BREXIT

IN Arthur Cash’s biography of the audacious 18th-century constitutional reformer John Wilkes, the author remarks that Wilkes’s lifetime spanned “the American Revolution, which he admired, the French Revolution, which he hated, and the Industrial Revolution, which he did not know was happening”.

Revolution, too, is in the air with Brexit a messy and complicated process. If the country isn’t to be caught out with unsatisfactory compromises being made that does little for her gaining true independence, it’s time to seriously talk about referendums – who organises them, and how. Those who want a new referendum on Europe must face questions about how, when and by whom this still-anomalous bolt-on to our constitution is to be organised. If Remainers are scornful of the Brexiteers’ refusal to propose an alternative, then they themselves must not make the same mistake.

This discussion is becoming urgent: another vote on Europe is moving fast from the highly unlikely to the distinctly possible.

Only the broad outlines can be discerned of the proposed exit deal that Theresa May’s negotiators and the EU are working on; but these will invariably be a development of the “soft” Brexit proposals agreed at Chequers earlier this year. Hardline Brexiteers hate it. There is little enthusiasm anywhere for the plan. There is, however, a growing suspicion that this may be the only available common ground with EU negotiators. It is for this reason that Theresa May stands a fair chance of getting her proposals through parliament’s “meaningful vote” near the end of this year. Staring into the muzzle of what could blast to smithereens a Tory government and very possibly Britain’s March 2019 exit from the EU, it would surely take nerves of steel not to blink first. Many Brexiteers will blink first.

But not all. Steel nerves (or straw brains) can be found among MPs in the European Research Group. It would only take about a dozen of these irreconcilables to sink May’s proposals.

There’s also a chance Britain and our EU partners will fail to find any agreement at all. The more Mrs May compromises, the more the irreconcilables’ numbers grow. The chances that her hoped-for deal is sunk either by Brussels or by her own MPs is floating at around 40 per cent.

Let’s suppose the prime minister does get a draft deal, then faces defeat over it in the Commons. What then? It’s unlikely she’ll want to resign, and will need a good, democratic reason not to. To put her deal to the people in a national referendum would provide such a reason.

Better still, announce that this is too momentous a decision for normal party whipping and make the vote on the deal a free one for government MPs. She could still lose her proposed treaty, but, unwhipped, such a defeat would not be a resignation issue.

But what next? The pressure for a referendum on her proposals would be strong. She has said she won’t countenance another referendum but in these unforeseen circumstances she might relent. Even if she did resign, demands for a general election could only be countered by an acting Tory prime minister pledging a referendum.

By different routes we keep coming back to a referendum as the constitutional logjam-breaker. Labour appears to have gone for this following its conference last week. Although not the likeliest scenario, there is now a strong chance. A government victory in the “meaningful vote” or a general election are equally likely.

WE should know who would actually make a referendum happen, what the question should be and what this would do to Britain’s plan to leave the EU on March 29, 2019.

There is probably consensus that the current deadline for negotiating our departure from the EU will have to be extended. The Electoral Commission would want a two or three-month period for the referendum campaign. Our EU partners would no doubt agree to an extension for this purpose.

Lord Adonis, a key figure in the “people’s vote”, along with Open Britain, a campaign group for another referendum to be held, believes parliament could “direct” the government to hold a plebiscite. The biggest problem would be the wording of the referendum question. Open Britain suspects that the Electoral Commission would want clarity, and would recommend a binary [two-option] question.

It would have to be a straight choice between the government’s Brexit proposals and remaining in the EU. But wouldn’t Leavers call this a false dichotomy by insisting there were other options on offer?

Open Britain insists that those who have campaigned to leave the EU have held the country to ransom for years. Referring to them as “charlatans”, the Remain body says they’ve had years to say what they propose.

How about “no deal” as a referendum option? Adonis says there’s no such thing as a no deal. Even leaving on World Trade Organisation terms would leave hundreds of agreements and arrangements having to be remade with our former partners. Bilateral trading agreements are hugely expensive.

Adonis has also posed the question that if the hardline Tory European Research Group can’t define what it is they propose, how can we put it to a referendum?  He also added that the government has a duty not to put to people a proposal they don’t think can be implemented. The inference here is that any proposal must honour Britain’s obligations to Ireland in our “backstop” undertakings to the EU over the Northern Ireland border issue.

IF parliament rejects the government’s Brexit plan, a referendum could take place without (depending on its result) impeding Brexit. A six-month extension of the negotiating period could very likely be arranged.

For Remainers, nothing short of getting their way (whatever that is) will be accepted by them as fair. However, a new referendum should be one of the ways in which an impending constitutional crisis could be averted. Let it not be said we sleepwalked into this. The time to start thinking about ways through is now.