Momentum seems to be building for a people’s vote on Brexit. Phil Syrpis (University of Bristol) argues that it will not provide the answer to Brexit – whether or not the government secures a deal with the EU. Rather, he argues that the calls for a people’s vote are distracting campaigners from making the case for the outcomes they really want.
Numerous people and bodies have called for a people’s vote. Scratch a little below the surface, and it becomes apparent that many of these are either uncertain, or perhaps deliberately vague, about the circumstances in which it should be held.
They are also uncertain – or again perhaps deliberately vague – about the nature of the question to be put, the timing, and indeed the consequences which should flow from such a vote. As the Leave campaign can testify, there are pros and cons for groups who take this sort of stance. A vague plan might elicit support from a wide range of people. But then, it might turn out not to be able to deliver what the people were hoping for.
Calls for a people’s vote come from a variety of sources. The most enthusiastic are Remainers. They tend to see a vote as an opportunity – perhaps the last opportunity – to stop Brexit, and to enable the public to vote not, as in June 2016, on the abstract idea of leave, but instead on the government’s concrete Brexit plans. They are confident that while there was a small majority for Brexit in 2016, there would not, given what we now know, be a majority for any of the government’s possible plans – or indeed for a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Recent polls support their claim. They have been joined by a number of other groups, who argue that there is tactical political advantage to be gained (e.g. for the government and the Labour Party) in backing a people’s vote.
As we all know, Article 50 was triggered in March 2017. In the absence of an agreement with the EU, the UK will, by operation of law, crash out of the EU with no deal in March 2019. If a withdrawal agreement is reached, we seem destined for a transition period, lasting until at least December 2020. There will be a non-binding political declaration on the future relationship accompanying the withdrawal agreement; but it is likely to be very vague. This is a first problem for the people’s vote campaign. It does not seem likely that we will have a clear sense of what our future relationship with the EU will look like at the time the people are asked to vote. The claim that ‘this time, we will at least know what we are voting for’ rings hollow.
The key question to be settled by November, presumably well ahead of any possible vote, is whether Theresa May’s government will be able to reach agreement with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal. There are a number of possibilities.
Let us first assume that there is an agreement with the EU. The EU (Withdrawal) Act provides that it must then be endorsed in Parliament. Campaigners have argued for a people’s vote in this scenario; some, on the assumption that the deal is endorsed by Parliament, others, on the assumption that it is not. The question to be put to the people is whether or not to approve the deal. For some, the alternative is to leave without a deal. For others, it is reverting to EU membership. A three-option vote is possible, but brings many complications. The political stakes associated with the framing of the question in this scenario would be huge.
In the alternative, let us assume that there is ‘no deal’. Here again, we might see a people’s vote. In this case, there will of course be no deal to vote on. The binary choice would appear to be between ‘no deal’ and revoking the Article 50 notification.
What complicates things further is the fact that legislation is needed in order to provide for a people’s vote. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the idea, my claim is that Parliament is extremely unlikely, in any of the above scenarios, to endorse it.
Let’s assume again that there is a withdrawal agreement with the EU, and that Parliament endorses the deal. Why would it then call for a people’s vote? There is no reason for the government, and its supporters, to put the successful deal to a vote. And I can’t see how the parliamentary minority opposed to the deal, which wishes to challenge the deal, could overcome the arithmetic, and succeed in passing the legislation which would be necessary to put the deal to a popular vote. The call for a vote seems to rely on there being a number of MPs who are prepared to endorse a deal subject to a people’s vote, which they would not be prepared to endorse without one. That position is possible, but I doubt many MPs subscribe to it. In this case, my conclusion is that, very much against the odds, the government’s political Brexit strategy will have been a success. The will of Parliament would simply be done.
If, in the alternative, Parliament rejects the government’s deal, we would be in a very different place. We would, in fact, be in much the same place as we would be in if the government was not able to reach a deal with the EU. In both these cases, the government would have failed in its Brexit mission to reach an agreement with the EU and to get it through Parliament. The ERG wing of the Conservative Party would, presumably, urge May towards ‘no deal’ (or perhaps, towards a ‘harder’ version of the Brexit deal articulated by the government). The Labour Party would, presumably, call for a general election. They may, together with some Conservatives, try to articulate a ‘softer’ Brexit deal, which, they might argue, would be accepted by Parliament and the EU. And there are some – perhaps many – within both main parties who would join with the smaller parties (and incidentally, with me) to argue that, as Brexit will have failed, we should revoke the Article 50 notification and remain within the EU.
