Kirsty Strickland: The endless, wearying psychodrama of Brexit is not what we will remember

Brexit has sucked the life out of our political discourse and agenda. Its dominance is only matched by the utter weariness of the public, who are subjected to endless hours of commentary, claim and counterclaim, only to then be told that in fact, nothing has changed.

What has undoubtedly been thrilling and engrossing for a minority has been exhausting for everybody else. And there is no sign of respite in the months and years ahead.

If Boris Johnson’s deal passes today, it will only mark the end of the beginning. He has promised that we will leave on October 31– do or die. But even if he has the numbers to achieve what Theresa May failed to on three occasions, and wins today, it is still far from certain we will leave the EU on Halloween.

A short technical extension could still be required, as mountains of necessary legislation must pass through both the Commons and the Lords before the UK can leave the EU and enter the transition period. Yet from all the emphasis being placed on the outcome of today’s vote, you could be forgiven for thinking that if the ayes have it then Brexit is delivered and the land of milk and honey promised by Brexiters will follow shortly after.

If, back in 2016, we had known the political turmoil that was to follow, I suspect we would have paced ourselves far better. The media would have moderated its language and saved terms such as “make-or-break moment” and “crisis” for when – in hindsight – they were necessary.

Whether Brexit happens or not, it has already earned its place in the history books. But when we look back, it will be the big moments that merit inclusion and not the psychodrama that the media too often fixate on. The bit players won’t get a mention, and neither will the moments of high drama that so entertained the media class.

Nobody will remember why Tory Brexiter Steve Baker said he wanted to tear Parliament down and bulldoze it into the river. Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle grabbing the ceremonial mace to protest Theresa May’s decision to delay a key Brexit vote won’t make the cut. We won’t remember the insults hurled across the chamber, or the MPs who switched parties because of Brexit. Change UK – mercifully for all involved – will be forgotten, as will the red-faced fury of Mark Francois.

But for now, it is juicy titbits such as these that often control the narrative and Brexit is portrayed as more soap opera than documentary. The frippery and puff that have characterised much of this very British tale is catnip to a hungry media with column inches to fill and clicks to chase.

And though the drama is often prioritised over the detail, some commentators of a pro-EU persuasion still think it acceptable to mock ordinary voters who say they just want MPs to get on with Brexit. They see this as a lack of understanding about the intricacies involved in the process, ignoring the possibility that people might just be feeling a bit scunnered with it all.

Broadcaster James O’Brien is lauded for the way in which he trips up Leave voters on his LBC radio programme, exposing gaps in their knowledge so that smug Remainers on Twitter can laugh at how silly they are.

But after three years of category five, hurricane-level coverage of Brexit – much of which has focused on the interpersonal drama of individual politicians – can we really blame the public if they switched off long ago?

You need only look to the media frenzy around “Super Saturday” to see where the public are being failed.

In the run-up to the big moment of decision we will be subjected to hours of breathless analysis of how various groupings in the House of Commons might vote.

Talking heads will casually refer to the ERG, Spartans, Tory rebels, Labour Leave rebels and the Gaukeward Squad. They will do so as though it is accepted wisdom that the majority know who these groups are or why they matter.

Of course, amidst all the noise, there has been plenty of thoughtful, illuminating journalism. Most outlets are mindful of jargon and recognise that their audience stretches far beyond the diehard political anoraks.

The BBC produced a guide which explains frequently-used Brexit terms in an accessible and straightforward way.

But how much of that cuts through, when we see the irrelevant so often being prioritised over the substance? We risk losing the bigger picture and overlooking the very real implications of Brexit when the psychodrama dominates the conversation.

It also incentivises political parties to use vague platitudes and slogans over credible and deliverable policies. We saw it with “Take Back Control” and again with “Brexit Means Brexit”. As Mr Johnson repeats the phrase “Get Brexit Done” with the consistency of a malfunctioning robot, we can predict the way the upcoming General Election is going to go.

Reliant on the exhaustion and weariness of the public, parties will over-simplify their offering to the point of farce. The LibDems will promise to “Stop Brexit” and the Brexit Party will pledge a “Clean-Break Brexit”.

These offerings will be scrutinised by experienced journalists who are intent on getting the detail behind the headline so that voters can make an informed choice. Their efforts will be met with intransigence from equally experienced politicians, who are all too mindful of being tripped up at a later stage if they show their working during the election campaign.

Super Saturday might be this week’s big media event, but the real defining moment will come when – finally – the public gets a chance to have their say. When they do so, the majority won’t be thinking of all the twists and turns of the process so far. They will be looking for a way to finally bring the drama to an end.