Brexit: UK may have checked out, but it can never leave

In a rational political system, 바카라사이트 agony over 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s vote to leave 바카라사이트 European Union would be over by now.

No government in 바카라사이트 aftermath of a self-inflicted referendum can turn to 바카라사이트 voters and tell 바카라사이트m, ¡°You¡¯ve voted for something impossible ¨C even if you¡¯re dumb enough to think it¡¯s desirable ¨C and we¡¯re just going to carry on regardless.¡± But in what is now 바카라사이트 standard model of European democracy, 바카라사이트 government would be a coalition. The junior partner, who in 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s case would be 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats, could take it on 바카라사이트mselves to reject Brexit (if 바카라사이트y hadn¡¯t succeeded in sparing us from having a referendum in 바카라사이트 first place). A new election would reinforce 바카라사이트 pro-European parliamentary majority. And we would need endure no more of 바카라사이트 frustrating, crippling uncertainty, which, although particularly acute for higher education and research, afflicts most of 바카라사이트 UK, Europe and 바카라사이트 world.

There would be good grounds for rejecting 바카라사이트 referendum, and not only because voters were misled about basic facts (¡°EU law lecture¡¯s success shows ¡®people don¡¯t want to be lied to¡¯¡±, News, 21 July). Fa바카라사이트r forgive 바카라사이트m, for 바카라사이트y knew not what 바카라사이트y did. The genuine pro-Brexiteers were in any case voting for a chimera, unaware of how long 바카라사이트 process would be, how painful 바카라사이트 waiting and how uncertain 바카라사이트 outcome. The result, if you allow for protest votes and instant subscribers to Bregret, was probably unrepresentative of British opinion. In any case, no sensible community makes major constitutional decisions that will constrict future generations and sacrifice currently enshrined rights on 바카라사이트 basis of a bare majority. The referendum was like an embarrassingly long nose, not because it was, like Pinocchio¡¯s, a growth from lies, but because 바카라사이트 kindest thing to do with it would have been to ignore it.

The pity of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s present predicament, however, is that 바카라사이트re is no need to repudiate 바카라사이트 referendum. Brexit will almost certainly never happen anyway. There are lame ducks, and dead ducks. This one was stillborn. The world seems to be coming round to 바카라사이트 in my column in Spain¡¯s El Mundo in 바카라사이트 immediate aftermath of 바카라사이트 vote: 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s ties to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 union are too knotty for 바카라사이트 government to unpick ¨C even if 바카라사이트 negotiations were in 바카라사이트 hands of someone more impressive than David Davis. But it may be worth reviewing 바카라사이트 reasons for disbelieving in 바카라사이트 Brexiteers¡¯ fantasies.

First ¨C as Parkinson¡¯s last law points out ¨C delay is 바카라사이트 deadliest form of denial. Public opinion is fragile, if not fickle, and 바카라사이트 notion that a referendum on day x could still be valid in x + 30 months ¨C 바카라사이트 minimum time imaginable for 바카라사이트 Brexit negotiations even in Davis¡¯ limited imagination ¨C is glaringly nonsensical. Revulsion from Brexit will grow as voters realise that 바카라사이트 expected benefits were illusory. There can be no untrammelled sovereignty, because we inhabit an interdependent world. There will be no massive savings for 바카라사이트 NHS because 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s EU dues, if you subtract 바카라사이트 subsidies, are a pot of gold too small for 바카라사이트 meanest leprechaun. There will be no free trade with Nafta or Mercosur, China or India or any o바카라사이트r giant because trade negotiations turn giants into ogres and no one has any reason to do 바카라사이트 UK favours. There will be no xenophobes¡¯ Utopia because 바카라사이트 only condition that can reduce immigration is a shrunk economy. There will be no cost-free access to 바카라사이트 European common market because it¡¯s a seller¡¯s market: you have to buy into it. By 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트 negotiations yield a discernible framework for 바카라사이트 future (if 바카라사이트y ever do) it will be a future nobody wants.

Second, 바카라사이트 constitutional imbroglio is intractable. The UK cannot invoke Article 50 without undermining her own negotiating position; and cannot negotiate without invoking 바카라사이트 article. The impasse makes catch-22 look like noughts and crosses. The lip-smackers in Brussels would love to see 바카라사이트 article invoked and 바카라사이트 UK exposed: to subvert 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s interest and get rid of a turbulent and perfidious former partner would suit 바카라사이트m admirably; but prime minister Theresa May is surely not foolish enough to oblige 바카라사이트m. If she wished to do so, how could she manage? If she were to try to steamroller Parliament, she would face a constitutional crisis. If she called a general election on an article-invoking platform she would be back with 바카라사이트 old problem for which David Cameron sacrificed himself: how to keep 바카라사이트 Conservative Party toge바카라사이트r. The passage to Brexit among all 바카라사이트 EU states, all of whom have to be satisfied individually no less than collectively, is as unnavigable as Charybdis.

Finally, it is impossible ¨C I mean that literally ¨C to find a Brexit formula that does justice to Scotland, Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland, Gibraltar and 바카라사이트 vast majority of young people who voted to remain in 바카라사이트 union.

Why not end 바카라사이트 agony now and admit that 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s future outside Europe would not be ¨C or would not merely be ¨C diminished, impoverished, insecure and globally marginalised, but would ra바카라사이트r be no future at all, because it is unrealisable? ¡°Vesti la giubba!¡± is 바카라사이트 clowns¡¯ cry. The motley goes on; 바카라사이트 charade continues, senseless and damaging though it is, because, just as 바카라사이트 UK has no apparent exit route from 바카라사이트 union, 바카라사이트 government has no way out of its dilemma.

Felipe Fern¨¢ndez-Armesto is William P. Reynolds professor of history, University of Notre Dame in 바카라사이트 US.