The more I read of the opinion of Brexit enthusiasts and their claim that all the necessary conditions for leaving the EU that required discussion were resolved by the referendum vote the more I think that none of those making those observations have ever been divorced, or ever observed what actually happens when a divorce takes place.
For the record I have been divorced. And whilst that divorce was abnormally harmonious (but still painful at the time) I have also, as a chartered accountant and friend, seen just what more commonplace divorce stress looks like. As a result I am all too well aware that the build up to the moment when the decision to separate takes place is often, whilst deeply stressful, less protracted and in many ways more explicable than all the processes that follow.
The pre-split stress has an essentially simple focus: the question is 'shall I stay or shall I go now?' The choice over this period is 'yes' or 'no'. Rather like a simple referndum choice, in fact.
What few who divorce, at least first time around, realise is that the relief of making that decision (if you are the decision maker, and 50% won't be) is fairly rapidly overtaken by more difficult emotions, fuelled by the antagonism of the other party, and a vast range of practical questions that will have not been much anticipated, the resolution of which will be very stressful.
Amazingly, many recover from the process of divorce and even try marriage again (I have). But the lesson is learned, I hope, which is that some sense of anticipation of the consequences of separation is a necessary part of the process of amicably resolving the stress after it happens.
There is however no sign of this awareness on Brexit. It seems that those wanting to leave the EU think that the decision to separate resolved all issues requiring decision making. It's as if they think that there are no practicalities left to resolve that have any bearing on our future: apparently the decision to separate was enough to make clear how all those issues should be addressed although that is obviously untrue.
There are three consequences of this. One is that there is no plan; the need for one was never anticipated.
The second is the current denial of the need to discuss that absent plan; the purpose of any such discussion is simply not understood by Leavers.
Thirdly there is then no comprehension on the part of the Leavers (those who made the decision to go in this case) that the immediate focus of the aggrieved Remainers, who did not actually get their way, has turned to the consequences that the decision to which they were not a part might have for them, even though it is entirely logical and predictable that they should think in this way.
There is no Relate to resolve this incomprehension between the parties. And that's the problem. What has been unleashed by the use of a referendum is an endless source of conflict. Cameron thought he was solving his domestic dispute with the Conservative Party when choosing the referendum question. What he did instead was three things.
First he created greater division in the Conservative Party: an MP has resigned today.
Second he unleashed more division in society by undermining parliamentary democracy in a way no one knows how to resolve.
Third, he left no mechanism of any sort for resolving this.
As a result we are now engaged in a domestic dispute without end which leaves almost no chance of resolving relations with all the other parties involved. It's a staggering mess created by incompetence. Only goodwill can resolve that. It's absence on the part of Leavers makes that resolution unlikely for now, and until such time as some humility is shown.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Painful analogy for me. Suffice to say that one tends to give more than the other due to continuing love. There is no love, only hostility, in the Leave /Remain camps.
Agreed
Having also been divorced and seen others, I can wholly relate to what you say 🙂
Mine was amicable too, but as you say the practicalities of achieving the split, who gets what assets/liabilities dealing with lawyers, legal process etc was stressful and in the end quite protracted for what was in my case a relatively simple divorce – No kids, not that many assets – mainly the house + mortgage.
But a few friends have been through much more complicated divorces than mine and horribly protracted in some cases, especially where one party was trying their hardest to prolong and resist what many saw as an equitable split of assets.
And that last behaviour is what we’re going to get
Good analogy Richard. One could add … “and what about the children?” (i.e. future generations). From which ever aspect one analyses it, the Brexit campaign has become a political, economic, management, legal and social catastrophe. As such it will probably ‘merit’ a chapter in future history books. When mucking out his new pigs I wonder if Dave feels any remorse for the mess he initiated.
Good additional point.
Could always try a five minute quickie divorce. Most parties are not even present in Court with the nisi documentation handed to the legal reps .
After all Europe wants us gone quickly. Uk Govt wants to go ( I think?!) Obviously the decree nisi needs to be negotiated but we are already aware with speed and judiciousness on both sides this should have taken two years from the trigger— five minutes in diplomatic time.
But as there was no mandatory buttress to the referendum we are embroiled in a 3 way altercation between Executive, Parliament and Judiciary further tramelleed by the capriciousness of an unelected nominated/hereditary Second Chamber.
So it looks we are hunkering down for the next five years……. a vehemently contested divirce then.
I’ve been through a divorce as well and I agree wholeheartedly with your wise words..and the comparison with Brexit. It seems to me that so much of the discourse of the Brexiteers is akin to the Brit abroad who, not speaking the language, just says the same words over and over in the hope that increasing the volume will aid comprehension.
