As Britain hurtles, like a burnt-out comet, towards its latest defining moment, when MPs reject the result of two years of painful negotiations between the Government and the European Union, I thought I would offer some observations on the merits of a second referendum.
The search for compromise – which I supported – has yielded nothing of substance, at least nothing that has the support of Parliament or people. It is time for direct action.
Opponents of a “People’s Vote” spend most of their time on their high horse, from which lofty vantage point they issue terrible warnings about the catastrophic breakdown in trust that would result from a refusal to accept the 2016 referendum as the sole arbiter of the nation’s fate.
We are forever being told by these moral paragons (Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage) that the 17.4 million Brits who ticked Leave represented the biggest vote for anything in the UK’s history. And that’s true. But what was the second-biggest-ever vote? Yes – the 16.1 million who opted for Remain. And what other statistic needs to be quoted? The 9.3 million who didn’t bother to turn out, either because they were too lazy, or too busy that day (watching Midsomer Murders), or else because they didn’t care that much either way. So what was the final proportion of the electorate who demanded that their country abandon its place in the world’s biggest trading block, for which we ditched the Commonwealth in 1972? Answer: 37.5 per cent – not much more than one third of the total.
But of course, Leave has an answer to that one, too.
And citizens in England then-a-bed
Now think themselves accurs’d they did not vote,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us on Independence Day
So once more into the breach of faith. A fair point. Those who didn’t vote, unless they were in hospital or overseas or over ninety, should be ashamed of themselves. If they were young, aged between 18 and 30, they should be doubly ashamed. Yet to take a great country, which is what we are, out of a political and commercial union that has helped shape its identity, and bolstered its prosperity, for 45 years on the basis that 37 per cent of the country on a given day wanted to give the Government a kick up the backside, is nothing short of ridiculous.
The truth is that we know a great deal more now than we did in 2016 about the realities of every variant of Brexit. On the day of the referendum, millions of Leave voters made their choice on the basis of two key factors. They wanted to put an end to unrestricted immigration into the UK of workers from Eastern Europe and they wanted the Cameron Government to know that they were fed up with economic austerity.
I’m not saying that there wasn’t, in addition, a libertarian vote, made up of those who genuinely felt that Britain would be better off as a sovereign nation, freed from the jurisdiction of the unelected European Commission and Court of Justice. My point is that without the anti-immigrant and anti-austerity vote, the libertarians would have lost by a considerable margin.
No one, I think, seriously disputes this. But a Day of Rage, however justified, ought not to determine the nation’s course for the next 50 years.
Nothing is more certain than that voters will be dismayed by the state of the UK in the decade or more that would follow its departure from the EU. If the Tories, by some miracle, hold on to power, they will have to take the blame. If Labour emerges victorious only to proceed with a half-baked mix ‘n match Brexit, it will be on their heads that most opprobrium will ultimately be heaped.
For there will be no winners, only losers.
Those on the Leave side who claim that a second referendum denies democracy by ignoring the will of the people as previously expressed have to answer one simple question. Why? The facts – certainly our knowledge of the facts – have changed, so why should we not be allowed to either change our minds or confirm our previous decision? In our personal and business lives, we do this all the time. If Remain, for the purposes of argument, ended up with 60 per cent of the vote on an increased turnout, how would that not be the voice of the people?
But – and I am assuming here that the May plan is definitively off the table – there would still be a choice. If Leave should come out ahead, No Deal would become a certainty. Remain would be left to scuttle away from the battlefield, its banners ripped to shreds, its army humiliated. Britain would have built its wall, and by way of the revocation of our previously agreed £39 billion divorce bill, Europe would have paid for it.
The downside of all of this is that British politics has been gravely damaged, with both major parties split into pro and anti-EU factions and the Executive – any Executive – struggling to regain control over an insurgent Parliament. Democracy has painted the unwritten British constitution into a corner, and the only hope, before any second referendum takes place, lies in all of the participants, including the voters, giving a written commitment to accept and implement the result.
Leave, in the event of a binary choice, would have to mean leave, almost certainly without a deal. There could be no ifs or buts. All ad hoc arrangements to keep trucks rolling and planes flying would have to be signed, sealed and delivered inside of three months. Importantly – crucially – victory for Remain would not mean an acceptance of the status quo ante, which pretty well everybody agrees was not operating in the UK’s interests. Future British governments, however comprised, would be expected by all sides to campaign actively and persistently in Europe for meaningful institutional reform and a wider, deeper acceptance of the powers of the member states.
For this purpose, notwithstanding the inevitable desire of the EU Establishment that Britain should shut up and sit quietly for the next five years, our prime minister and foreign secretary would work closely with allies such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and (God help us!) the Vizegrad quartet, to bring about the changes that millions across the Continent increasingly support. My view is that we would be pushing at an open door. Britain’s leadership would be historic.
Or … we could just carry on exactly as we have done during these last two desperate and depressing years, getting nowhere slowly as every other problem we need to address falls by the Brexit wayside. We have stood at the Rubicon long enough. Time to get moving.