Would this be fertile ground for a people’s vote? I find it difficult to see why a majority in Parliament would be prepared to put the ‘failed deal’ to the popular vote. For that to happen, it would need the support of a number of MPs who have rejected the deal, but who would ultimately be prepared to accept it if it proved to have sufficient popular support. Again, this position is possible in theory, but not likely in practice. It is, I think, more likely that the ‘failed deal’ would not be put to the public. Thus the choice to be put to the people would be ‘no deal’ or remain. But it is far from clear that this political scenario can, or should, be reduced to that binary question. More than that, it is unlikely that Parliament would choose to put that binary question to the people. There would be intense pressure to seek to find a ‘better deal’, and various calls for both a Conservative Party leadership election and a general election.
Thus, in each of the scenarios considered above – a deal endorsed by Parliament, a deal rejected by Parliament, or no deal with the EU – it is unlikely that the people’s vote will either be called upon, or needed, to solve the Brexit riddle.
The core problem – which the people’s vote does not address – is that the rival groups (the government, the ERG and the Labour Party, among others) have yet to set out their Brexit visions. Calls for a vote are a dangerous distraction from the urgent task of preparing alternatives to ‘no deal’.
Those who wish to remain should be making the case for remain – arguing that the government’s failure to reach a deal with the EU which attracts Parliamentary support represents a failure of Brexit, and therefore demands an end to the Article 50 withdrawal process. That case can and should be made without the need for a people’s vote.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE.
Phil Syrpis is Professor of EU Law at the University of Bristol. He researches EU social and internal market law, and, since 2016, Brexit. His inaugural lecture, delivered in May 2018, discusses the impact which Brexit has had on EU law scholarship. It is available here.
“Thus the choice to be put to the people would be ‘no deal’ or remain. But it is far from clear that this political scenario can, or should, be reduced to that binary question.”
On the contrary it is absolutely clear that, given the global academic consensus, reinforced by the govt’s own agencies, that any Brexit deal will be economically negative, that this binary question is the only clear question to be answered.
“The core problem – which the people’s vote does not address – is that the rival groups (the government, the ERG and the Labour Party, among others) have yet to set out their Brexit visions. Calls for a vote are a dangerous distraction from the urgent task of preparing alternatives to ‘no deal’.”
The people’s vote addresses the core problem that viable alternative visions haven’t been presented because they can’t be envisioned. Calls for a vote are not the distraction they’re the only practical, pragmatic solutions to the Brexit fantasy. We’re either willing to accept the damage or we aren’t but at least the people should decide it. It all started with a vote let it end with one.
We were taken into the European Union in 2005.
Before then it was the common market.
Tony liar Blair had just been elected for the third term.
In early 2005 France voted to reject the maarstricht as did Netherlands and Ireland.
There was a huge outcry from the UK to have a vote but our masters said that the plebs might vote the wrong way.
The plotters in the EU decided to reword the treaty to accommodate the voters and France and Netherlands just ignored the vote and ratified the agreement.
The EU unelected ( by the people) are dictating to the U.K. and the rest of Europe that they “the masters” are the authority not the people.
As shown by France and Netherlands sbove,
At last the U.K. was given a vote.
That vote went as we know by a mojority to leave.
I cannot see why the establishment who now know the plebs can’t be trusted to do as they expect want another day in this very complex withdrawal.
What would we be asked to vote on?
1/ Poor deal?
How can you go back after agreement on whatever the deal is and say “our voters think it’s a poor deal we want to negotiate further”?
Don’t be daft! It doesn’t work like that.
2/ hard Brexit
Vote on hard Brexit or poor deal.
The deal is fluid, it will still be negotiated in two years from now as the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed.
How can we vote on that? We don’t know what final deal is!!!
A bad deal is worse than no deal full stop.
If Europe do not want our money that isn’t a,problem, we will spend it elsewhere.
That will hurt Europe as well.
If they want to shoot themselves in the foot then get on with it!
In the mean time the U.K. economy is on free fall!!!
As will be Europe.
More and more and more uncertainty
Until we all get fed up and decide to stay.
Which is what the remoaners wish for.
Disruption to achieve reversal.
This should not be a government issue, it’s business full stop. Businesses are used to negotiating and it is always brinksmanship.
Walk away and walk away now.
They will come back to us and do a good deal, but we must walk away to achieve that.
That business!!
We should not cow down to these guerrilla tactics.
