Britons should have a second say on Brexit

As the March 29 cut-off date for Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) nears, there seems to be no consensus among its politicians on a withdrawal agreement. In January, the British Parliament firmly rejected the deal that had been agreed upon with the EU by Prime Minister Theresa May. The deal, which desperately tried to please both the Leave and Remain camps by allowing the United Kingdom (UK) to stay within the EU single market while allowing for independent trade deals with other countries, ended in a unanimous agreement on rejecting it. For both factions it was worse than the status quo as it implied staying within EU and being bound by its rules while forfeiting the power to influence its laws.

However, with merely a month to go before the cut-off date for Brexit, the possibility that no deal can be agreed upon by British MPs seems more likely. In fact, ‘game theory’ can explain why a no deal is the only outcome that is in everyone’s best interests. Game theory is a branch of mathematics that explains strategic interaction between decision-makers. Decision makers are ‘players’ in a ‘game’ who choose from a set of strategies available to them. Each player is assumed to be rational, choosing the highest payoff for themselves. In Britain’s case, the players are the MPs in the Leave and Remain camp. It must be noted that such an assumption is quite simplistic in nature as the leanings of the political class in Britain are not as binary.

Currently, both sides have two options to choose from: back May’s deal or reject it. The game theory approach shows why it is in the interests of both the camps to reject her deal. In the case of the Leave MPs, supporting May’s deal can result in either of two outcomes: the deal goes through as it is or May pushes it through by giving some concessions to the Remain camp like staying within the customs union to gain a few votes from them. On the other hand, rejecting her deal can imply that May agrees to concessions for their own camp or Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal. The latter option works in the best interests for the Leave MPs.

Rationality implies rejecting May’s deal. But there is always a possibility of a second referendum or general elections taking place before March 29, which could help the cause of the Remainers. So, it is evident that moving towards a no deal scenario is the only likely outcome for most rational British MPs.

Even hard Brexiteers agree that a no-deal scenario would be extremely disruptive for the British economy, at least in the short term. The UK would crash out of the EU. WTO trading rules would apply between the two. Border checks would become necessary. The supply of essential goods will be affected. Free movement of people between the UK and EU would immediately come to a halt. And the most concerning outcome would be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which could spiral into needless sectarian violence and bloodshed. The Leave campaign sees benefits in these short-term disruptions. They have argued for a Brexit so that Britain could get greater control over its trade deals and its borders. However, the question remains whether the price that an already ailing economy of UK will have to pay for such an outcome will be worth the losses. For some Leave supporters a no-deal Brexit is the truest form of Brexit. But there are many Brexiteers who dread the idea of a no deal. So, a second referendum should be the answer for Britain now that the voters are more aware of the likely outcomes. No Brexit voter in 2016 could have foreseen the present outcome.—IANS

For some Leave supporters a no-deal Brexit is the truest form of Brexit. But many dread the idea of a no deal.