Another good analogy
Both my wife and myself have been married before. I had a divorce from hell; the solicitor said I should write a novel. It involved Psychiatrists (me very ex wife had psychopathic tendencies) Social services – son number one was put on the at risk register. Three years of contested custody. This is a quarter of a century ago but still have left scar tissue. My Wife’s divorce (no children) was very amicable. Indeed when both my wife and her ex-husband invited each other to each others 2nd weddings.
I think the divorce analogy is apt. I posted some months ago that the UK was expecting “sex with the ex” a comment my Dublin friends used. They were a bit worried that the UK would be treated very badly by the EU. It was not so much the leave vote but the appalling behaviour of the Leave Campaign.
The divorce will resemble more that of my own than my wife’s I’m afraid; bitter acrimonious and I haven’t seen my first son for 25 years.
Sean
Not seeing your son must be hard: I can only imagine that
I like the sex with the ex analogy: very appropriate, including its ridiculousness
Richard
Was very difficult for the first three years; I think I cried every day. Time may not exactly heal but it seems a very long time ago and the pain lessens.
Regarding divorce – Ireland didn’t do economically very well for a long time but even so there were few regrets. The percentage of people who would want to rejoin the UK has always been small: I would have thought under 10% at any point in the past nearly now 100 years. At present I would be surprised if it was even 1% but, there are always some. A recent Irish Times poll had 5% of the Irish population supporting Trump to be president.
Brexit is about much more than the economy.
Your last statement is so true
And, even worse, how many divorces are there after 43 years?
I have never been divorced – never having been married.
However , does what you say , which I am sure has a lot of truth , not apply to the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK ?
I am not saying that should never happen. I would vote for it if sado-masochist Brexit happens.Is it not the case that , knowing the likely pain and distress involved and the fact that Scotland and the UK cannot move apart in the way a divorced couple can . we should try to avoid it if possible.
One aspect of the 2014 referendum campaign was that supporters of Scottish “independence” never seemed to realise that logically they were also supporting UK “independence” of Scotland. It was always assumed that the UK would oblige Scotland by always doing what we would like e.g. over the currency , or the border or defence contracts. That is not a realistic divorce plan.
I think by the next time Scotland tries the thinking will have been done
A lovely analogy.
The only point I’d add it a gentle reminder that we aren’t divorcing the Brexiters. They are the other half of a confused person trying to make up their mind what they want to do. A person who is still split 50/50. Who has just gone through a serious tantrum. And whose real friends might be counselling them to pull back from the brink.
Richard..
Always thought of you as one of the good guys!!!
You are off my Christmas card list now.
What did I do?
Sorry but I don’t see the analogy as being, whilst seductive, particularly close. I think Larry McAfee’s analogy with the quickie divorce might be a lot more apt – to the extent that any analogy is useful at all, which I doubt.
The central issue is:- do the people of this country see their country’s future as one constituent part in what must (if it is to survive) become what its founders envisaged – a supra-national entity (federation, confederation or some such); or as reverting to being what it was before – an independent sovereign state?
That question was answered in the referendum. One could argue that it ought not to be decided by a simple majority vote, but that’s an issue which would have needed to have been raised and resolved *before* the referendum was held. It wasn’t, and the default position (simple majority) therefore obtains.
I don’t recall that anybody made that an issue when – by simple majority – the vote went the other way, in the referendum held by Wilson’s Labour government.
The process of disentangling all the ties which over the years of membership came into being is obviously very complex, but mostly technical in character because the goal is simple:- to achieve separation. It just has to be worked-at (no mean task).
What is much more problematical is what is to be the future trade relationship of Britain with the EU, given that the decision made by the referendum must be implemented (if not, why hold it?). That can only be arrived-at through negotiation, and negotiations can’t be conducted as if they were a Cup Final played-out in front of a hundred thousand spectators; if Britain’s negotiators are to stand any chance of getting the most favourable terms they must be allowed the necessary room for manoeuvre.
So who draws our negotiators’ red lines?
The essence of red lines is that they mustn’t become known to the adversary. If they are there’s no purpose to be served by negotiating: one’s opening position and one’s final position are one and the same. So Parliament can’t decide them, the government must.
But at the end of the day the government won’t be able avoid (even supposing it might wish-to) putting whatever terms have been arrived-at in the negotiations to the Commons for its approval. And personally I would have thought that a free vote would be seen by most members, of all parties, as being the only acceptable basis on which the Commons’ consent should either be given or witheld.