The referendum was neither binding or meaningful. Which is why we need a plan now

Posted on

I have sat on the Supreme Court Brexit decision for a day or so. Some things need time to ferment  before it's best to comment. Three thoughts dominate all others though.

The first is that this refendum was meaningless: the Supreme Court has confirmed it was legally required to take place but it had no ordained legal consequences, at all. None were specified. It was, legally, inconsequential.

Second, this shatters the myth that the Tories always have a plan: not only did they not have one, they had not even thought of the need for one.

And third, because no-one in any leave campaign published a manifesto nor did they make good the deficit.

As a result the vote on 23 June was for an inconsequential non-plan.

Now I am not denying its political significance: 52% of people were so disenchanted with the status quo that they voted to leave the EU. But that was not binding. And nor was it in any real sense meaningful. That's partly because this was opinion on one day. It's partly because we know the victory was secured by lying. It's partly because the margin was so small and the rest of the country need to be respected. But most of all because there was nothing to be bound by. Literally, that is true. At best there was an indication people wanted to leave the EU. On every other issue there was total silence: nothing at all.

And that is precisely why all opposition parties are required to now demand a plan from a government that got us into this mess. And to say there will be no progress, no Article 50 notice and no negotiations until we know what the plan is. This is not defying the will of the people. It's upholding it. It is the government, without a plan or reason, that is still not being either logical or appropriate and is as a result letting the people of this country down.

Surely Labour can, at the very least, say this?

Can't it?