Brussels and London both need a quick decision on the exit of the United Kingdom from the Union

The question of the exit of the United Kingdom from Europe seems increasingly difficult: the almost discounted vote against the agreement reached by the two parties, has assumed even greater proportions than those forecast, because it has added the opposition of those who favor a exit practically without agreement with Brussels against those who left the Union. In the end, therefore, the agreement, considered too moderate, did not satisfy the English parliament, which remains blocked in a sort of incommunicability within itself. The English premier has avoided the motion of no confidence, even if for a few votes, and this prevents the possibility of a new electoral consultation, which could help to give greater clarity to the scenario. For now the only measure put in place by the premier is a meeting between the government and opposition leaders, but leaving out the Labor, the largest opposition party to the conservatives. Leaving aside any possible consideration on the opportunity of this choice, the question is what result can get this meeting, which has not been reached so far; this reveals, once again, how the premier is unable to find a solution that can meet a shared internal solution, compatible also with European needs. This does not allow us to hope for a quick solution and in the face of these difficulties Brussels has shown understanding of the English difficulties, but, at the same time, has urged London to find a solution by March 29, final date by which it must end the process of leaving the Union. The question of the limit of March 29 is not secondary because in May there will be the European elections and, if the United Kingdom will not yet be formally released, the question could be asked to make an outgoing member participate in the electoral competition. The idea that unites all European capitals is to make the most of the remaining time, even with an attitude of flexibility towards London. From the internal point of view, to resolve this situation it would seem more appropriate, rather than continuing with lengthy political negotiations or even new elections, to repeat the referendum, without, however, repeating those mistakes that were made in the last consultation. A question posed exclusively as inside or outside Europe is the cause of the profound uncertainty of the current situation. In fact, the fate of a country can not be limited to such a narrow question; in addition, the referendum that sanctioned the exit of the United Kingdom from Europe, however, with a limited gap between the favorable and the contrary, took place in a situation of total disinformation, on the one hand because it took for granted the victory of those who wanted remain in the Union, on the other because the supporters of the exit have deliberately kept hidden several aspects that could have reversed the vote of those who said they were in favor of moving away from Brussels. From the date of the referendum the debate on the consequences of the exit from Europe has polarized the English information and, therefore, it can be said that now the British society is more informed and aware of what the removal from Brussels involves. In order to make things even easier, the nature of the separation agreement with the Union should also be made more explicit, and possibly not be able to build it again from scratch, but at least to stop some fundamental points. The possibility of a new referendum is beginning to find available also the winners of the affirmation of the exit, who see in this immobility a weak point for the country and for how they had conceived the new British sovereignty untied by the Union. If this option were to be chosen, it seems difficult to organize a referendum consultation in a short time, and in any case by the end of March, while what would be the status of the United Kingdom towards Europe? Beyond the availability of European states the question must be defined: even for Europe this uncertainty is embarrassing because it involves a series of both regulatory and economic aspects. From the technical point of view of the principle, in fact, if London wants to go out and can not find an internal agreement, Brussels has every right to preserve its integrity, especially in the face of hesitant members, and impose intransigent conditions, which would be justified by the English rigidity and the privileges granted when London was within the Union and which it has not been able to appreciate, however the economic implications of the exit from the Union, without agreement, will not be negative only for the United Kingdom, but also for the goods market towards the English country. In the end the problem is always of an economic nature and if this can represent an obstacle, it can also be a reason that can contribute to the solution