Philip Johnston Another EU referendum? Disaster!

The idea that it would heal the divisions that have opened in Parliament and the country is ludicrous

We are in a desperate constitutional pickle. The 2016 referendum unleashed demons that will be hard to drive back into their dark caves. The sovereignty of the people has trumped that of Parliament and the latter simply does not know how to respond. Its quandary was compounded by a general election that failed to deliver a majority for the governing party and left the Prime Minister unable to get the Brexit she had intended to pursue through the Commons. The question now is: how do we get out of this mess without breaking the system entirely?

Some constitutionalists argue that the answer is another referendum. Only by going back to the people can the impasse be resolved. The Oxford academic Vernon Bogdanor wrote recently that “the dilemma, created by the people via the referendum vote of 2016, and again in the general election of 2017, can only be resolved by the people through another referendum”.

The so-called People’s Vote (PV) campaign has been gathering steam over the summer, amid growing concerns that a majority is unlikely for any Brexit plan Theresa May eventually puts to MPS later this autumn. Nor is there support for a “no deal” outcome: in such circumstances Mrs May would feel bound to resign, having failed in the central task of her Government.

So is another referendum the only way out? Many are implacably opposed: have we not already had a People’s Vote? Are UK voters going to be marched back to the ballot box, as those in Ireland and Denmark have been over the years, until they come up with the “right” answer? Yes, say the PV supporters: now that we have discovered how horrendous the whole business has been and risked the calamity of a cliff-edge Brexit, let the people decide – again.

At this point it should be noted that, before the referendum, Leavers such as Nigel Farage argued that a close result should be followed by another vote because they thought they would lose; it was the Remainers who said “out is out” because they thought they would win. Now the positions are reversed. Moreover, many of those campaigning for another referendum supported Gina Miller’s court battle to ensure that a final decision on triggering Article 50 was taken by Parliament and not by the Government alone. Yet they now want to take the decision away from Parliament and return it to the people. If the first referendum was democratic, they maintain, then a second would have the same force.

But it is, of course, not a second referendum but a third that they seek. It is surprising how many people either forget the 1975 vote or think it was about joining the Common Market when it was about staying in. We had already joined two years earlier by dint of an Act of Parliament.

The 1975 referendum was the UK’S first nationwide plebiscite and marked a significant breach with constitutional precedent and the sovereignty of Parliament. Indeed, this was why it was opposed at the time by the Conservatives. In a speech to the Commons in April 1975, Margaret Thatcher asked what exactly was meant by “the full-hearted consent of the people”. She added: “Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. I expect that that is what we shall move to if we have the first referendum without considering the consequences that every piece of legislation will require full-hearted consent, which normally means consent exercised through the House.”

The 1975 referendum was supposed to be a one-off; if we keep having them the drift towards direct democracy will be hard to arrest. As Mrs Thatcher said, why not referendums for other matters on which parliament is out of step with majority opinion? Are we to have political decisions taken at home by phone-in, like Strictly Come Dancing? Some people might like the idea; I don’t.

Paralysis in Parliament later this year will further the case for another referendum. Labour’s conference has put the idea on the table, even if the party is still sending out confused messages. Sir Keir Starmer, the Brexit spokesman, yesterday broke ranks with the rest of the leadership by explicitly proposing that the option of staying in should be put back to the people. In other words, PV campaigners, who say they respect the Brexit decision but simply want any deal subject to a vote, are being forced to admit that they really seek to overturn the 2016 result. This is no longer an argument about the terms for leaving. It is intended to reopen the debate about membership.

The idea that this would heal the divisions that have opened in the country is for the birds. Far from being the answer to the constitutional conundrum, another referendum overturning the first would be a disaster for our constitutional settlement, our system of representative government and the authority of Parliament. It would be resented by millions of Brexit voters; and we need only to look at the goings-on in Liverpool to see the difficulties there would be in simply framing the question to be asked.

Rarely in British history has the immediate political future seemed so uncertain. But handing the decision back to the country in another referendum would be a cop-out. This now has to be sorted out by our MPS; and if the current Parliament cannot do so then there should be a general election. When people say that this would still not resolve the EU question, what they really mean is that it would not reverse Brexit. But that matter has been settled and a new government would still be bound to leave the EU, just as John Mcdonnell and union boss Len Mccluskey have pointed out at Labour’s conference.

If Labour really wants to reverse Brexit then it will have to spell that out in a manifesto and win power with a sufficient majority able to push the legislation through Parliament. Good luck with that; but this is how we should do things in this country. We are supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, not a glorified game show. Our flirtation with referendums has been an unmitigated disaster. Let’s never have another.