The Guardian view on Brexit in parliament: respect the majority
When it comes to building alliances over Brexit, Theresa May never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Her first big chance came in the period immediately after becoming prime minister. As a known Eurosceptic who had given tepid support to EU membership, Mrs May might have brokered a grand Brexit compromise, reflecting the closeness of a 48:52 referendum result. Instead she drew hasty red lines – chiefly to exclude membership of the single market – that made cooperation with former remainers and soft Brexiters practically impossible.
There was a second chance after the 2017 general election. The prime minister asked for a personal mandate based on the Brexit path she had trodden, and was rebuffed. A compete rethink was the obvious remedy. Instead, Mrs May cobbled together a deal with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists – a party that cannot claim even to represent the majority Brexit view of the electoral jurisdiction in which they compete, and which espouses divisive, reactionary views in other areas. The prime minister once again signalled contempt for Britain’s political mainstream.
If the objective of that “confidence and supply” arrangement was to provide Mrs May with a parliamentary cushion in the event of a close run vote on a final Brexit deal, it is failing. The DUP on Wednesday signalled readiness to vote against a Conservative budget if its own Brexit red line – the rejection of new customs regulations between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland – is violated. That might be sabre-rattling, but it would be risky for Mrs May to presume a hitherto invisible strain of DUP malleability in her calculations.
The parliamentary arithmetic looks highly problematic ahead of the vote required to approve the Brexit deal that Mrs May is negotiating. She has already lost the support of many Tory MPs, perhaps as many as 40. Whips might bring the number down, but it only takes seven Conservative backbench rebels to eradicate the notional ToryDUP majority.
With numbers that tight, Downing Street has taken to wooing Labour MPs. The handful who have been pro-Brexit all along can probably be relied on to lend a hand. Others in leave-dominated constituencies might be biddable. But incentives to prop up a Conservative prime minister touting a second-rate, hard Brexit are few. Mrs May is relying on fear and exhaustion to get her through the upcoming parliamentary ordeal. She hopes to build a coalition of dread: those who do not want Jeremy Corbyn to become prime minister, or Brexit delayed, or aborted after another referendum, or a chaotic lurch out of the EU with no deal. This is a shabby, miserable way to try to settle the biggest decision about the nation’s future for a generation or more.
The alternative would be for Mrs May to grasp, in the coming weeks, her third big opportunity to broaden and soften the definition of what Brexit can mean. If the prime minister wants a majority in parliament for a deal, the simplest way to achieve it is by negotiating something acceptable to a majority of MPs. That would require recognising the economic and strategic value of long-term alignment with the
EU: a future relationship closer to the Norwegian model than the Canadian one touted by Tory hardliners. Such a shift would require dissolution of the familiar red lines, and political dexterity entirely out of character for Mrs May. It does not look like a choice she would make voluntarily. It might yet be one forced on her by circumstance.
It was unwise to embark on a hard Brexit that was certain to diminish the UK’s standing in the world and erect pointless barriers to trade. It was unwise to stick stubbornly with a model even after it had failed a general election test of popularity. It is not surprising that Mrs May’s Brexit vision is one that a majority of MPs struggle to endorse. She has taken a narrow, partisan, shortsighted approach to an issue that required a broad-based coalition of support. By that path, and with formidable tenacity, she has managed to survive in office. It is a paltry achievement compared with the cost the prime minister’s desperate methods might inflict on the country.