Time for MPs to be honest — the only true options are Brexit or no Brexit

The side-eyes have it: Emily Maitlis is exasperated listening to Labour’s Barry Gardiner flanked by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi
Elliot Wagland
Matthew d'Ancona13 March 2019
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

It is time, at last, to frame the argument honestly. The struggle is no longer between Leave and Remain: the battlelines of the 2016 referendum. It is between Brexit and Stop Brexit: persisting with a globally-humiliating shambles, or calling a halt to the madness.

The distinction is not sophistry or word-play. Nearly three years ago, the country was told that it could stay in the European Union, or escape the supposed tyranny of Brussels, whilst retaining all the juiciest benefits of club membership. This was a wholly dishonest offer: but the voters, understandably unimpressed by the wretched Remain campaign and attracted by the promise of restored “control” over their lives and £350 million extra per week for the NHS, opted for Leave.

The consequent pageant of delusion has had a long run: and even now, after last night’s second thumping Commons defeat for Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, there are still those who insist on the possibility of cake-retention-and-consumption.

Brussels is now watching what the Westminster class does next, while accelerating EU preparations for a no-deal exit. The statesmanlike response to last night’s extraordinary dramas would be for Government and Parliament alike to accept that the referendum result is undeliverable in the form that the Leave campaign promised; to acknowledge that the process has failed utterly; and to ask the electorate whether it shares this view, offering voters the chance to stop the whole damn nonsense in its tracks.

The point, please note, is not to ask the public if it has changed its mind: a rerun of 2016. It is to ask if — having observed the political fiascos, serial failures and consequent impasse of the past three years — it truly wants to keep going with this plan for wilful national self-destruction. Of course, the offer of a public vote is still some way off — if indeed if it is ever made.

Matthew d'Ancona

All the same, what has happened in the past 24 hours is unquestionably momentous. When the Prime Minister announced last night that she would allow a free vote on today’s vote against a no-deal outcome, she essentially said to Parliament: all right, if you’re all so clever, you sort it out. For once, I felt a bat-squeak of sympathy for the hoarse and exhausted May.

The Commons will certainly vote against no-deal, though that will not be the end of the matter. Jacob Rees-Mogg made clear yesterday that he does not regard any motion passed by the House today as superior to the law of the land — which does indeed retain a no-deal exit as the UK’s default position should a withdrawal agreement not be passed. Lurking beneath this observation, one felt, was the potential for a judicial review demanded by the European Research Group or its surrogates, and the intervention — once more — of the courts in this parliamentary conflict.

"The pageant of delusion has had a long run. There are still those who insist on cake-retention-and-consumption"

If the judges were to support Rees-Mogg’s argument, would they still, I wonder, be classified by Brexiteers as “enemies of the people”? Just a thought.

Meanwhile, the Commons will next be invited to vote for an extension to Article 50. But to what end? As Donald Tusk’s spokesman said on Tuesday, our 27 EU partners would only consider a “reasoned request” and would “expect a credible justification for a possible extension and its duration”.

One plan, supported by Rees-Mogg, the Democratic Unionists and former Remainer Nicky Morgan, is to delay the date of departure from March 29 to May 22. This would give the Government time to strike so-called “mutual standstill agreements” — a phrase of wondrous vapidity — before a full and final move away from the EU on December 21, 2021. Presented as a cuddly compromise, it is the razor blade of no-deal concealed in cotton wool.

Jeremy Corbyn, for his part, continues to market the cut-price unicorn of a “Labour Brexit”, persuaded, quite mysteriously, that Parliament and the EU long only for the chance to debate his magical answer to the great conundrum. But what might this answer be? On last night’s Newsnight, Emily Maitlis represented the nation with her exasperated eye-roll as Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary, declined, with gurning lack of embarrassment, to shed light on the matter. We must all, it seems, trust in Labour’s manifesto process and in Jeremy. Say I’m cynical, but that doesn’t quite cut it for me.

Simultaneously, there is a gathering head of steam for the so-called “Norway for Now” option, pressed with conviction and intelligence by Nick Boles, and backed his Conservative colleagues Nicholas Soames and Rob Halfon, and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock and Lucy Powell. This would park the UK in the European Free Trade Area and European Economic Area, retaining single market access but bolting on a new customs arrangement.

This compromise at least bears the mark of civic responsibility and considered patriotism. But I am unpersuaded by the assertions that it would command a majority in the Commons. A similar option was comprehensively rejected by MPs last June. The EU would require a very clear signal from Parliament that it was ready to endorse this plan and instruct the Government to negotiate accordingly. I simply don’t see that happening, though it may be necessary for the Commons to consider this and other constitutional configurations before it confronts the need for a public vote.

Odd not to have mentioned the possibility of May resigning or a general election. Either, or both, may well happen, compounding an already multidimensional crisis. But neither will intrinsically answer the only question that now matters: Brexit or No Brexit? And there’s only one way of doing that.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in