to continue leading this coup.
If you think coup is
too strong a word, think about what has happened. An advisory
referendum decided by a very narrow majority to leave the EU. That is
all this slim majority of the electorate decided. They did not vote
to leave the single market (SM), partly because most leaders of the
Leave campaign told us (correctly) that leaving the EU was quite compatible with
staying in the SM. They did not vote to end freedom of movement.
Leaving the EU is not one policy, but a whole range of possible
policies with quite different effects, and the electorate have said
nothing about their preferences among these possibilities. In short,
the referendum was about the EU and not the SM, and whatever they say
now we know that you can be in the SM without being part of the EU.
Yet a new
government, with no mandate from the voters, has decided that only it
should be allowed to interpret what leaving the EU should amount to,
and the electorate through their representatives in parliament should
have no say in the matter. The people, having indicated a change in
direction, are to be allowed no say whatsoever in where exactly they
are to be led. The differences between these alternative paths out of
the EU are immense, and this choice on how exactly to leave the EU
will have a huge impact on every citizen. Yet the people and their
representatives are not even to be allowed to know what options the
government are aiming for. (The OBR was even denied knowledge of how
the government intending fulfilling its guarantees to Nissan.) The
pretext for this coup, involving keeping their negotiating hand
secret, is as thin as the Soviet coup’s claims that Gorbachev was
unwell.
Any attempt at
parliamentary control over what might happen is described as trying
to stop Brexit. Why not seek to stay in the SM? Just asking that
question means to the coup leaders that you are trying to stop Brexit
(of course it does not). Why not see what might be on offer before
starting the clock on being thrown out with nothing? That is just a
delaying tactic, they say. Why not have a second referendum on the
final deal? Finding out what the electorate thinks once that the exit
deal is clear would be against the will of the people, they chime
without irony. When you are told that consulting the people or their representatives is
against the will of the people, you know there has been a kind of
coup.
But I fear that in
this case the coup leaders’ nervousness is unwarranted. Three
judges have thrown MPs a lifeline, a chance to stop this coup, and MPs look like throwing it right back. Those Conservative MPs who
know what damage this will do have decided they can do nothing to
stop the Conservative party being taken
over by fanatics. The Labour party appears pathetic: its leadership
wanting exit from the SM for their own reasons (talking shamelessly
about ‘access’ in the hope of muddying the water) and the PLP is
more concerned about losing votes than improving their electorate’s
welfare (it is the story of austerity all over again). They had a
chance of coming together to lead the opposition to this coup and
they have blown it. Instead of Boris Yeltsin, we have Tom Watson, who
joins
in the mantra that opposing triggering Article 50 is going against
the will of the people.
And instead of
courageous citizens of Moscow we have Labour party members saying it
is best to bide time and work within for change. This timidity is
obnoxious to see: they should instead be demanding their MPs take
back control. It is their prosperity that will be diminished by this
coup, their right to work in the EU taken away. It seems to me that
approving Article 50 is the last chance for representative democracy
to have its say. Once that vote is in the bag, the government can do
what it likes and nothing can be certain to stop them. (A vote on any
final deal is no choice, because the consequences of saying no will
be far worse.)
So MPs are acting
like turkeys voting for Christmas. They know that in all likelihood
voting to trigger Article 50 will throw away their chance to stop the
government ending our membership of the SM, thereby
reducing their constituents access to public services and the chance
to keep young people’s right to work in the EU. They will be
handing all the levers of power to a government that seems to be run
by a minority of fanatics. Is this what a once proud country has allowed itself to become? Is this what a parliament that once stood up to kings has been reduced to?
