The logic of Brexit leads to no deal
Yes, yes, these are febrile, frenetic times, where the political stakes are undoubtedly the highest they have been for some sixty years. But, with passions seething indefinitely at fever pitch, parliamentarians seem to be losing their grip on recent history – and on logic. Some clamour for a second referendum, some for a different deal, some for no deal, some for calling the whole thing off – one and all brimming with messianic zeal and oracular certitude. The House of Commons listens, on repeat, to a chaotic and unscripted chorus of sincerer-than-thou soliloquy. It may be salutary, then, to provide – if you can bear it – a step-by-step reminder of where things actually stand:
Because MPs voted nine to one (544 to 53) on 9 June 2015 to put the question of the UK’s EU membership to the British people,
and because that consultative referendum declared to every household in the country that ‘the government will implement what you decide’,
and because 51.9% (17.41m to 16.14m) of the turnout voted on 23 June 2016 to ‘Leave the European Union’,
Parliament is obliged to ‘Leave’ the EU –
despite the fact that fewer than a quarter (~145) of elected MPs voted to do so, compared to 62.8% (408 to 242) of the UK constituencies they represent.
Therefore, in the General Election of 2017, the Conservatives promised to ‘take Britain out of the European Union’, and Labour ‘accept[ed] the referendum result’, setting out details of its own ‘Brexit deal’. Strikingly, 82.4% of the turnout (26.51m) voted in support of the manifestos of these two parties.
Accordingly, on 17 January 2018 the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was passed in its final form by Parliament (324 to 295), setting out the changes that will become law on ‘exit day’, 30 March 2019.
Therefore, if the current deal that Theresa May’s government has secured after prolonged negotiation is the most favourable deal that the EU will allow,
and if that deal cannot command the support of a majority of MPs before 29 March 2019,
the only legitimate outcome that enacts the 2016 referendum result, that honours the 2017 election mandates, that realises the will of Parliament hitherto, and indeed that acts according to the law of the land, is to leave without a formal deal with the EU on 29 March 2019, beginning trade on WTO terms with the remaining 27 EU nations until a mutually satisfactory deal is eventually struck.
Whether this transition to ‘no deal’ is ‘managed’ or ‘cliff-edge’ or anything else that sounds suitably arresting is a matter of logistical prudence, political posturing and personal temperament. The future, by its very nature, is uncertain – just as any vote cast for Leave or Remain could specify nothing certain about the world two, five, or twenty years hence. Yes, that venerable and sovereign concept – the ‘will of the people’ – has an important role to play, but its lines have long been delivered: the nation impatiently awaits the promised enactment of its decision. So when a ‘meaningful vote’ does at last come round, the House of Commons should know that there is meaning enough in what has been determined already.
For better or worse, for richer or poorer, this is where we are. If pockets of recalcitrant MPs do not accept any of the above, they should do us all the favour of explaining clearly how and why – and not grandstand about parliamentary privilege, pontificate about the ‘need for democracy’, and patronise the very electorate that wittingly placed them there.