A complete and utter solution to the Brexit crisis

Critics of everything, such as myself, have a duty from time to time to say what they think should happen and not merely to denounce everyone else’s plans as nonsense.

It is in this spirit that I offer today a complete and utter solution to the Brexit crisis.

I should start by saying that I think Brexit is a very bad idea that should be revoked. I do not, however, think that this is likely to happen. If it does, nothing that follows has relevance.

And so to the way ahead.

There are just four possible approaches, none of them perfect.

1. Mrs May succeeds somehow in getting her half-in, half-out deal through Parliament. This seems highly improbable. But stranger things have happened, though not many and not recently.

2. We go for No-Deal, leading to short-term chaos, medium-term decline and long-term uncertainty. It might work in the end, but it might not, and in the meantime Britain will suffer.

3. We opt for either Canada-plus or Norway-plus. The former gives us free trade with the EU but leaves us outside the single market and customs union as well as Europol, Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus and all the other ancillary institutions and programmes that make up the EU and benefit Britain. The latter, which would require us to make a significant annual contribution to the EU budget, would keep us within the single market and (should we choose) the customs union, but with little say in how policy is made or money is raised or spent. It would also keep us within the scope of the European Court of Justice. Canada would do little to solve the problem of the Irish border. Norway would more or less settle the Irish issue, but at the expense (as Jacob Rees-Mogg would put it) of the UK being locked into vassalage.

4. We rescind Article 50 and agree to remain within the EU on existing terms. The European Court ruled just this week that this is open to us and would not require the approval of either the Commission or the 27. We would be humiliated and obliged to admit that we made a serious mistake, but we would also return as a senior partner in a Union that has served us well for the last 45 years. Our voice, in the longer term, would be listened to as the EU wrestles with deep-seated problems concerning integration, immigration and the free movement of people.

Now, then, which would I choose? The answer is, of course, 4 – the revocation of Article 50. Failing that, the Norway option, with a guarantee that Britain will be formally consulted before the 27 conclude any significant structural or economic reforms. Failing that, Canada plus, with some sort of mechanism, endorsed by Dublin, aimed at keeping the Irish border as open and frictionless as possible.

But that’s just me.

In order to make any progress, the Government, Tory or Labour, would need the approval of the House, and it seems to me that the only way to achieve this, short of a general election (and even then … ) would be by way of a second referendum, or People’s Vote. I am assuming that the May Plan is dropped or fails to win the support of Parliament and that a new proposal based either on Canada Plus or Norway Plus is now on the ballot paper.

The wording would be along the following lines:

Referendum on Britain’s relationship with the European Union, March 7, 2019

Pay careful attention to the notes below. Circle each of your answers using the pen provided.

(A)  Do you support the Government’s revised settlement with the European Union [either Canada Plus or Norway Plus]? YES / NO

All should answer. If you answered YES, skip (B) and (C) and proceed straight to D. If you answered NO, go to (B)

(B)  Do you think the UK should leave the EU without an agreed settlement (the No-Deal option)?  YES / NO

If you answered YES to (B), skip (C) and go straight to (D) If you voted NO, continue to (C)

(C)  Only for those who voted NO to the government deal or No-Deal. Do you think that the UK should withdraw Article 50 and remain a full member of the EU on existing terms?  YES

(D)  To be answered by all voters. If none of the above achieves a majority, to which of the options for which you did not already vote would you transfer your support?  A, B  or C

This may seem complicated, and there would certainly be some spoiled papers. But voters are forever protesting that they are not stupid and know what they are doing. There would also be protests from hard-line Leavers that the country has already made its decision and that that decision should be respected. But we are were we are, shut in a dark room without a candle. MPs have failed, abysmally. It is now up to the people themselves to break the deadlock. The referendum would be preceded not just by campaigning, but by clear televised explanations of the alternatives on offer and a leaflet put through every door setting out, with examples, how the process works. All political parties would have to confirm that they will regard the result as legally binding.

If the result of the vote turned out to be another win for Leave, the fateful die would finally be cast. Britain would exit the EU on the best terms available, which would either be the government deal or No-Deal. Alternatively, if Remain won, Britain would retake its seats on the European Council, Commission and Court and participate in next year’s European elections. The furore that followed would eventually die down. By common consent, there would not be another referendum on Europe for at least 30 years.

I should add that a virtual stalemate cannot be entirely ruled out, leaving Britain still stuck in limbo. But that is the bugger of referendums, which are a terrible way to take big decisions in a parliamentary democracy. Don’t blame me. Blame David Cameron.