Only a few months ago, to suggest a second referendum – a ‘People’s Vote’ if you will – on the final Brexit deal Mrs May returns to Parliament, was viewed as ludicrous. There was no political will, it was confusing, no major party of significance backed it. For pro-Europeans, it remained a distant dream, a fantasy with no chance of taking place. It would only be Parliament that decided whether to approve the deal, the common verdict making its way around the airwaves went.
Everything has changed since the Prime Minister’s Chequers ‘agreement’, more suited to the title of Pandora’s Box, was revealed to politicians. Multiple ministers have resigned, her grassroots are in uproar, she appears on wobbly ground, the opposition parties have continued to…oppose. All right, perhaps some issues remain the same in this rapid political saga. But, as a direct result of the deal struck at the country home, perfect setting for an Agatha Christie classic, the calls for, and chance of, a second referendum have risen. Politicians from across the political spectrum, former Education secretary Justine Greening, Labour peer Peter Mandelson and Green co-leader Caroline Lucas among them, believe Parliament is at a deadlock, no version of Brexit containing commanding support and so the only solution, to create stability and certainty, is to return to the people. While their request initially seems rational, another vote is a simple, poor solution to the madness in which we find ourselves. However you voted two years ago, whether you’re a maverick beer indulging Nigel Farage or a Labour remainer-in-chief alongside Chuka Umunna, it is clear that there is a small, finite amount of time left until our departure. Checking the Sky News countdown clock, I read that there are less than 240 days until March 29th 2019, D-Day for departure. Given the amount of time taken for legislation to pass through Parliament, the number of amendments, delays, filibustering the legislature has at its disposal, all while the EU 27 ratify the deal, I don’t see how a comprehensive, informative referendum could slot in the timetable. Crusaders behind a ‘People’s Vote’ surely desire as much time as possible to present their vision to the country; this currently looks impossible to achieve. Ambiguity has even arisen over what the question would be. A few months ago, it seemed a referendum would allow people to choose between Theresa May’s deal and remaining in the EU. Now, a three-way campaign is on the cards, voters having the option of Chequers, the cliff-edge and the status quo to contend with. Would there be two rounds of voting like French elections? Numbering preferences normally found in mayoral elections? We just don’t know. A three option referendum has never happened in Britain. Nevertheless, by splitting the leave vote, second referendum campaigners imply they don’t have confidence in their arguments to win a two way poll. 2016’s referendum campaign was absolutely dire. On one side, Project Fear stating not the case for Europe, but scaring and blackmailing people into voting Remain. On the other, a campaign weaponised against immigration and full of economic lies. I recall Gyles Brandreth brilliantly summing up the hilarity and pathetic nature of each campaign on ‘Have I Got News for You.’ Among the travesty of the debate was often the argument that things were far too complex for people to understand, the statistics and minor details impossible to be revealed in a headline grabbing, soundbite mad campaign. I have some sympathy with this case, the EU playing an influence in so many different elements of public policy. Why do people expect the second referendum campaign to be any different? Clearly the past two years have revealed the chaos of trying to leave and the incompetence of Mrs May’s government, but they have revealed neither the final deal or what life will be like outside the EU. The economic forecasts are poor, to put it mildly, but nobody has any knowledge whatsoever of what Brexit in reality will look like, arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg saying it would take ’50 years’ to know the full effects. Therefore, the campaign will once again be based around speculation. I imagine the leave campaign would be even nastier, which may work in their favour with disenfranchised voters. I apologize for the continual references to the last campaign but that is the only referendum one can examine. The 1975 referendum to remain in the EEC was too long ago, on totally different parameters and in a different world, let alone millennium. In 2016, most people imagined ‘Remain’ would just about swing it, Nigel Farage conceding defeat the moment polls shut. David Cameron, the establishment and I thought ‘leave’ would do well, but not gain enough support to win. Of course, we were all proven wrong. The situation would be even worse this time around as nobody has any idea of the victor. The polls seem close and people are just too polarised, wedged to their original decision, unable to change their mind. Let us consider each outcome in turn then. Were we to leave without a deal, as instructed by the people, economic chaos would ensue. People have batted around the likelihood of planes not flying and food supplies running out, but far more worrying in my opinion is the absolute lack of clarity for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. How would the Irish border be resolved? A no deal Brexit, seriously proposed by ‘People’s Vote’ campaigners to feature on the ballot paper, means Britain would commit political, economic and social suicide. The voters may opt for the deal, if any, agreed by the UK and EU. Fringes on both sides would probably call it a betrayal, the worst of both worlds, but some arrangement that tries to avoid a cliff edge upon our departure. This would still have to be agreed by the UK Parliament, given all referenda are advisory. Yet would hardliner MPs vote for it, even if the people had approved, so desperate for their own vision of Brexit to succeed? Ironically, it may be remain supporting MPs who back a referendum, in order to overturn the first, who end up voting against the outcome it delivers. What if we were to remain? After all that fuss for two years, what if people decided to stay in the EU? Well, only chaos would naturally ensue, leavers protesting at a betrayal and an utter breakdown of trust between Parliament and the people. A recent Spectator article analysed the potential resurrection of UKIP as a far-right party akin to the BNP. Given the amount of influence UKIP had without a single MP, that possibility absolutely terrifies me. Would the EU accept our return, especially if the referendum was during the transition period? What if we had to pay more money as an apology for causing such chaos? Referendum supporters have not highlighted the credible implications of the policy they adhere to. Downing Street still rule out EUref2 under ‘all circumstances.’ Despite these words, the very fact they are ruling it out shows an awareness of its growing discussion and likelihood. Realistically, a referendum is most likely to happen after December 2020, when we have fully departure and people learn, over the years, whether they feel better or worse off as a result of our exit. For now though, a new referendum would offer nothing new. If we had to re-join, Britain may be forced into the euro and Schengen zone, parts of the EU I, and many pro-Europeans, are no fans of. It is our previous relationship with Europe that was the best of both worlds, in the economic zones, at the table making decisions, while out of the single currency and borderless area. Tragically, this once again reveals why we should never have voted to leave in the first place.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|