Alex Kane: Three years on from the referendum, Brexit is eclipsing everything else

In early 2016, confirming the date for June 23, he promised that his government would implement the result and that he would remain prime minister even if he lost the vote.

Yet, in the early hours of June 24 he announced his resignation; not, as it happens, as a matter of honour, but because (as became very apparent within 48 hours) he hadn’t actually instructed the executive branch of the government, let alone his own cabinet, to prepare for a Leave victory.

And because he had promised that the government would implement the result — one which he obviously didn’t expect — there was no chance of playing the card that, legally speaking, the referendum was non-binding.

Why did he lose? It’s much too easy to say that the Leave campaign told whopping lies (which elements of it did; and I say that as someone who voted Leave); but much more difficult to understand why those lies were believed.

After all, the UK had been a member of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU for 43 years, so one would have thought that continued membership would have been an easy sell.

Surely there would be mountains of evidence demonstrating the importance and value of membership?

Maybe so, but Cameron and the Remain campaign focused on what I described in March 2016 as the ‘be afraid, be very, very afraid’ approach.

They kept telling us that the EU needed reform, that it was riddled with faults and that it was unwieldy, distant and out of touch with ordinary people.

Then, for good measure, we were promised regular visits from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse if we were stupid enough to Leave.

There was no passion, vision, soul or enthusiasm at the heart of their campaign. And, let’s not forget, elements of the Remain campaign also told their own whopping lies.

Did Leave voters know what they were voting for? They were voting to Leave. Those reasons may have differed and maybe they didn’t always stack up; but that doesn’t mean that their vote is of any less value.

The only legal requirement for voting in the UK is that you’re 18 (although there are some restrictions re peers and prisoners etc). Millions of people vote in elections.

The vast majority do not read the manifestoes, nor the leaflets that drop through their doors. Most of them aren’t experts and wouldn’t ever be in a position to unpick the pledges and assorted statistics.

Their opinion can be swayed by how well a leader performs in TV debates (Tony Blair in 1997 and Nick Clegg in 2010 shifted votes towards their parties). But in most cases they tend to vote for the party which seems closest to the feelings they have of themselves, their identity and their country.

More so than in ordinary elections, the EU referendum was largely about identity and nationhood.

Remain never fully understood that; and never recognised the sheer importance of the issue. When they did think about it they assumed that it was something that mattered only to a single-figure percentage of the electorate and wrote them off as not worth addressing and reassuring.

Nor did they fully understand that the identity/nationhood issue was one which was gaining huge traction across the EU and America (and wasn’t just confined to the right wing, either).

But the issue was spreading across huge swathes of the electorate, embracing all classes, professions, backgrounds, locations, education and party political loyalties.

And in Scotland and Northern Ireland the ‘nationalist’ parties also reached their referendum stance by considering the impact a Leave or Remain result would have on their own Irish unity and Scottish independence aspirations.

Almost three years on from the referendum and the identity/nationhood issue is still eclipsing and predominating everything else. All the opinion polls suggest that the EU Remain/Leave divide is still in it could-go-either-way territory if there were another referendum.

Social media interaction (and the numbers involved are enormous) indicates that the relationship between Remain/Leave supporters has reached toxic levels. For the first time in a very long time the ‘crowd is re-emerging as a force in politics’.

The Conservative and Labour parties are divided on the issue, yet saw their collective share of the vote rise from 67% in the 2010 and 2015 elections to 82% in 2017.

Crucially, it now seems to be the case that a very significant section of the electorate (and we’re talking millions upon millions of people) believe that the House of Commons is as much their enemy as are the EU negotiators.

They believe that a majority of MPs is conspiring and collaborating to thwart the decision they — a majority — made on June 23, 2016. For the first time in living memory this has become a battle between Parliament and the people; and whichever side loses — and there will be a loser, because genuine compromise is not possible — is going to be very angry.

Personally, I’m both embarrassed by and ashamed of the House of Commons. No matter how difficult things have been in my lifetime, nor how momentous the decisions it has been called upon to make, the House of Commons has always risen to the challenge and the moment.

It has been the backbone of our democracy and the bedrock of the political stability that we have taken for granted for so long. Today it is a mixture of circus, farce, duplicity, delusion, lies and downright stupidity. It is a national disgrace and an international laughing-stock.

At the very moment when we have needed stability, statesmanship and commonsense to address and resolve a hugely difficult challenge, the House of Commons has merely heightened the crisis and added to the difficulty.

Sadly, most MPs (who are also divided on the identity/nationhood issue) are too stupid, vain, self-obsessed and focused on the greasy poles of personal advancement, to actually give a damn about the damage they continue to do.

Every day is April 1st for them.