A new vote based on the revocation (or not) of Article 50 would give the UK government a clear signal to proceed in one direction or another, and thus trim down the number of options being touted – most of which are unworkable as things stand, write Maria Dimertzis (Bruegel) and Nicola Viegi (University of Pretoria).
The harsh realities of Brexit – realities that have always been present – are becoming increasing visible as the end of the process nears. Amid this distinct game of bluffs, threats and intransigence, there is one certainty: in the absence of anything else, the UK will officially leave the EU at the end of March 2019 without a deal.
Hard Brexit is the default option. What this means is that if the British parliament chooses to vote down the prime minister’s current deal, it is implicitly choosing No Deal as the only real alternative. It is in the nature of default options, though, that they are not as obvious to everyone as they should perhaps be.
In the parliamentary debate, the prime minister has proved unable to sell the withdrawal agreement because the purported alternatives are a confused set of irrelevant options. All scenarios that are discussed in the public domain – from EFTA to Norway-plus and Canada-plus – are not options that are actually on offer. At best, they are options to be negotiated in the future.
What is on offer is the ‘May deal’. The idea that the UK can still negotiate with the EU is just a postponement of the “rendezvous with Brexit reality.” The EU is not prepared to re-open a hard-achieved result. The backstop – that is, the guarantee needed to avoid a hard border between Norther Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – is the issue most hotly contested by the UK at present. But this insurance was necessary for the agreement to be achieved, as the EU has little trust in the UK political process. There is no evidence that this guarantee is no longer needed; therefore the EU is not prepared to re-open the issue.
At the same time, the Tory party is well and truly divided on this ‘May deal’ – a fact confirmed by the result of the recent confidence vote on the prime minister’s leadership, despite the outcome. The same is true for Parliament, which means that the chances of the ‘May deal’ passing are slim. It looks, therefore, like neither side of the negotiating table is likely to budge, in which case we have to accept that the odds today are increasingly in favour of No Deal.
The paradox here is that avoiding a hard Brexit is perhaps the only option that would achieve a majority in the British parliament. In order to avoid No Deal, it would be necessary to put No Deal on the table, so that it becomes a direct object of choice and not a hidden default option.
One possible way to untangle the political impasse is to have a second referendum. The issue of the referendum had previously met resistance, not least from the prime minister herself, but is increasingly emerging as a realistic option. James Blitz of the Financial Times has considered what the referendum could ask, offering three variants:
- Remain vs May’s deal. This does not, in our view, provide an attractive option to those who want Brexit, irrespective of which Brexit.
- This is why, in the second variant, there is an additional option of No Deal, next to ‘Remain vs May’s deal’. But this is a three-way referendum, which is not easy to communicate or implement. And it could lead to an outcome where no option has the absolute majority of votes, confusing the way forward even more.
- The third variant is Remain vs Canada-style clean break. Once again irrelevant options enter the debate. Canada-style clean break is not an option on the table and should not therefore be an option on the ballot. This variant effectively boils down to Remain vs No Deal. But it is odd not to provide a chance for people to accept the government’s current deal (May’s deal) as one of the options.
But there is another way, which the recent ECJ decision on revoking Article 50 may just have brought to the fore. Following this decision, Sir John Major has called for Article 50 to be revoked immediately. We fear that such an action would lack legitimacy and that a referendum would be the minimum requirement to ensure sufficient backing.
If the referendum were the path to pursue, there is then an additional variant to what could be asked, and that is a yes/no question:
- Given what you know now, would you opt to revoke Article 50? This we believe is effectively the same as the aforementioned second option, but without the three-way referendum. Let’s look a little closer at what it means.
The main significance of the ECJ ruling is that it recognises a country’s sovereignty and therefore its right to change its mind. At the same time, it provides important clarifications on how and when such an option should be exercised. The court has put in place conditions in order to ensure that such an action is not opportunistic or expedient, as it would have to be “unequivocal and unconditional”. But it also provides clarity in terms of where it leaves this whole process and the UK’s position in the EU. The withdrawal process would be stopped and the UK would continue its membership status as is, without losing its opt-outs or rebate. At the same time, it would be providing reassurance to the EU, in that the UK’s exercising of this option would mean that it has changed its collective mind on the issue of Brexit.
If you are a Remainer you would welcome such an option. If you had voted for Brexit but have changed your mind given the information available two-and-a-half years later, then again this would be a welcome step. If the ‘Yes’ vote prevailed and the government pursued this option, all uncertainty would cease and only awkwardness would remain, till everyone learned to move on.
