Some Brexit therapy, stepping back and take a breath after a rollercoaster week. You may Dias agree, and that’s fine, but don’t attack me for it – we’re all dealing with this in our own way!

TL;DR Reflecting on a rollercoaster #Brexit week, the path taken since 2016 and the road ahead. Reconciling my ideals with the least bad option from here. Hoping for a less partisan approach as we look to a future with, if not in, Europe.

The countries and people of Europe are our family, our friends, our neighbours and our partners. We are deeply entwined and stronger together. However we proceed should be in a spirit of amity and solidarity. We should negotiate with trust and compassion recognising that however tightly or loosely coupled our legal and political relationship we are all better off in a peaceful, prosperous and generous Europe where people can mingle and thrive protected by rights and mindful of responsibilities to each other.

#1 The United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union and plays a key role in shaping it.

This is probably not going to happen.

We will probably never know what the European Union could have looked like had the United Kingdom been more committed to it and taken more of an active role in shaping and reforming the European Union to the demands of the 21st century. Certainly it needs to do so but I maintain it remains the best way for European countries to come together and work together on the issues that affect us all.

The European Union is a beacon of multi-lateralism that needs to adapt, grow and mature. It needs to be more agile and less opaque. It needs to be accessible and less bureaucratic. It needs to be more service oriented and less legalistic. It needs to more accountable and less remote.

Through over 750 treaties and agreements negotiated over several decades we have made commitments to Europe and received cooperation and economies of scale in return that have resulted in investment and innovation. Through our opt outs and exceptions we have already negotiated bespoke membership of the European Union that provides the best possible deal and the most beneficial return for what it costs us. Such a deal will not come again, I do not wish to give it up easily.

I see our membership of the European Union as a gift from my grandparents and parents. A gift I wish to renew.

Sadly I do not think a majority of my fellow citizens in the United Kingdom share this view. This story of Europe was told well enough or widely enough to allow people to connect with Europe in the emotional way I do. We attempted to persuade through facts and fear not hopes and dreams, through minds but not hearts. People were encouraged to accept Europe not love Europe, to settle not demand better, to be passive rather than participate.

So instead it has become a locus for our discontent and a useful misdirection of legitimate anger for the architects of austerity and the referendum against it, however flawed, has become sacrosanct. As even those supporters of a second referendum now seem to see it as a solution of last resort rather than an option to actively campaign for I’m gradually coming to accept that those of us who wish the whole matter to be reconsidered, represented by the Liberal Democrat’s, the Green Party, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Independent Group of MPs, are a minority.

My best hope now is that the country acts inclusively so that more is done to drive policy to reflect not just the will of those who wish to leave but the concerns of those who wanted to remain.

#2 The United Kingdom withdraws it’s full membership of the European Union but remains an associate member.

A really unlikely option.

The European Union have never wavered in their commitment to the integrity of the European Union and the four freedoms and it is obvious that they do not want a two-speed or two-tier Europe. Whether it likes it or not there already is a two-tier Europe, perhaps even a three-tier Europe emerging only in an ad hoc and jumbled manner because it remains I unacknowledged and unwanted.

There are many tables and complicated diagrams showing the complex, overlapping nature of European options and memberships.

There are those European countries who are not full members of the European by who participate in other pan-Eurooean organisations or agreements such as EFTA, the EEA, the single market, the European Union, Erasmus, Schengen, Horizon etc.

Then there are those full EU members who have joined but don’t seem fully integrated. These peripheral members diverge from some of the central tenets of the European project. These might include more au5ori5srian states who don’t agree with Europe’s social liberalism, the fiscal differences between the northern and southern eurozone and of course Britain who has always ploughed its own European furrow.

There is then a core of countries still committed to ever closer union who would favour more integration.

Moreover , the eurozone still has deep structural issues that need addressing, the European Union is too big and unwieldy for the integration project to get any further momentum and progress has plateaued, and the challenges of the 21st century have brought new social and political and crises that the European Union must respond to if it is to survive and thrive. These are creating fractures and faultlines.

Europe is not homogenous and some of these stresses and cracks in the fabric of the European Union come from the fact its members respond differently to these challenges do wish to be different types of fellow traveller with different destinations and pace in mind. Can the European Union hold together? Should it?

This then would be my imaginary solution for allowing competing visions of Europe to be held together but be more loosely coupled. It would create a two-tier Europe in an orderly way by fiscal nguushing between a Single Europe (full membership) and a Shared Europe (associate membership). Anyone outside this would be a Third Country offered bespoke free trade agreements but few other areas of cooperation.

Full membership of the European Union continues for those committed to a Single Europe and reforms to advance the four freedoms, eurozone and the principle of ever closer union. Europe is able to move towards common fiscal and defence policy. The European Union incorpares countries who wish to be part of a Shared Europe but not a Single Europe through association agreements including options on free movement (Schengen), trade (common market and customs union), policing, science, environment and education programmes.

The United Kingdom, the Norway option, the Swiss option would then all just be codified by association agreements. Other countries may choose this route over the Single Europe but those left could be more easily integrated.

This would be a great European choice. A choice not just left to leaders but given to the peoples of European. To be part of a Single Europe working towards ever closer union or whether the preferences is for a more loosely coupled common area more as it was when the United Kingdom first joined.

Certainly you get the impression that there could be a majority for membership of a Commons rather than a Union in the UK. Most debates beyond the ultra Brexiteers are developing proposals considering what bundle of European agreements we would like to negotiate membership of, not that we don’t wish to be part of any.

This would be imperfect and difficult I am sure. I just like to think, given the tensions in Europe, that it could be an offer. If the UK does eventually end up with its own agreement then European fears that the premise of the Union begins to unravel, and the indivisible begins to divide could happen and as tortuous as it has been other countries may decided that there is a route and it is worth it. Codifying this offer might then not seem like such a bad option.

#3 The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union with an agreement and agrees a future relationship during the transition period.

The best way forward from here.

So, given I don’t think my preferred options have are likely to be on offer given their questionable viability, desirability and feasibility I have to ask myself what would I most want to see from here.

It seems apparent to me that the majority position is to leave. I think I would and could come around to accepting this and working to make the best of it had we gone about it in a more competent and less partisan way.

Because we haven’t we find ourselves pressed for options and playing for high stakes and it leaves me feeling angry, frustrated and powerless at the political games that have to be negotiated to make progress. I am left with a very dim view of our Parliament and government at the moment and ever more convinced of the need for Parliamentary reform. That however is for another day.

Despite making no progress for two years I actually find myself dismayed at the prospect of extending for another two years. What has changed that would make the outcome any different? The options being discussed have been discussed many times since before the 2016 referendum. In fact they were all in the original options paper and it is terrible that more people, especially MPs, didn’t engage with this option paper more in the lead up to the referendum and certainly in the aftermath before voting to trigger article 50.

The stumbling block triggered Article 50 without much debate at which set a time limit for negotiating withdrawal with a default of leaving without a deal or a transition period. Most of the Parliamentary debates Ive listened to and cross-party talks seem to be discussions about the future relationship than the terms of our withdrawal. They are all based on the presumption of leaving. We are probably a free months and several debates away from a cross-party Parliamentary view on what to do next.

So the main question now has become do we press ahead or reset the Article 50 timer? This is followed by myriad questions about what comes next? Do we negotiate the future relationship and then put the full and final deal to the people or do we let Parliament decide? Do we participate in the European elections or not? Is remain still truly an option on the table or is Parliament negotiating now future relationships all of which are based on the presumption of leaving?

No, if I reluctantly and sadly accept that we as a nation wish to leave then I think we should leave this year, before the end of this European Parliament as promised. Then we negotiate the future arrangement and explore the many options different Parliamentary groups are devising for doing so.

In this case Mrs May is quite correct in her assertion that there are two ways of leaving. To accept the withdrawal agreement that has been negotiated with the European Union and they have ratified, or to leave without an agreement and operate under WTO rules until new trade deals can be negotiated. As Parliament and most expertise agre the latter option would be risky. We would be the only country operating in this basis. It would be economically damaging, disrupt supply chain logistics, be reactive as we lack sufficient preparations and bring much uncertainty.

I feel that the only credible option is to pass the withdrawal agreement. I’ve hard many people across the media opining it’s a bad deal but I’ve less clarity on why they think this. I would genuinely appreciate pointers to sources that explain why the withdrawal agreement is such a bad deal for governing the transition period (what after all it is for not to govern the future relationship). I would agree that it’s a lot worse than the deal we already have but I’m not sure what a better transition deal would look like in these circumstances?

The backstop is important for protecting the Good Friday Agreement. I’d rather the energy being out into arguing about it was put into negotiating a future relationship that commands a majority so that it never comes to pass. Never mind never leaving the backstop; it should never come into play. That we are so fixated on it reflects a lack of confidence in negotiating the future relationship and a lack of trust in our European partners.

The political declaration is perhaps more important depending on how binding it is. This matters much more than the transitional agreement. I would like to see, and ideally binding commitments made, to ensure negotiations on future relationship are less partisan and more representative . They should involve Parliament, the quite legitimate demands for cross-party representation and our underused negotiation expertise.

So I would like Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement next week. A short extension would then be requested and in all likelihood granted to allow the necessary legislation be passed by the end of June. Britain will leave the European Union and a new European Parliament would begin. The out but aligned transitional arrangements would I think be less confusing and more protective than continuing the not in but not out of Article 50.

Not extending Article 50 beyond June would more decisively move negotiations into the next stage and deliver the absolute demand of the referendum: we would have left the European Union.

Arguments about not respecting the referendum would then be moot. There was nothing in that ballot paper in that referendum that binds Parliament to any will of the people regarding the future relationship or the type of exit. Any such claims are supposition and interpretation. The terms of the future relationship would rest with Parliament and if the will of the people needed to be called upon it would have to go back to another referendum for the question would then be different.

