The British public are now coming to realise that they have been sold out by the political class over out exit from the EU.
For months we have watched a circus of personality clashes, changing loyalties and backstabbing unfold in the corridors of power. Some people seem to get quite taken in by it; the strong characters and intrigue make it moderately entertaining if you're into that sort of personal drama (this author is not). Now that plans for our exit have been broadly hashed out, the public can clearly see that the end result of all the drama is set to be an exit in name only.
The truth, however, is that all the drama and intrigue was redundant, because the problems with the 'Brexit' process were much more fundamental than the particulars of any final arrangement. From the beginning the very vision of our exit set out by the figureheads of the Leave campaign was that of a hollow Brexit; one that was uninterested in nationhood, or reversing the political direction of recent decades; but instead only in taking back our MEPs from Brussels and gaining the ability to forge a few new trade deals amongst the developing world.
This shouldn't be surprising; almost all the Leave figureheads are fully signed up supporters of the 'New Britain': multicultural, secular, rooted in the mantras of equality and diversity and entirely uninterested in all the responsibilities of nationhood, not least the maintenance of meaningful national borders. Boris Johnson, Douglas Carswell, Priti Patel, Daniel Hannan and all the other Leave champions made it very clear that their vision of Brexit was characterised as "business as usual", and the largely unhindered free movement of goods, capital and people across our borders; in essence the Single Market, whether or not the EU sets the rules for us. Nigel Farage was almost the sole exception in capturing the sentiments of the average Leave voter, although unfortunately he never really formulated them, and UKIP remain enthralled by the mantras of economic and social liberalisation and of modern, service sector 'global Britain'.
Brexit for these establishment figures was to be a continuation of the politics of recent decades, and not a rejection of it. And this is ultimately why their Brexit, even if it was a full or 'hard' Brexit, was ultimately still a hollow Brexit.
Their Brexit was that of the 'New Britain', thoroughly multicultural, 'progressive' and 'outward-looking', opening its borders to trade with the world and not just Europe. Mass immigration, they assured us, would continue (Johnson, Carswell and Hannan all said so; even Jacob-Rees Mogg leapt to the defence of the mass immigration of the post-War era and proudly shared his father's editorial which condemned Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech as "disgraceful"). They assured us we would still be a trading nation with our great hub in the City of London; an economy of financial services and asset wealth. They assured us that we would remain open for business; for foreign companies to operate freely and run and profit from even our most essential national infrastructure as they currently do. They assured us that the broad forces of liberalisation and globalisation would continue unabated. What is this if not business as usual, 'hard' Brexit though it may be?
Of course this is not what the average Leave voter voted for, whether they be in Peterhead, Sunderland, Belfast or Swansea. The sentiment behind the Leave vote, rather like the election of Trump in the USA, was a rejection of the political establishment and the broad direction our country has been taken down in recent decades, something that is quite heavily intertwined with our entrance into the EEC in 1973.
Like the average Leave voter, the British Union & Sovereignty Party maintain that our exit from the European Union must be defined as a rejection, and not a continuation, of the failed politics of recent decades. We are not interested in the "global, outward-looking Britain" mantra of Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan; we do not share their excitement about the prospect of free trade with Malaysia or Peru.
Our exit from the European Union must be defined by a new national direction; one rooted in the sovereignty and nationhood which we used to have. We should trade with Europe on WTO terms and without 'bespoke' deals. This necessitates the creation of a meaningful national border staffed by security, customs officials and civil servants; this is an ordinary function of a sovereign nation state and should be reinstated following our exit from the EU. We should reinstate reasonable tariffs and other protectionist measures to protect British manufacturers and rebuild our industrial base, which we can do once again following out exit. And we should view our exit as an opportunity to put an end to decades of mass immigration which have changed parts of our country beyond recognition; a policy that goes beyond simply exiting the EU, as over half of our annual immigration is from non-EU countries.
Without this broad change of national direction, our exit from the European Union, be it hard or soft, will ultimately be a hollow Brexit. The 'New Britain', rooted in multiculturalism, liberalism, debt, de-industrialisation and the broad shutting down of the duties and affairs of nationhood, will roll on undisturbed.And the average Leave voter, who voted to reject the 'New Britain' and to get their country back, will be betrayed.
We can only stop this betrayal by electing MPs on a broad manifesto of national restoration; committed to fully exiting the EU and all of its mechanisms and to rebuild Britain's constitutional, economic, social and moral foundations. It is only by doing so that we can truly take back our sovereignty and begin to reclaim our country.