Odds rise for new vote on Brexit
In the course of selling her much-derided plan for Britain to quit the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday played what she sees as her trump card, telling lawmakers there are just two alternatives.
“We can choose to leave with no deal,” she said, pausing for effect, or “We can risk no Brexit at all.”
For those who see stopping Brexit as a prize, not a risk, that admission was some rare good news — a sign that Britain could be on course to reverse its biggest and, to them, most disastrous, decision in four decades. And that would almost certainly rest on holding a second referendum to overturn the 2016 decision to leave the union.
The path toward a second plebiscite has always seemed impossibly treacherous. On Friday, May, who insists there will be no new vote, was sticking to her Brexit plan with the apparent support of two pro-Brexit Cabinet ministers, Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and Liam Fox, the international trade secretary.
She also welcomed Amber Rudd, the former home secretary, back into the Cabinet as work and pensions secretary, and appointed a little-known figure, Stephen Barclay, as Brexit secretary.
And May’s opponents have so far failed to muster the support of the 48 Conservative Party lawmakers needed to force a confidence vote in her leadership.
But the political chaos of recent days — a swirl of Cabinet resignations and calls for May to stand aside — has put another vote squarely on the table.
That is because May’s plan, which would keep some close economic ties to the EU, now looks unlikely to gain approval in Parliament. That would seem to leave a second referendum as the most promising among a limited number of escape routes to avoid a chaotic, disorderly, no-deal departure.
“I think it’s a lot more likely,” said Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science and public policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “The whole effort to try and implement Brexit in a one-party way, without any negotiations with the opposition, without a coalition agreement, looks doomed to destruction.”
“Last summer, the chances of this outcome seemed minimal,” wrote Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research institute, in a briefing paper. But the odds have improved, he said, because the opposition Labour Party is now more positive about that notion if it cannot achieve its favored outcome, which is a general election.
There are plenty of obstacles, of course. Right now there is no majority in Parliament for a second vote. The Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is not sympathetic. Holding one would almost certainly depend on the European Union granting Britain an extension on the current March 29 date for the country’s exit. And precisely what question, or questions, would be asked would provoke endless wrangling.
There are also good political arguments against it. The last vote was close — 52 percent to 48 percent — and another one would in all likelihood be so, too. That risks a polarizing and angry referendum campaign with an outcome that would be no more definitive than the first vote.
But according to several surveys, public opinion is finally shifting away from Brexit, and proponents of a rethink sense an opportunity. They want a plebiscite on the terms of an exit deal, with the option to remain, calling it a People’s Vote — a smart piece of branding designed to dispel claims that they are sore losers seeking to rerun the last referendum because they didn’t like the result.
“This was a long-shot campaign when it started,” said James McGrory, director of the People’s Vote campaign. “But the odds are getting shorter every day. All the momentum is with our campaign.”
It has been a long time coming. When Britons voted in the 2016 referendum to quit the EU, few “remainers” believed that the decision could be changed. At first, the remain camp seemed shellshocked and, when some began to suggest a redo, it was accused of trying to undermine “the will of the people” and taunted in parts of the tabloid press as “remoaners.”
But in biding their time, the pro-Europeans might have played a smart long game because, while Brexit still seemed on track, few wanted to revisit the divisive referendum of 2016. Many voters tuned out of the debate, and a lot simply wanted the issue resolved.
Now, after more than two years of negotiations leading to an unpopular draft agreement, the one thing that is sure is that there will be no swift and easy exit. The trade-offs that Brexit supporters batted away during the referendum campaign — such as sovereignty versus economic prosperity — have been brutally exposed by May’s draft deal.
Growing public disquiet was clear even before May’s deal was announced, when 700,000 people marched last month in London for a People’s Vote.
The tide probably began to turn during the summer as Brexit talks stalled and the government began to announce some fearsomesounding contingency plans for leaving in the event of no deal.
Pharmaceutical companies were instructed to stockpile six weeks’ supply of drugs, and there were plans to keep airlines flying and supply routes open for food and essential imports; even those expecting to take pets to continental Europe were warned that they needed to start the paperwork four months in advance.