We would then be in the transition period. The government should propose and Parliament should ratify our negotiating team for talks on the future relationship. This should be representative but operate under the direction of DexEU. Negotiating teams can also be established for future trade agreements with other countries directed the Department forInternational Trade, Parliamentary time should be commitment in the autumn for Parliament to debate and hold a series of indicative/preferential votes on the various options for the future relationship. This will provide the mandate for the negotiating team.

The transition period allows current operations to continue and organisations to prepare for the end of the transition period. The early the shape of the future relationship can be agreed the better ther wise we simply find ourselves in a very similar position in another two to three years. The agreement governing the future relationship is drafted so it can then be debated and ratified both in Europe and in Parliament. Parliament will need to vote on that agreement too. This is the deal that matters and I sincerely hope we won’t be in the same position as with this deal. We must have a more transparent and inclusive negotiation next time.

This is where I think there could then be a more legitimate argument for another referendum. Some might say if Parliament votes for the deal then this is enough given the primacy of Parliamentary Sovereignty. However, the public was never asked for a view, it’s will, on a future relationship; only an in/out question on the European Union. Whether there was an appetite for this would depend on how negotiations have been conducted and what has been negotiated. To avoid the need for this Parliament should simply conduct itself better than it has done so far and reach a consensus.

#4 The only other option would be to revoke Article 50, start again and do it properly this time.

A radical left field option that’s highly improbable.

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” —Sherlock Holmes

It would be Holmesian fallacy to suggest all alternatives have been considered but certainly and improbable one would be acknowledging all the flaws of the previous referendum, fixing them and trying again.

Reading this article reveals a lot about what has gone wrong over the last two years (“I started reading all these articles about EFTA and the EEA in the runup to the end of last year, October, November. It was literally a eureka moment. I thought: why haven’t we done this?”), but also a lot about what could go right (“It’s just very careful building of alliances, and having conversations – and that’s a tough job, in this climate, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”). Brexit needs to be elevated above party political electioneering, one reason I would not favour a General Election.

This could only be a move made by a bold Leaver PM and I’m not sure whether we have anyone with the necessary gravitas and political savvy needed to make a convincing case for this course of action and take enough people with them. I mean really who could do this? Wh could revoke Article 50 and make it seem logical rather than divisive? The act of a government of national unity in a moment of national crisis.

Should this unicorn political leader materialise, this option could see us committing to be full members for this next European Parliament with the next feasible deadline for leaving, should that still be our wish, the end of that Parliamentary session. In the meantime we would ask and answer the question of “a future relationship with the EU on a preferential basis from all the possible options. Time would be needed for this analysis and then, if needed, to negotiate withdrawal followed by a new agreement based around the selected option to take effect in 2024.

Looking Ahead

We are still some way from knowing what our future will look like and how easily we will find it to agree. We can only hope we learn from the last two years. Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the sad fact is it will take several more years before Brexit is concluded and our relationship with Europe stabilises again. It would be much less draining if Brexit could be a little more bureaucratic and a little less political.

I know one thing. The way ahead will look different from the one I expected back in 2016 and the one I wanted. So I have to reconcile myself to this new reality, and I am doing so, as well as thinking about what really matters to me and recalibrating how those things might still be achieved. This would be easier if there was more recognition that change takes time and always involves an element of grief. It does not help on this journey to be cast as losers or traitors.

As is to be expected their are many views on such a complex and nuanced. There are many viewpoints and strategies that I disagree with, anongst both leavers and remainers and this disagreements prompt strong emotions because we all care about our country deeply. We would all benefit at times to step back, breathe deeply and reset so we can act and debate with more empathy and less intemperate and divisive language all around. This is what I am trying to do this weekend as I reflect on last week and ponder the week to come.

I will march for Europe on Saturday in a spirit of friendship and solidarity even though I think we will shortly leave the European Union and I will accept and respect that. Each ending is also a new beginning and I hope we will find a way to be happy with our place in the world and revitalise our relationship with Europe in a different form. Ultimately it is the rights and responsibilities conferred by partnership with Europe, not the form it takes that matters.

This cathartic to write. Would I be happy if we still found a way to remain? Yes of course though that would come with its own set of problems. Will I happy to leave? No of course not, I am and always will be a Europhile and grateful for having been part of the European Union and would like to continue. But if it happens I will work to make a success of the future I can have not the ones I would like to have and this will include protecting the rights European citizenship has afforded us.

The Conservatives reneged on their 2015 manifesto commitment to give my parents a vote in this debate and their lives are more uncertain because of it. Instead this government has attempted to erase them. They are not citizens of nowhere there are citizens of Britain and citizens of Europe who have taken the opportunity to settle in another EU country. They have been treated miserably by a government who promised they would be treated equally. This should be rectified as a priority. The government should fulfil their votes for life promise early in the next Parliamentary session so British citizens who have settled abroad do get their say in future on both the UK Government, whose actions still directly impact on their lives, and any matters put directly to the UK citizens.

I can prepare myself leaving if I tell myself it’s not giving up but getting on. Devoting less energy to Brexit will allow more to be devoted to the other pressing concerns that matter to me that have been squeezed to the margins of our politics: climate change, ending austerity, reforming Parliament and providing lifelong learning for all.