DURING her Indyref launch on Tuesday, Nicola Sturgeon opined that Brexit could have been, if not a roaring success, certainly much less of a burach than it has been. It was Boris wot botched it. “Inadequate planning and thought”, she said, caused the “deep mess” of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
But history may judge that the real culprits were opposition MPs, including the SNP, who failed to moderate Brexit when they had the chance in 2019. Had they voted to remain in the EU single market, like Norway, there need never have been a hard border in the North Sea or any threat to the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit need never caused the current disruption to UK trade.
After the 2016 referendum, there was an overwhelming Remain majority in the Commons, composed of Labour, SNP and anti-Brexit Tory MPs. They had the legislative whip hand.
MPs could have voted to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU using membership of the European Free Trade Area, EFTA, to gain access to the “outer ring” of the EU in the European Economic Area, EEA, along with countries like Norway. Unfortunately, they did not.
Instead, the SNP, along with Labour and Tory Remainers, pursued the undemocratic diversion of a repeat referendum, a so-called “Peoples Vote”, trying to reverse the referendum result.
Nor did the SNP vote for Theresa May’s compromise of regulatory alignment with the single market under the Northern Ireland Backstop. That too could have prevented the incipient trade war with Europe.
Indeed, the fractious British opposition parties rejected all the alternatives to hard Brexit offered to them in successive Commons votes in March 2019. They are collectively responsible for the crisis in Northern Ireland and for the collapse of UK trade with Europe.
Get this analysis directly to your inbox by signing up to The Herald's political newsletter, Unspun, for FREE and unrivalled political analysis in your inbox every day at 6pm.
A Norway-style compromise would not have pleased everyone. Hard Brexiteers would have complained that it was “Brexit in name only” , and that Britain was still subject to the laws of the European Court. The EEA is not perfect, but membership would have avoided the chaos and bureaucratic entanglement that has permanently damaged Britain’s image abroad.
Most Brexit voters wanted to restore British sovereignty by leaving the political institutions of Europe. They did not vote to sabotage trade with the wealthiest single market in the world.
The EEA was devised in 1995 as a kind of half-way house for countries who were unsure about full EU membership. Norway liked it so much it stayed put. Britain might have decided, after due consideration, to leave the EEA or even rejoin the EU. All options were open.
Staying in the single market pro tem would have kept free movement, however, and that might have annoyed anti-immigrant populists like Nigel Farage. But Brexit was never about immigration as such. For most voters it was about “taking back control”. This is confirmed by the fact that immigration to the UK has actually increased since 2016 without any popular outcry.
The SNP should realise its own complicity in the Brexit bourach.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel