Let’s not crash out of or back into the EU: we need more time – a response to Yanis Varoufakis

Yanis Varoufakis is one of the few intellectuals in Europe who has both
the ability to think outside the box and the audacity to confront us with
uncomfortable truths. This is why, before challenging one aspect of his
reasoning on Brexit, I want to pay tribute to the coherence of his stance,
powerfully expressed by his latest piece in the New Statesman. As he puts it : “Britain is teetering on a knife’s edge: about to
crash out of, or back into, the European Union” where “either outcome would
represent a defeat for democracy in the UK and in the EU.” While he joins many
progressives in denouncing the economic and political risk of a calamitous no
deal Brexit on March 29, he is among the few on the Left who address the great
risk that by stopping Brexit trust in democracy would be undermined. I think he
is right.

Yes, a unilateral revocation of article 50 is technically possible, as
clarified by the EU Court of Justice and advocated by many, including former Prime Minister John Major. But how would it be democratically justifiable? Anyone who thinks that
Brexit can simply be annulled with such a magic wand needs to recognise the
sense of betrayal that many Leave voters would inevitably feel. In fact,
neither crashing out nor crashing back into the EU are viable options for
democrats, despite momentous support from two entrenched fronts.

Varoufakis is also right in warning against the risks of a quick
referendum between May’s botched deal and an option to remain. Not only is there
no agreement in Parliament over when and how to have it, but such a “People’s
Vote” would also be met with significant opposition in the country, both from
“no deal” supporters and from many who fear a resurgence of the toxic divisions
that accompanied the 2016 referendum. To a large extent, Britain is not ready
to decide what to make of Brexit and it instead needs a People’s Debate on the many interconnected crises that Brexit itself
has revealed.

It was precisely for the depth of this rift between these entrenched
fronts and the virulence of the debate among them that last September I
set up a campaign to Take a Break from Brexit by means of a
significant extension of the Brexit deadline set by article 50. I did so together with many friends who, like myself, are members of
DiEM25, the pan-European movement founded by Varoufakis in 2016 to democratise
the European Union.

We recognised then that an extension is our only option if we want both
to respect the 2016 referendum and offer an alternative to the choice between a
catastrophic no deal and the toxic deal that Theresa May has forced on the
country. The two months left before March 29, 2019 are not enough – either for
this government to negotiate a new deal (which it does not want anyway) or to
elect a new government with a clear mandate from a General Election.

This is where my disagreement with Varoufakis begins. In his article he
opposes an extension as he believes this would only buy Theresa May more time.
But this would only happen in case of an extension limited to a few weeks. More
than a 100 Tory MPs have rejected her deal and most of them are campaigning for
a no deal outcome. All the hard line brexiteers are clear they expect
Brexit to be delivered this March and a majority of conservative members support this view. There is no way the government could retain its slim majority of a
dozen MPs if Parliament voted to extend the deadline by several months.
Delivering Brexit on March 2019 is Theresa May’s tenure. Failing to do so will
be its end.

But how significant should this extension be to allow for real
listening, reconciliation and compromise? Varoufakis is right to remind us that
an extension does not cancel the deadline. Which is why an extension should be
as long as possible, as our
campaign is demanding. The reason is that the deadline of
article 50 is not the date when Brexit must be delivered. It just sets the
window allowed for negotiation. Article 50 allows Britain to exit at any point
during that window as long as a withdrawal agreement with a certain exit date
is approved. So, this date of departure could be either before or after the new
deadline set by the extension. An extension, in other words, does not set the
Brexit date, it just removes the pressure from Parliament to vote for an
agreement before they actually support it.

Pushing away this deadline, which is effectively pointing a gun at the
heads of the people of Britain, is extremely important. All the more so as it
appears to control the entire political dynamics. Since the day after the
referendum the political establishment has been captured by a rush to deliver
on a far-too-ill-defined will of the people. Leavers in favour of a no deal
Brexit repeat obsessively “Out, now” refusing to acknowledge the possible
consequences. Remainers, meanwhile, work around complex timetables to rush
through a second referendum while no one is clear on how to bring this about.
But if Article 50 is the White Rabbit of British politics, there’s no sign of a
Mary Poppins ready to pause time and bring some order. There is, in fact, utter
confusion and division at all levels.

The reality is that everyone who believes that the rift in the country
can be healed in a few weeks or even months is deeply delusional. If a
government entirely devoted to delivering Brexit failed to do so in two years,
how can we expect a solution with just a few more months, as in Yvette Cooper’s
amendment? How can we hope to find a compromise between those who do not want
Brexit at all and those that want an extreme version of it in the few weeks
that would be gained to organise the national citizens assembly proposed by Compass and some Labour MPs? No, if we are to get an extension, we should agree with another former
Prime Minister, Gordon Brown: we need at least one year.

Some, including Varoufakis, repeat UK and EU concerns that such an
extension would force British citizens to vote in the upcoming European
Elections. How so? If an extension is indeed granted and therefore Britain is
still in the EU in May 2019, it would be up to each individual citizen to
decide whether and how to engage in such elections. Voting is a free choice.
Can we really be so afraid of such democratic choices as to block a UK-wide debate – the only
sensible solution to a constitutional crisis? In terms of the wider debate,
doesn’t it in fact make sense that UK representatives in Brussels are renewed
before the European Parliament discusses the Brexit deal, as the current MEPs
were elected in 2014, when nobody knew what Brexit meant?

Britain is facing the
most dramatic crisis of its democratic history. The entire United Kingdom is
embittered, frustrated and divided and threatening to fall apart. There are no
“emergency powers” in Brussels to help us see this through. Only time and
democracy can heal the rifts. It is up to us to ask for it.