The government are instructed, take us out deal or no deal.
If they do not then the whole of our democratic system will crash, 17.5 million people will potentially never vote again because the vote in meaningless even if it’s a mojority
That is more important than any arguement, because so many have given so much for us to be able to have a vote and be free.
Free to argue, free to say what we want when we want.
Anyway.
Two can play at disruption.
Factually a second vote must be ratified by parliament.
That can and most likely will be challenged time and time again, by the time the unelected lords throw it back and forth time will run out.
In the mean time do we bring negotiation to and end?
It cannot and must not happen.
It’s is the worst possible outcome.
The IMF, whose record on predictions is poor to say the least. Also said that both U.K. and EU would suffer.
The BBC hardly mentioned the EU suffering.
Surprise surprise!!!
It is possible to envisage Brexit outcomes other than remain and no deal. For example, EEA/CU, FTA with Irish backstop, even Labour’s fantasy jobs first Brexit. Like you, I happen to think that remain is preferable to all those; but it is impossible not to acknowledge the fact that there are different views out there.
In the event that we are faced with no deal/remain (eg because the EU refuses to allow A50 to be extended and we run out of time to come up with any other solutions), is a PV the answer? Is there a Govt who would be willing to preside over no deal? I would argue that Brexit has simply failed; the Govt has not been able to fashion a plan for leaving the EU. Therefore the A50 notification should be revoked. If anyone wants to proceed with a better plan, let them try again from scratch.
A large part of the argument here is the dwindling time to do anything and therefore the unlikelyhood of any clear final destination being known by Brexit date. The solution to this must be to request an extension of the Article 50 period. If and when real doubt persists as to the way forward it is the duty of parliament to request such an extension which would almost certainly be granted.
It is not so much the dwindling time, but the structure of A50 (as agreed between the EU and the UK). The Withdrawal Agreement will contain a Political Declaration on the Future Relationship, which, it seems, is destined to be very vague (this is largely because the UK Government is divided over what it wants from the Future Relationship). The PDFR will be fleshed out, and turned into an international treaty, only once the UK has left the EU.
Phil Syrpis is right that we will not know every detail but we will know a lot more if Article 50 is delayed. Michael Gove has blatantly advocated a “blind brexit” followed by a UK government doing anything it likes after “taking back control”. He must not get away with this.
.
“Phil Syrpis is right that we will not know every detail but we will know a lot more if Article 50 is delayed.”. I don’t know if that’s true. EU negotiations remind me of life as a disorganised student where, however much time you are given to do the assignment, you know you will still end up drinking black coffee while trying to fix a paper jam on the printer at 4am. In German there is a phrase “Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende” (better a terrible end than unending terror) which expresses my feelings about going into extra time on Brexit rather well.
In the end, someone’s red lines are going to give, or they are not. An Article 50 prolongation will not help unless you change the negotiators or their negotiating tactics as well.
Have made many similar points many times over the last year on twitter.
Any referendum has to offer a realistic politically actionable choice. The problem with Brexit ref was that it didn’t – Leave meant different things to different people.
WA will agree transition but not final status. WA will include political agreement on future state – but might only agree to work towards “deep and special relationship” (May’s stated goal which lacks clear definition.)
To be clear – with bare-bones political agreement, your vote options might only be:
A) Reject WA and leave 29/03/19 with no deal
B) Accept WA and aim for ‘D&S relationship’.
BUT D&S is not necessarily a realistic politically actionable choice because it is ill defined.
Even IF you got the vote, you would have no details on final status. Choice would be meaningless.
See also following for examples:
https://twitter.com/HuwSayer/status/1018449520613609472
https://twitter.com/HuwSayer/status/1018456086117081088
Couldn’t agree more.
Whatever persuasion one is, a vote on a final deal that is unknown until after we have left is pointless.
In reality the remainers are using the second vote as a rouse to stay.
But if it’s close ( even though it won’t happen) we can start again, because close votes don’t count as a majority according to some creative accountants.
If remain wins by a tight majority we can go best of three, five, seven etc
Daft!!!!
Labour and the Conservatives both stood on a platform of respecting the referendum result in the 2017 election so I don’t see how this parliament could vote to rescind article 50/ without another referendum?
Last time I checked manifestos are aspirations that often do not materialize into law or policy. I do not think that a manifesto is binding on the party that is voted into power even less so for a party that is not. manifestos have to face the realities of implementation and often do not succeed.
