I propose an option that may help steer the government in the right direction during the negotiation process with the EU once article 50 is triggered. The approach of expecting the government to cede to pressure during formal meetings with the PM/Ministers or during parliament questions has/will not work simply because they are not obliged to provide transparency at this stage and I suspect they maybe trying to fast-track the exit process. What I would suggest is taking a different approach in alliance/consultation with other parties. The problem now seems to be that that there is no single message (or baseline demand) to put forward; some seeking transparency, others seeking a 2nd Referendum or parliamentary vote to revoke article 50 and yet others just want to bail out of the UK altogether. This by itself creates confusion in people’s mind and dissolves any force that may be applied on the government. My suggestion is uniting under a common set of Guidelines for the negotiations and make these public. These guidelines need to be agreed/developed so that it is crystal clear what we consider as baseline for any agreement we would accept. The document would include the following elements;

  1. Guidelines on key policy issues that we believe should be maintained or addressed with what we perceive as viable alternatives and/or red lines that need to be protected along with the reasoning behind their importance.
  2. A barometer defining a list of expectations raised by Leavers/Remainers pre/post the first referendum to demonstrate; a) this is not about Leavers vs. Remainers but rather about accuracy of assumptions made during the referendum-this is a key point. It would also raise the question as to whether it is appropriate to hold people accountable if there is evidence of disinformation (intentional) or misinformation and b) to assess whether these negotiations have succeeded in achieving expectations/demands of the public, particularly the Leavers and whether it would be appropriate to call for a final referendum in case there is a different set of terms agreed.

I also suspect that this will provide positive/powerful influence/direction for the negotiation process and may allow relevant info to surface pertaining to the guidelines mentioned above so we can take corrective measures where necessary.

Just a thought.

Finally  I submitted a petition here calling for a 2nd Referendum-your support appreciated if appropriate.

Leave a Reply