Reader TTS

After Super Saturday, you wouldn’t be mistaken for thinking that British politics has come to resemble a global sporting occasion like the Super Bowl. Just look at the recent front pages of

the _New York Times_, _Hindustan Times_ and _Le Monde_, or the volatility of the stock markets, or the uncharacteristically restrained behaviour of MPs on Saturday. As John Bercow reminded

MPs that day, the world is watching. Brexit, then, is the word on everyone’s lips. But is Brexit really about Brexit, or is it a cypher for something else? Are the watching public really

interested in Article 50 and GATT 24, or do they follow Brexit with such religious zeal because the jargon belies a more Shakespearean – a more relateable – tale? To paraphrase Oscar Wilde,

everything in the world is about Brexit, except Brexit. Brexit is about power. First, there are the different interpretations of power driving Brexit. For Brexiteers, Brexit is about

restoring sovereignty and taking back control, while for Remainers it is about the illusory myth of British power in the world – and the loss of power that will come with leaving the EU.

Depending on when it suits them, both sides have championed different theories of where power lies to suit their cause: the power of the people has been set against the royal prerogative,

and parliamentary sovereignty. Of course, for both the Conservatives and Labour, Brexit is about holding onto or gaining power, and for the Lib Dems it is about becoming the balance of power

once more. For the SNP, Brexit signifies the unjust power that Westminster still enjoys over Edinburgh, and for the DUP, it is about making sure that Belfast is not overpowered by Dublin or

Brussels. As Fintan O’Toole has highlighted, because of Brexit, the Republic of Ireland is enjoying its first taste of power over London since 1171. Meanwhile, the EU’s goal has been to

keep British political and economic power in check, whilst the US and China compete for influence over British markets and foreign policy. Then there is the power struggle between

Parliament, the government and the courts. Our constitutional system, unlike in the US or the EU, is meant to operate under a ‘fusion of powers’, where the three branches of government are

independent yet also interdependent. Yet, because of Brexit, the government has tested its power to the limit, been overruled by the Supreme Court twice, and persistently frustrated by

Parliament. Indeed, the government has acted unlawfully, the Speaker of the House controversially, and the courts, some wager, politically. Is power a check to power, like Montesquieu

thought, or, to paraphrase Lord Acton, does all power simply corrupt? And don’t forget the power of money, from the promise of £350 million for the NHS to the divorce bill to the role of

vested interests. George Soros, whose net worth at the time of writing is $8.3 billion (and who famously made $1 billion by betting against the pound in 1992) has donated hundreds of

thousands of pounds to Stop Brexit campaigns. And, low and behold, the Leave campaign was largely funded by the UK’s five richest businessmen. For the people, the Referendum was an

opportunity to use the main power which they have, the vote. Yet Brexit has also raised one of the most fundamental questions for theorists through the ages: does power lie with the people

or their representatives? One thing’s for sure: in Britain it no longer lies with the Royals, though, because of Brexit, they too have been unwilling power players. Brexit is a cypher then

for various constitutional, geographic, political and economic power-struggles. Of course, this not to undermine the real-life impact that it has had and will continue to have. And the irony

is that, if Brexit is ever achieved, the hopes of Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party of attaining power will quickly diminish. Nonetheless, it’s time we realised that from the power of money

to power-sharing arrangements to ‘Henry VIII powers’, Brexit isn’t really about Brexit at all.