One could adopt a more legalistic view and suggest that the government made a promise that must be kept… presumably under the doctrine of legitimate expectation. However, this idea is equally flawed. The Miller ruling decided that only Parliament could decide. Therefore any promise made by the government is not binding because they had no way of keeping the promise in the first place.
Brexit is a failure because it has not achieved consensus either in the main parties, Parliament or in the electorate. Unless something is done, the divisions that have been caused by the Brexit referendum will cause a fracture that is irreparable. Such a fracture will result in total loss of confidence in the political system and a breakdown of civil society. In short, we will e returned to the 1600’s and the two civil wars that reshaped our constitution. The desire to win can obscure the need to find common ground… the stakes are far higher than most people have considered.
Your article makes some very good points. However, it does not seem to arrive at a workable solution.
Perhaps the single greatest factor in the difficulties is that Parliament have refused to take a clear position on the referendum vote from the very start. Parliament seem to have attempted to delegate their responsibility to decide. I agree that attempting to delegate that decision to the people through another referendum is fraught with problems of a similar nature to the original vote.The real issue is whether it is the peoples will to leave the EU under any circumstances. If it is true that at least 50% of British citizens who’s rights are affected can be said to subscribe to that view then the matter would be settled.
The truth is that we are unlikely to reach that burden. Brexit originates from a flawed process. The provisions of Article 50 itself creates an impossible conundrum. It puts the cart before the horse. To give notice before negotiation, or approval by the EU Parliament, ensures that the provisions of the agreement of the can only become clear at a very late stage if at all. It is what is referred to as a “blind Brexit”.
It is relatively obvious that no person should be voting on largely unknown circumstances. The procedure should have required the negotiations to occur prior to an irrevocable decision to leave. Any agreement to leave should have been based on a final agreement that would come into force as a result of the the approval of the the UK and EU Parliament or by referendum if that was considered appropriate.
The Brexit has created a runaway train that has no obvious way of bringing under control. A new referendum, with all its dangers, may be the only way to bring this train under control.
There is a very real prospect that the UK will leave the EU contrary to the will of the people. It is simply not sufficient to say that 37% of the UK expressed a wish to leave in 2016. We are set to leave in 2019. The question of what the people want today is central to whether the people want to leave. Much like the rules for any public consultation, the public can only relied on if there was sufficient information to make an informed decision. If the Brexit referendum was capable of judicial review (it is not). A court would, without any doubt, rule that the consultation was flawed and should not be relied on.
The process of Brexit is flawed and manifestly absurd. How do we put the genie back in the bottle?
Just so that I can be clear.
If in a general election the winning party get in by a narrow majority, that means we can demand another vote?
And
If they government and policies are less popular a coupe of years later we should demand another vote?
Don’t give me the huff about a referendum is different
Or consequences are more serious.
the vote in the referendum was a two choice paper. The majority who voted said out and out it should be, else our constitution is dead.
Consequences or not!!!
I know I’m being daft but the remoaners started it
“If in a general election the winning party get in by a narrow majority, that means we can demand another vote?”
I think so – it is called general election and can be done anytime the parlament wish to do it.
As every democratic vote the referendum can be revoked with next one.
Why not give NI. Protected Statuse and a hard border with the UK. Then let it get on with its own Freedom of Movement.
If Labour won the next general election and the Tories refused to stand down, perhaps demanding a second election, would anyone see this as anything other than a profoundly undemocratic act? Of course not! No matter how much the defeated party warned about the threat to the economy or protested that voters didn’t know what they were voting for, the refusal to implement the result of the election would rightly be seen as a coup d’etat, and that is exactly what the failure to implement the result of the 2016 referendum would be.
Democracy requires democratic decisions to be implemented, and if we do not leave the EU, we will no longer be a democracy.
Our democracy enables peaceful change and we destroy it at our peril.
The billionaires cynically campaigning for the ‘people’s vote’ can retire to their Caribbean estates, but the rest of us will have to live with the chaos they leave behind.
Of course, the decision to leave the EU can be reversed, but only after it has been implemented.
Once we have left, it will be perfectly reasonable to campaign for a referendum to reapply for membership, but until then, democracy must be respected.
Well said
Thanks Dennis. Just read your comments. Well said too!
