A second referendum is a seductive idea – but a bad and dangerous one

The Government must dismiss the superficially attractive notion of a further vote from its outset

It would be the ultimate Yes, Minister plot. The people, in a high turnout in a national referendum, decide to leave the EU. A new Prime Minister and Cabinet swear to implement that decision. But the mandarins, the real masters of both policy and intrigue, work out a brilliant ruse to frustrate the lot of them.

Such has been the reaction to the remarks of the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, that it might be thought that this scenario really could come to pass. He expressed the hope that Britain could still stay in some kind of “looser” EU, although I suspect he would also be clear that no such looser union is currently on offer.

It is true that senior civil servants have mainly been appalled by the referendum result, and have spent their entire careers accustomed to working within the construct of EU law. It is also true that they are entirely capable of carrying a weak minister, largely making his or her decisions for them, and making the whole system hum along regardless.

But in all my experience, civil servants respect a democratic mandate and a clear lead from decisive ministers who know what they want. And whatever problems may face the trio of new ministers in charge of leaving the EU – Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis – not knowing what they want isn’t one of them.

The real threat to the idea that “Brexit means Brexit” does not come from unelected officials manoeuvring behind the scenes. It comes from elected politicians on manoeuvres in plain sight. Ironically, the people most likely to scorn the democratically expressed wishes of the country are some of those who have been elected themselves.

The idea that the British people did not really know what they were doing on June 23, and will return to sanity and reason if given some further opportunity to do so, is still prevalent in some business circles, much of the House of Lords, and a fair proportion of the Labour Party.

Owen Smith, Labour’s leadership challenger, has now given voice to this by arguing there should be a second referendum, on the eventual terms of British exit, and that without that Labour should not vote for the triggering of Article 50 and the start of withdrawal negotiations.

This idea is superficially attractive and easy to justify in debate. The electorate voted against EU membership in June but they were not asked to endorse any alternative. Shouldn’t they vote again when the alternative terms are agreed? Brexit can be interpreted in many different ways. Since it was not set out in any party election manifesto, isn’t a further referendum needed to decide on its final form?

Seductive as it seems, such a referendum is a thoroughly bad and dangerous idea, and it needs to be dismissed by the Government from the outset. It is bad in principle, because a defeat for the terms of exit, after lengthy negotiations, would presumably come after the time permitted for such negotiations by Treaty, and when the time to seek any other terms would have expired.

It could leave the UK in a state of pure limbo, having decided to leave in principle but not in detail. And since the terms of exit might be settled long before the detail of any new trading arrangement with the EU, it could involve voting on half a deal without knowing the content of the other half.

Furthermore, the prospect of such a second referendum would undermine the UK negotiating position in the exit talks, and compound the uncertainty for businesses, who need to know where they stand.

It is also a dangerous idea, and is intended to be, because any exit agreement is bound to be full of compromises and easy to find an excuse to oppose.

Those who cannot reconcile themselves to this year’s outcome would find many pretexts to oppose the details, while effectively campaigning to cancel the previous decision. If they succeeded, another Conservative Prime Minister and Cabinet would hit the political buffers, which is why the idea is so attractive to the likes of Owen Smith. It might yet be adopted by a weakened Jeremy Corbyn under duress.

So as the Cabinet meet at Chequers this week to discuss their strategy, they should see this idea for what it is: a political ruse, an impractical proposal and a surrogate for telling the voters they were wrong. It would be in their own interests to squash it as soon as they can, exposing it as a plan put forward in the Labour Party by those who cannot bear the thought of how many of their own supporters actually voted in the referendum.

Just as decisiveness is needed to ensure civil servants implement the wishes of the Government, so some speed is now required to get ahead of the parliamentary plots that will be a bigger threat.

It seems unlikely that Theresa May has any legal need to ask parliament to approve the invoking of Article 50, which is a matter of royal prerogative to be exercised by ministers. Yet she does have a political need to do so, so that parliament will have made a decision to ratify the referendum outcome, and to forestall debates, plots, motions and laws proposed and promoted by others.

It would make sense to ask the Commons soon to endorse the start of negotiations early in 2017, if that is indeed the Government’s plan, and to flush out those who wish to flout the result of the referendum. The SNP would no doubt do so, on the grounds that Scotland voted to remain. Labour MPs would have to decide whether they were going to respect the views of many of their own constituencies and the country or not.

I voted Remain in June, as I thought staying in the EU was best for the country. But the second best course, in my view, is to leave the EU with clarity, certainty and purpose.

To embark on leaving with doubt, lack of confidence, and with attempts to undermine the decision that has been made would be the worst of all worlds.

The greatest risk of that does not come from Sir Humphrey in Whitehall. He knows his limits. It comes from elected politicians who claim their own legitimacy, and who cannot stomach the views of the people they claim to represent.