Brexit: The Argument That Won’t Die

Britain, that magnificent island nation that once ruled a quarter of the planet and now struggles to run a railway timetable, has found itself discussing Brexit again. Because apparently the last ten years of shouting, sulking and economic self-harm weren't quite enough.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has been talking about closer ties with the European Union, suggesting Britain needs a more sensible relationship with its continental neighbours. He has also raised concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 referendum.

Naturally, this has gone down about as well as a fart in a diplomatic reception.

Brexit supporters are furious at the suggestion that leaving the EU might have been a mistake. Remainers are furious that it took a decade, several economic disappointments and approximately 400 billion televised arguments to reach the obvious conclusion that trading with your neighbours is generally easier when you aren't deliberately making it awkward.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage is presumably preparing another speech about sovereignty, delivered from somewhere conveniently located near a television camera.

The trouble with Brexit is that everyone wants to win the argument, but nobody wants to accept responsibility for the consequences. It's like watching a man drive his car into a swimming pool, climb out wearing a smug expression and insist that the important thing is he no longer has to pay the congestion charge.

And now comes the awkward business of deciding what happens next.

Rejoining the EU would require another monumental political battle. Rejoining the single market or customs union would involve its own complications. Even a modest improvement in relations risks reopening wounds that politicians have spent years enthusiastically picking at like children with chickenpox.

The government, meanwhile, must somehow navigate sluggish growth, expensive energy and public finances that resemble a teenager's bank account three days before payday. The International Monetary Fund has warned that higher energy prices and borrowing costs will weigh on Britain's economy.

So, naturally, the national priority is another argument about something that happened ten years ago.

Perhaps Britain should compromise. We could establish a new arrangement called Brexit Plus, in which we remain outside the EU but are allowed to buy reasonably priced cheese, export things without filling in seventeen forms and attend European meetings without pretending we're above it all.

The French could supply the cheese. The Germans could supply the forms. Britain could supply a committee to argue about the name.

And if that fails, we could always hold another referendum.

After all, nothing says national stability quite like asking the same question repeatedly until everyone involved has either changed their mind, emigrated or died of exhaustion.

Welcome to Britain in 2026: a country desperate for growth, stability and a brighter future, but still arguing about the satnav instructions from 2016.

At this rate, we'll have sorted Brexit by 2046.

Just in time to start arguing about whether we should have left in the first place.