All this depends upon what parliament decides. If there is a deal that at least allows a transition period to kick in next March with the prospect of some sort of smooth continuation of trade after that period (especially for those major industries like car manufacture dependent upon “just in time” arrival of components) I think it is likely that such a deal will get through parliament – given the disastrous effect “no deal” coupled with no transition period would have. If however no such deal can be reached I do not see how any responsible parliament can possibly sit back and let a “no deal” situation happen. Those who say that should be accepted or even welcomed are not the people who will suffer and suffer badly from the precipitate cessation of the arrangements upon which our trade has been based for many years. It is in those circumstances (ie a failure of parliament) that a majority of MPs may well feel forced to consult the electorate again as the only way to avoid mayhem.
Denis
Your arguement is well presented. And I see and understand your point.
However if parliament is to have the last say that will without doubt see party lines split.
This business deal is what it is, business!
Labour, will see this as an opportunity for a general election to grab power.
Where again be constant stream of lies coming from the lips of candidates may well fool those less experienced.
If labour were to get in, that would result in total submission to the dictat of europe( my view).
That cannot be right.
The only reason that a no deal will happen is because Europe want to punish the U.K. as a lesson to others who may wish to break jail.
That’s another reason why leave must happen even if it’s a hard one.
Look I’m in business, I will almost certainly suffer if it’s a hard Brexit.
Under those circumstances there would without doubt be pain, some serious pain.
But must we sacrifice our freedom because we are afraid of what others may do to us?
No!
That would be a betrayal of previous campaigns.
Btw from which we recovered.
But this is all about brinkmanship, why on earth would there be a no deal? Why on earth would the U.K. not get a Canada ( never mind the ++ )
There will be a deal, of some sorts, it will be a fudge, and the full deal will be sorted during the two year interim period.
In the mean time trade will carry on as it does today.
Why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
From two nn’s
Thank you Dennis. As I have said I agree that the likelihood is that some sort of agreement will be cobbled together that will at least trigger a transition period. As a businessman you must see the value of that. The difference between us is that I do not see the voluntary co-operation of countries sharing a continent and much else besides in terms of liberal democracy and rule of law as some sort of imprisonment. We may well now be experiencing the longest period in recorded history free of war between major European countries. We all know it was the “never again” determination after the second world war that motivated those statesmen who set off the co-operative process and with all its flaws it has broadly worked. Forget “United States of Europe” – that has always been the dream of a minority of visionaries and became clearly impracticable when the British-inspired recruitment of so many former members of the former Soviet Union was achieved. Yes – trade is vitally important but the continued need for close harmony throughout our continent goes deeper than trade.
Couldn’t agree more!!
If Labour does not back a Second Referendum and continues to follow the anti-EU prejudices of Corbyn, McDonnell and Gardiner, it will NEVER form a government again.
The likes of this attitude at the top if the party – whatever abd despite my socialist sympathy with Labour’s policies on all else – plus the outrageous cavalier antics of the likes of Skinner and Hoey in voting with the tories, mean I could no longer subscribe, support or remain a member of the Labour Party now or at any future election.
I am a life long Labour voter who would be completely turned away from British politics if this insane divorce from the EU is carried out with Labour’s assistance.
In the 2015 election, the Labour Party opposed holding an EU referendum and won 9,347,273 votes.
In 2017, it committed itself to Brexit, and won 12,878,460.
The EU is pro-big business, anti-worker and anti-nationalisation, so a pro-EU Labour Party would be unelectable.
I respect those who have pololitical leaning.
But I don’t respect a demand for another vote.
Fact!
The referendum was advisory, therefore a second vote would be advisory also.
Pointless!
The same arguements would continue for years that we currently see today.
Where would the economy be then?
It can do nothing other than create further uncertainty.
So it would also need a further act of Parliament, because it’s now U.K. law that we leave thanks to Gina Miller.
Then what do we ( the great unwashed ) vote on?
1/ Remain?
2/ The detail of the agreement?
3/ Vote for parliament to have another vote to reverse article 50?
No 1 has no legs, the long running arguement of how many referendums will it take?
No 2 will be a huge bundle of documents delivered to each and very household for 40 million people to read and digest given we didn’t know allegedly what we were voting for ( huh) this time we should be given all the details!!!!
Cmon!!!
3/ The door is wide open for legal challenge That article 60 is already U.K. law,
Only a further act of Parliament can reverse that.
I can see the mayhem now. House of Lords, labour, Northern Ireland DUP bring down the government.
And at the end of all this the unaccountable leaders of Europe have won by not allowing us to leave.
What interplanetary world do we live in when such a body can bring down elected governments, force elections and encourage weak submissive governments for their own gratification?
Out!