Why a public inquiry into Brexit is a good idea, not just for pro-Europeans but for everyone This week, a three-hour debate was held in parliament on the idea of an inquiry into the impact of Britain leaving the European Union. It had been triggered by a petition which garnered over 100,000 signatures. As it happens, I’m top of the list when it comes to the idea of petitions triggering debates in parliament being a waste of time. They have always struck me as token, one of those things a government does to chuck one to the plebs without anything actually changing. For example, there have been six petitions that received over I million signatures in our history - the end result of all of them was absolutely nothing. No change whatsoever.
I don't disagree except that there are strong arguments for some Brexiters avoiding an inquiry.
Those who, if they were objective, would realise that it's been a disaster but who personally profit from it, have every reason not to want anything clarified. I include not just those who've benefitted financially, but in terms of their world view. If you want a never-ending culture war against migrants then the last thing you want is this being settled if you think, even subconsciously, that there's a chance that facts would change things.
Then there are those who are relatively apolitical but who felt and may still feel a strong gut instinct that Brexit was right. People like uncomfortable evidence a lot less than they think they do (regardless of one's politics). So again, these people will want to defend themselves from being presented with evidence that will challenge their belief that they were right. And if you're someone who values being right above the wider good of the economy, then there is logic to this position.
While 'technocratic' Brexiters ought to want to scrutinise Brexit to enable it to bed in and gain widespread acceptance (after identifying and fixing at least some of the downsides), an inquiry does indeed make sense.
But if you're scared of what scrutiny might reveal, if you've always been someone who doesn't mind the downsides and wants to protect Brexit no matter the cost, then you do have a strong and rational incentive to prevent impartial facts from becoming widely known!
I don't disagree except that there are strong arguments for some Brexiters avoiding an inquiry.
Those who, if they were objective, would realise that it's been a disaster but who personally profit from it, have every reason not to want anything clarified. I include not just those who've benefitted financially, but in terms of their world view. If you want a never-ending culture war against migrants then the last thing you want is this being settled if you think, even subconsciously, that there's a chance that facts would change things.
Then there are those who are relatively apolitical but who felt and may still feel a strong gut instinct that Brexit was right. People like uncomfortable evidence a lot less than they think they do (regardless of one's politics). So again, these people will want to defend themselves from being presented with evidence that will challenge their belief that they were right. And if you're someone who values being right above the wider good of the economy, then there is logic to this position.
While 'technocratic' Brexiters ought to want to scrutinise Brexit to enable it to bed in and gain widespread acceptance (after identifying and fixing at least some of the downsides), an inquiry does indeed make sense.
But if you're scared of what scrutiny might reveal, if you've always been someone who doesn't mind the downsides and wants to protect Brexit no matter the cost, then you do have a strong and rational incentive to prevent impartial facts from becoming widely known!
Both main parties oppose an inquiry so it won't happen. Another good reason to not vote for either of them.
The Brexies know that it's been a disaster, but not for them, so why would they want a light shone on the process?