Dear Europe

We find ourselves, once more, at a junction. Britain has a choice to make : should we leave the European Union without a deal, leave with the agreement negotiated by Theresa May, or simply remain as a full member ?

For much of the last three years the journey has been engulfed in confusion, as though we were a drunkard staggering through a dark, foggy night, often tripping over hedgehogs and banging our head on unexpectedly low bridges. The EU has often played the role of a kindly friend (albeit one somewhat estranged due to our own bad behaviour), imploring us to take the right path but never forcing us. It is only thanks to the EU that the journey is continuing at all.

Now something has changed. The fog has lifted, or at least thinned considerably. If we don't yet know the precise details of the route, the main paths and the destinations are at least good enough to make headway. No path is yet fully closed to us, but, by the grace of our European friends, we may before long reach safety. Yet this does depend absolutely on the good nature of the EU as much as it does upon our own choices. Here, then, is why I think that in the current circumstances, our European counterparts should not and will not close the door to us.

Though it is not yet in physical chaos, Britain is in political chaos. But every crisis brings opportunity, and this crisis offers the biggest opportunity of all : a clear way to end the madness and begin to restore our good name. The election of a man with despotic tendencies to the office of Prime Minister has been a serious shock to the system, rallying, at last, opponents to unite behind a common strategy. After freeing themselves from his mastery, they are at liberty to vote with their conscience. It is true that this means the government is now in greater difficulties than before, and that the messages from Britain will seem more confused than previously - if such a thing is possible. It is also true that the Rebel Alliance is a fragile one, and Parliament no more able to make a definitive choice as to the direction than before. Why, then, is this grounds for hope ? Why would it not be better to simply have done with it, to leave us to our own fate and learn from our own mistakes ?

For all the confusion, Parliament has managed to exert one thing with absolute clarity : its own sovereignty over the executive. It is now crystal clear that the option of No Deal must be removed, eliminating one of the three possible destinations. However, Parliament finds itself still partly shackled by the executive elected by a tiny minority of the British public. Such is the way of our constitution; never in the past was it reckoned that even the most devoted members of our political tribes would be prepared to elect someone of such singular ideological incompetence. Although this dreadful, unprecedented event has come to pass, a way to undo this lies before us - one which will finally allow us to make the hitherto impossible choice. For any decision to proceed in accordance with our representative democracy, it is imperative that we have a general election. In order to do that, we must have an extension to EU membership.

Why an election and not (yet) a second referendum ? Because Parliament is not yet united enough to make that choice for itself. The legitimacy of the positions of many MPs are now uncertain. Their recent choices to defect or depart must be validated. With party policies now clear, an election serves, in effect, as a referendum on whether to have a referendum. That and that alone will finally settle the issue.

Of course there is risk in this, but not so much as one might expect, at least in a certain sense. I mean that there is little enough risk that this would prolong the whole process beyond the endurance of Europe. Regardless of the outcome of either vote, no-one is going to have any appetite for another one. The risk of this becoming a series of vote after vote after vote is as small as it can ever be. True, the ideal case would be for Parliament to vote directly, or for a referendum to be arranged immediately. But we are not in an ideal situation. We are compelled to make more awkward choices. Yet those choices are now all but inescapable, and for Europe to deny us this now would be an act of brutal folly. It would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and stoop to the level of the opponents of democracy we find ourselves pitted against.

It is not in Europe's interest to deny us this final choice. After having made it clear that the possibility of an election or referendum would be good grounds for an extension, to deny this now would render them untrustworthy and be unjust and cruel - the very things we are trying to avoid. For all that No Deal would harm Britain more than anyone else, it would also harm Ireland, who never asked for any of this. It is, self-evidently, better to explore every avenue, especially when the chance of averting disaster looks so promising.

Why a delay, when the option of an election was already rejected by Parliament ? If it needs to be stated, it is because Parliament does not trust the Prime Minister, who is regarded as a liar and a crook. Parliament cannot allow him to control the proceedings - there is a very real threat he would set the date so as to force a No Deal and enshrine his own legitimacy.

It is true that we find ourselves in a bizarre situation, in which Parliament and the executive are at odds in such a way that has not been seen since the days of Charles I. Yet European leaders are not ignorant of this; we've learned that the extension was proposed after assurances were given that it would be granted. European leaders are not ignorant of the dangers of empowering a Prime Minister who defies the will of Parliament either. They are also aware that it is Parliament who controls the agenda and Parliament that they will ultimately negotiate with : any attempt to ignore the law would instantly lose a government a vote of confidence, installing a caretaker coalition government who will implement it. They are further aware that it is the Prime Minister who has prorogued Parliament and removed its voice, and how this has all but destroyed his authority. Therefore, they cannot fail to realise that to do his bidding would be to hand victory to the demagogues, to subvert the will of democrats. They will be blamed far more severely for this than they ever would for prolonging our membership.

It is right and proper that Europe should threaten to veto the extension. There must be some incentive to the opposition to implement a real choice in the probable event that they form the next government. Perhaps more stringent criteria can be attached to the extension; perhaps terms of future negotiations can be strictly limited. Obviously we cannot have indefinite extensions, at some point the issue must be forced. If a final cutoff date is required, beyond which we really will leave regardless of other conditions, then I propose January 31st 2021. This gives Britain (and other nations) additional time to prepare as best it can and avoids the chaotic Christmas period, while being short enough that the end is in sight.

Yet to actually use the veto now would be foolish. Threatening the veto conveys strength; implementing it would be a sign of weakness. It is true that Britain has not been a fair player in the Union. But now there is a possibility to rectify that. Helping us to remain would encourage us to participate more sensibly. Ejecting us would deliver the British people to a man would discard the rule of law. To keep the Union together would be a sign of its tremendous strength; ejecting us, at the very moment a path forward has finally emerged from the fog, would look like the height of miscalculation, a sign of insecurity and deceitful trickery. That is precisely the image of Europe the skeptics would have us believe. Surely, for the EU to give victory to the Euroskeptics and defeat to their pro-European British friends would be against the whole principle and purpose of the Union. And to repeat, Europe knows that it is their friends who are really asking for prolongation, not their adversaries.

Therefore I beseech the EU to grant us this extension. I believe they will, though not without difficulty. While it is a shameful thing for us to have fallen so low by the actions of such base despots, having done so, there is no weakness whatsoever in our asking another for assistance. Rather it is a sign of courage on our part to admit that we need help. We did so before when we asked the Dutch to save us from our own king; we must do so again, now, in order to save us from a man who is little better than a lunatic. The weird, unconventional nature of the British constitution gives it tremendous flexibility. We should see that a sign of strength and use it against the very man who would ignore the rule of law.

Lastly, it is no exaggeration to say that lives are at stake. While expatriots such as myself risk mere disruption to their lives, others less fortunate risk shortages of food and medicine, by the government's own admission. Surely only after every other option has been exhausted should this even be considered.

No course is without risk. Success it not guaranteed. It is possible, however unlikely, that an election could result in No Deal or further prevarication. But it is also possible, and considerably more probable, that it could end the whole sorry affair. There is little at risk to the EU by granting an extension, and much to be gained. In the worst case of an extension, EU leaders will experience more unpleasant meetings, while in the worst case of No Deal, people's very lives are at risk. Surely, for the sake of past alliances - for Britain too has saved Europe, on more than one occasion, from despots and villains - it is worth a little more time.