A year ago I was in London. It was a year since the UK voted to leave the EU and there was a year before it was to be implemented. There were disturbing signs the whole enterprise was not as advertised.

The UK and London, in particular, are home for me as much, if not more, than the USA and San Francisco. My time as a journalist has given me a taste for going to events I thought important milestones. In relatively recent times that has meant Obama’s first inauguration for obvious reasons. And Trump’s, because it seemed/seems to me he represents America at a crossroads between the future and the past, between a pluralistic and relatively democratic society and authoritarian rule by an even smaller and more homogenous elite than have held the reins of power in my life time. So here I am, in London, for Brexit, the UK’s “divorce” from the EU.

“If you are not confused you haven’t been following things properly” BBC Brexit correspondent on 30 March 2019

I assume most reading this piece are looking for a bit clarity on what the hell is going on here in the UK. You won’t find it these words. I have followed the circus that is Brexit now for two years and the best I can tell you is no one seems to know. So I am going to write down a few of the recent low points, what seems to be their effects and a few thoughts and questions.

With time running out on the two year period since officially serving papers (Article 50) to the EU that the UK was leaving, the PM Theresa May (Tory), managed at long last to put together an exit deal with the EU, a deal that if signed essentially “divorced” the UK from the EU but would not be the final word in settlement. It would serve as a foundation to work out details over time – how much time, who knows?.

There were problems from the very beginning – meaning the moment it was decided there would be a referendum on EU membership and how it would be worded. In the end the absurdly complex idea of separating the UK from the EU was boiled down to a simple yes we stay, no we don’t. Then campaigned for by using dark money, wildly crazy promises, conspiracy theories, and fear/hated of others. On the remain side, the campaign was a mix of confused messages and indecision. The result was a surprise to both sides. The UK voted to leave – or at least voted on the idea to leave, and Brexit took its first political causality, Tory PM David Cameron resigned. In came Theresa May and events have spiralled downhill ever since.

In short: May wanting to increase her Tory majority in Parliament to insure a smooth vote on whatever final agreement she managed to hammer out with Brussels, called a “snap election”. In what seems now a pattern of failing to “read the room” the election was lost. Nor was it won by Labour. The Tories retained the most MPs but had need support of the right-wing DUP of Northern Ireland to remain in power, a feat accomplished by May arranging a billion pound “pay off”.

“like so many landowners, newspaper barons, hedge fund managers, firebrand back-bench M.P.s, ex-pat billionaires and Russian oligarchs, they thought it was high time the ordinary people of UK got a chance to send a strong message to an out-of-touch elite”. From “The Story of Berexit”, A Ladybird Book

With her government somewhat secure May entered into negotiations with Brussels. They did not go well but eventually a deal was fit for submission to Parliament. Issues remained – how to deal products such like Airbus built across many national borders and copyright litigation, amongst many. But most of all how to deal with the Irish/Northern Ireland border. When the the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 largely ended the “Troubles”, the Northern Ireland – Ireland border opened for free movement. Since Ireland remains in the EU and Northern Ireland, as part of the UK will leave, border controls will reappear and, the fear is, so will the “Troubles”. As a stop gap the EU separation agreement had the “Backstop”, a temporary solution if no agreement on trade and material movement between the EU and the UK was worked out in the near future. The DUP and other UK “hard” Brexiters see this as nothing more than betrayal and continued EU dominance over UK sovereignty and won’t vote for any agreement with such a clause.

It is at this point, starting about 2 weeks ago, that a strange, disquieting situation descended into complete chaos, and to some political watchers the worst and most dangerous British political crisis since World War Two.

In the last two weeks Parliament has voted down the May negotiated agreement three times. But as the late night ads go, there is more. After vote number one, May returned to Brussels where EU ministers had been saying for sometime that the deal was the deal and the UK was going to have to take or leave it by 29 March. However May was able to get a “legal” letter of clarification on the “backstop” – characterised by some as changed in font and character size only – to present. When the government’s own legal expert characterised it as not binding in any meaningful way, May lost the second vote and The Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow ruled that without real change the government could not present the agreement for a third vote. But a third vote did indeed happen after May, again failing to read the room, offered to resign once the agreement was approved thus leaving the post agreement negotiations to another. The MPs were not impressed, in no small part because May at this point appears to be a “dead man walking”, regardless of any developments.

