The post you are reporting:
Matthew Parris writing in the Times.
In Arthur Cash’s biography of that audacious 18th-century agitator for constitutional reform John Wilkes, the author remarks that Wilkes’s lifetime spanned “the American Revolution, which he admired, the French Revolution, which he hated, and the Industrial Revolution, which he did not know was happening”. Let’s not be caught out this time. Revolution is in the air. Indulge me, then, in a little crystal-ball-gazing, because it’s time to talk about referendums, who organises them, and how. Those who want a new referendum on Europe must face questions about how, when and by whom this still-anomalous bolt-on to our constitution is to be organised. If we Remainers are scornful of the Brexiteers’ refusal to propose an alternative, we must not make the same mistake ourselves. This discussion is becoming urgent: another vote on Europe is moving fast from the highly unlikely to the distinctly possible. Let me suggest why.
Only the broad outlines can be discerned of the proposed exit deal that Theresa May’s negotiators and the EU are working on; but these will be a development of the “soft” Brexit proposal agreed at Chequers earlier this year. Hardline Brexiteers hate it. There is little enthusiasm anywhere for the plan. There is, however, a growing suspicion that this may be the only available common ground with EU negotiators. That’s why I’ve been writing since the beginning of August that Theresa May stands a fair chance of getting her proposals through parliament’s “meaningful vote” near the end of this year and I still think that. Staring into the muzzle of what could blast to smithereens a Tory government and very possibly Britain’s March 2019 exit from the EU, it would take nerves of steel (or brains of straw) not to blink first. Many Brexiteers will blink first. But not all. Steel nerves and straw brains can be found among MPs in the European Research Group. A dozen of these irreconcilables could sink May’s proposals.
There’s also a chance Britain and our EU partners will fail to find any agreement at all. The more Mrs May compromises, the more the irreconcilables’ numbers grow. I reckon the chances that her hoped-for deal is sunk either by Brussels or by her own MPs add up to about 40 per cent. Let’s suppose she does get a draft deal, then faces defeat over it in the Commons. What then? She won’t (let me guess) want to resign, and will need a good, democratic reason not to. To put her deal to the people in a national referendum would provide such a reason. Better still, announce that this is too momentous a decision for normal party whipping and make the vote on the deal a free one for government MPs. She could still lose her proposed treaty but, unwhipped, such a defeat would not be a resignation issue. But what next? The pressure for a referendum on her proposals would be strong. She has said she won’t countenance another referendum but in these unforeseen circumstances she might relent. Even if she did resign, demands for a general election could only be countered (I reckon) by an acting Tory prime minister pledging a referendum.
By different routes we keep coming back to a referendum as the constitutional logjam-breaker. Labour may finally go for this at its conference later this month. I still don’t think it the likeliest scenario (a government victory in the “meaningful vote” or a general election are equally likely) but I think there’s now a strong chance. So I’ve been talking to Lord (Andrew) Adonis, a key figure in the campaign for a “people’s vote”, and to Will Straw, on the board of Open Britain, which has joined that campaign. I wanted to know who would actually make a referendum happen, what the question should be and what this would do to Britain’s plan to leave the EU on March 29, 2019. Both accept that the current deadline for negotiating our departure from the EU would have to be extended. The Electoral Commission (which Straw says would supervise a second vote), would want a two or three-month period for the referendum campaign. Both men are confident our EU partners would agree to an extension for this purpose (“but not,” said Straw, “to play silly buggers” and string out the negotiations). Adonis believes parliament could “direct” the government to hold a referendum. The biggest problem is the wording of the referendum question. Straw suspects that the Electoral Commission “would want clarity, and would recommend a binary [two-option] question”. It should be a straight choice (both men said) between the government’s Brexit proposals and remaining in the EU. I put it to both that Leavers would call this a false dichotomy, insisting there were other options on offer. “These charlatans,” says Straw, “have held the country to ransom for years. They’ve had years to say what they propose. At least May is trying.” How about “no deal” as a referendum option? “There’s no such thing as no deal,” Adonis says. Even leaving on World Trade Organisation terms “leaves hundreds of agreements and arrangements we’d have to make with former partners”.
So if the hardline Tories’ European Research Group “can’t define what it is they propose”, he says, “how can we put it to a referendum?” But, he adds, “government has a duty not to put to people a proposal they don’t think can be implemented”, so any proposal has to honour Britain’s obligations to Ireland in our “backstop” undertakings to the EU over the Norther Ireland border issue.
My conclusions are these. If parliament rejects the government’s Brexit plan, a referendum could take place without (depending on its result) impeding Brexit. A six-month extension of the negotiation period could very likely be arranged. The referendum question should be binary, one of the options being to accept a Chequers-based exit proposal. In the absence of any other workable proposal the other option would have to be remaining in the EU. In Australia, the proposal to abolish the monarchy failed because abolitionists could not agree what to replace it with. I’d like to think Leavers would agree that this was fair enough. But on Brexit, nothing short of getting their way (whatever that is) will be accepted by them as fair. However, the proposal might command enough support nationally to solve what I believe may be a looming constitutional crisis. Let it not be said we sleepwalked into this. The time to start thinking about ways through is now. A new referendum is undoubtedly one of them.
