|
|
[...]we believe a referendum on the final deal is right. We do so for three reasons.
First, amid the chaos of recent months, one thing has become increasingly clear: Theresa May’s approach – and indeed the chaos in parliament – is not working. We are simply not close enough to resolving so many big issues about which people care so much. The enormity of the task, the contradictions in both major parties and the ferocious divisions in their ranks have now stretched our parliament to its limits, to the point where the impasse leads us ever closer to an “accidental” Brexit, as foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt most recently acknowledged, without a deal.
Second, sovereignty rests with the people – the people should have the opportunity to finish what they began, to pause and consider whether they still want to go ahead with the Brexit course we’re on, just as they would any other major decision in their lives.
Third, while there are questions about the validity of another referendum – shouldn’t the original outcome be delivered? – we clearly know more now than we did in 2016, amid such deeply flawed campaigns on both sides. Ignoring these shortcomings and ploughing on regardless is a far bigger problem for democracy. Faced with the current turmoil in our politics, and with dangers ahead coming into focus, it is surely undemocratic to deny people a chance to express their opinion afresh.
There is just a chance too that a new referendum would provide a form of healing for a divided nation, the indisputable closure we all crave. Clarity may emerge. At the very least, it could reassure the “losing” side – whichever that may be – that the country had a chance to have its say on the final deal that is offered, rather than on the original, opaque principle alone of exit from the EU. [...]
Parliament has been offered a “meaningful vote” on the final deal, a concession exacted by the skilful work of former attorney general Dominic Grieve. However, recent events suggest the government lacks a true and honourable commitment to parliamentary process.
Besides, the “meaningful vote” may not end in a meaningful outcome, because parliament looks unable to be decisive – turning this way and that, depending on the shifting ballast of dissent in the Conservative Party, the scheming of the whips, and sheer happenchance. [...]
The British people decided to pursue our course in the referendum of 2016, so as we now look for a decision on whether we will like the deal agreed with the EU (assuming there is one), it is natural that those same people should have the final say.
Indeed, given the magnitude of the decision, it would be essential for the British people to be given that final right of approval, even if cabinet and parliament were providing the leadership we need, which they are not.
Morally, emotionally even, a referendum is also needed to help bind up the wounds of the past two years. The 2016 referendum was deeply flawed. Both the campaigns for Leave (Vote Leave and Leave.eu) have been censured by the Electoral Commission, with individuals referred to the police. It could be argued, on the other hand, that the greatest democratic outrage associated with the 2016 referendum was the decision by David Cameron to send an official leaflet to every household recommending a Remain vote, paid for by the taxpayer at a cost of around £9m. [...]
So how should the referendum work? What should the question on the ballot paper ask? What voting system should be used? These are all important issues, and we will be returning to them in the weeks ahead. Of course, the question put to the public in a meaningful referendum would depend on whether an EU-UK deal is even reached at that point. If there is no deal on offer, the ballot paper would be simple: a choice between leaving the EU with no deal, or staying in the EU. If there is a proposed deal, there would need to be three options on the ballot, expressed in some variety of preferential voting system: accept the deal and leave the EU, leave the EU without a deal, or remain in the EU. The question of the voting system must wait for another day. One important lesson might be to explicitly make the referendum binding; that would add a formal air of finality to the episode.
The final deal referendum would be relatively easy to organise, compared with other difficulties ahead. Should an extension to the Article 50 period be needed to facilitate it, so be it – what is a few months compared with the forever that follows them? [...]