About this time, many in the public wanting a second public vote begin a petition drive, it started slowly. And then, again demonstrating her blindness to conditions, May gave a speech alleging that she has her finger on the pulse of the great British public and they overwhelmingly want her agreement – that the failure to finalise Brexit is purely with the MPs. MPs reacted by taking over the process of what is to be done and the public petition drive for a new vote went from 1 million signers to 3.5 million, literally overnight. On Saturday, the 24th of March, a million people marched in London for a new vote. Not to remain, but a new vote to determine in a more informed what should happen: take the current deal, exit without a deal or remain. This would not be a general election. Hard Brexiters, lead by Nigel Farage, began their march to London in support of leaving on the 29th. There are about 150 of them.

Taking control of the process a number of MPs tabled proposals for different avenues of leaving, and even perhaps remaining. In the end Bercow choose 8, some of which had been sponsored in a bipartisan effort by MPs from a number of parties, to be voted on. All lost.

May returned to Brussels to plead for more time, to have a fourth vote on her proposal and if it fails to work out something new. The EU agreed to hear her out, taking time out from trade negotiations with China to do so. But after talking with her, hearing no hint of hope that an extended deadline will result in anything different, and May failing to have any idea of a plan B, the EU ministers, reported by The Guardian, ask her to go outside and sit-down, to wait to be called back. The ministers asked the Chinese to come back the following day and then workout a proposal to extend the Brexit deadline to 12 April May’s deal is signed and 22 May if it is not.

It’s Sunday, 31 March, two days past the original Brexit deadline, and 13 days before the new one of 12 April. This coming week May will try for a fourth time get MPs to pass her proposal. This time she is threatening them with a general election. It is hard to see how such a threat would work as Labour has been calling for just that for quite awhile now and the proposal needs Labour votes to pass. MPs plan, it is reported, to have a run off of the two (meaning the least no votes) of the eight losing proposals.

What is going to happen? Have no idea. It’s possible May will no longer be PM having lost in some sort of Tory coup. This would leave the Tories still the dominant member of a coalition government but with a new head to lead them into new general elections in the event they happen. But recent polls are mixed and Corbyn says he would welcome a general election.

Will there be another referendum type election? The petition, now almost certainly with over 5 million signatures, has been dismissed. The march of 1 million, yesterday’s news. Labour has waffled repeatedly about such an election. So again, I don’t know.

Here are a few observations:

Brexit has torn at the fabric of the two main political parties in UK. MPs have left both parties and more have threatened to follow. May was, two years ago, a remainer. Now she sees only one path, her’s and seems determined to follow it over a cliff. She appears to be as mean, blind, vindictive and anti-democratic as Trump, but without the ability to read the room or garner the loyalty that he does.

Within the Tories there are groups looking for a “hard Brexit” to those wanting to remain.

Labour, by any measure of conventional wisdom should be dominating the polls, but isn’t. At least in the ones I’ve seen. Corbyn has never shown strong support for remaining in the EU believing that it is mainly a “bosses” endeavour. Within Labour there are factions that agree with him, those strongly “leave”, a group agreeing the EU is a bosses club but believe leaving a mistake, and neo-liberals who want to remain.

Labour seems, for the most part, to support a new referendum. The stated belief among some in both the Conservative and Labour parties that a second referendum is someone anti-democratic because “the people” have spoken I find ludicrous and dishonest.

The “hard” Brexiters say the EU will have no choice but to come around, that the EU needs UK more than UK needs the EU. But I wonder how long this position can be sustained with the number of stories appearing about major sectors of the British economy taking hits – finance moving from London to Dublin, car plants closing and doubts about manufacturing .

Forgetting the irony of depending on foreigners in the guise of tourism as an economic model, in a world economy is the British economy big enough and healthy enough to successful negotiate advantages agreements with such as the United States, China or the EU? Case in point, Trump administration attempts to get the UK to buy “chlorinated” chicken from the US. While it provided a nice focus point, the issue was rooted in differences in industrial farming practices of the two countries. Alone the UK may not have the clout to dictate what kind of product practices they will accept.

It is interesting to me that the “leave” folks seem to have no issue with certain forms of cultural dictation: Starbucks and Star Wars be two examples.

Lastly, to a larger degree than in the USA Brexit has taken over the discourse. It is a truly momentous decision on multiple levels with structural and political implications for the UK and the world, but all other issues around how society is organised should not be crowded out. The effects of an austerity government on society, there just isn’t air in the room for debate. To Corbyn and Labour’s credit, they have talked about these issues, about homelessness, the decline of the NHS, the gap between rich and poor but the voices have been muted. It will be interesting to see if these issues come to the fore if Labour is successful in forcing a general election.

…