If you are a committed Brexiter, then the ‘No’ option still allows you to proceed on the current track. If a ‘No’ vote prevailed, it would provide clarity on two things: first, it would seal the UK’s wish to leave the EU – a certainty that would be helpful in moving forward. Second, it would bring the default position out of obscurity: there would be only two options ahead and that is May’s deal or No Deal. Parliament would then need explicitly to choose one of the two, instead of just rejecting one.
But that brings us back to our starting point. If there is a majority against a no-deal Brexit, then this referendum may be what the prime minister needs to pass her deal. Either way, there would be clarity in terms of what the British actually want, an issue that can be of great help in this process.
What makes anyone think that a second referendum would help. The problem is not any referendum but lies with the fact that members of the HOC are refusing to eenact the results of the one we held. They are determined to do as they wish to in accordance with their own agenda. The Lib/Lab/Con party all placed in their respective manifesto at the recent election their pledge to follow the referendum leave result. They all refuse to do this and are busy following their individual , and self-serving, paths with complete disregard to any pledge given to get them elected. It seems it would take a dictatorship to succeed in fulfilling the referrendum result as it is obvious that democracy no longer , if ever it did, exists.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto called for a second referendum.
Everything Jason says here is exactly right.
I see little point in repetition of all the arguments.
If LSE academics would like to do something useful to the public instead of this nonsense.
Why not recognise the inevitability of no deal.
On that basis
Be ahead of the game.
Give us an unbiased ( unlike many posts) pro’s and Con’s.
Which businesses will be affected and on what scale.
Both benefitters and looses
Both long short and medium term.
Build in propertly as has not been done by Whitehall the pluses of free trade ( assumption) with the rest of the rest of the world
Compare all that with stay, will we have any influence?
Will Europe walk all over us or reform?
Will the dictators put the self up for a people’s election and not back door fixing?
Including the risks of ever closer union and joining the euro against our will.
Then build in the passion of those who are loyal to the millions who gave their lives in defence of our democracy.
It’s about money, that’s all!
Finally ask yourself
Is it worth staying or not
Trying for a second referendum would probably resolve things. This can only be achieved under the current timetable by all countries in the EU agreeing to an extension of Article 50. Macron woulds never agree to it, so the the Remainers would understand that the EU don’t want us and that would resolve the matter. It would also be a useful lesson for them as to why the majority of voters wished to leave the EU.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem?
How can writers and ‘ educated’ individuals at the lse be so ‘ hard of thinking?’ Second referendum has been ruled out a while back, why have a second when the 1st cannot be implemented? Instead of after the referendum saying ‘ those who voted remain, raise your hand’ – YOU ARE FIRED!’ They were given jobs in a brexit government.
For the time being, there are irreconcilable differences. This is fine for the MSM and others who are financially advantaged as a consequence of the government and HoC playing for time and playing politics. Some day academic analyses will shed some light on the strategies pursued by May and her kitchensink Cabinet. She has not been open about her gaming even to those who ought to have been involved. May will never come clean about what she was/is trying to achieve. We know, however, from the media and other internet sources what Brexiteers socalled have been saying all along, and the which is ignored, challenged or denied by Remainers. In a manner of speaking, Remainers want to have their cake and eat it, even though they lost the referendum. They want to overturn the result by means of a token Leave, Brino, the withdrawal agreement, or simply go back to what it was. As we all know, the EU is on a path from which it will not sway, all the tokenisms and second referendums notwithstanding. The EU by its very nature cannot reform. Moreover, it will not be deflected from realising its aim, its raison d’etre. It is not remaining as it is. Cast one’s mind back three years and see how the image of the EU leadership has tarnished itself. Those who have followed the EU political machinations over the years know the EU leadership has allowed itself to be exposed for what it is. It is a Machiavellian project. It is not democratic, nor can it be. It is not benign as far as the peoples, the citizens of the nation-states that are EU members, is concerned, because the growing resistance and ultimate rejection of this enforced federalisation project by a majority. In the UK, the majority have already spoken. The lead-up to the Brexit referendum was long and well-flagged. There was ample debate over a long period.
Now, for a second referendum, the third, really, as has been pointed out ad infinitum but continually ignored by remoaners, the Brexit referendum needs to be implemented and tried before one ought to even consider another referendum. To do it before Brexit implementation is to make a nonsense of the entire referendum process, thus invalidating any other or subsequent EU-related referendum. Hence, the result would be meaningless, and if Leave were to lose the next one, or any such referendum ever, they would be fully justified in not accepting the result. Remainers who remoaning really want to be shot of democracy altogether. Maybe remoaners should come out and say so.