Remainers can’t handle the truth about the EU

It is ludicrous for those campaigning for a second referendum to claim they stand up for sovereignty

MPs pressing for a second referendum seem not to have contemplated the possibility that the country might vote, once again, to leave the European Union. Nor have they given much thought to how a narrow Remain victory, following, as it would, a vote to Leave that was never implemented, could be legitimate.

They certainly appear not to care about the effects of another divisive campaign on the public’s confidence in democracy, and on the social cohesion of a country in which Leave voters are already dismissed as thick, racist or too old to have a stake in the future.

Never mind the fact that the biggest cheerleaders for a second referendum were among the first to demand the original vote. In 2008, the Lib Dems notoriously demanded “a real vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union”. In 2011, when Tory MPS rebelled to demand an In/out referendum, among their number was Dr Sarah Wollaston. Joining her were Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, and John Mcdonnell, the most senior Labour politician to flirt with a second referendum.

And later, when Parliament eventually voted to hold the referendum, to respect the result and to trigger Article 50, all the main supporters of a second referendum voted with the majority of MPS.

Now these politicians say we need a second referendum because the loss of sovereignty demanded by the draft Withdrawal Agreement is so dramatic, they cannot support it. I agree that binding ourselves to EU laws and to the European Court of Justice is unacceptable, but if sovereignty is their beef, why were they such ardent Remainers in the first place?

Where were they when qualified majority voting was introduced and extended in the Council of Ministers? What did they say when the European Parliament was granted co-decision powers, making it a rival to the Council? When did they protest against the corrupt and unaccountable Commission and the politically motivated Court of Justice?

And why, if sovereignty is the issue, do they want to take us back in? Even if we returned on the same terms as before, we would have to subordinate our laws to those of the European Union, keep our borders open, and subject ourselves to unaccountable supranational institutions.

Returning after invoking Article 50, however, or even rejoining after Brexit is complete would not guarantee membership on the same terms. Would the British opt-outs – from the euro, Schengen and specific justice measures – still apply, for example? The Remainers cannot answer.

Even if Britain remained or rejoined on the same terms, the EU is changing, and for the worse. The assault on liberal democracy in Poland and Hungary – in which the independence of the judiciary, press freedom and minority rights have been undermined – is already known. In Romania, which is about to take the EU’S rotating presidency, the government stands condemned for corruption, with the abuse of the intelligence agencies and judicial system a problem in particular.

In Brussels, the grandstanding and the state-building continues. Angela Merkel has backed Emmanuel Macron’s call for a “real, true European army”, despite the risk to Nato, and despite the failure of European countries to contribute properly towards their own defence.

This week, the French and German finance ministers ignored protests from the Netherlands and declared their intention to establish a single eurozone budget by 2021. The fund, they announced, would “promote greater convergence” and help to absorb financial shocks. It would be available to eurozone countries but managed through the wider EU budget, isolating even further member states outside the single currency, like Sweden, or Britain, if we remain within or rejoin the EU.

Meanwhile, a new eurozone crisis is brewing. A stand-off between the Italian government and the European Commission led, yesterday, to Brussels rejecting Italy’s proposed budget on the grounds that it is “non-compliant” with EU debt rules. The punishment is uncertain – and the timing may be delayed until after the elections to the European Parliament – but the episode is a reminder that the single currency, as much as the migration crisis, remains a powder keg beneath Europe.

When those elections are held, next May, the consequences of the migration crisis and the single currency are expected to sweep more populists to Brussels than ever before. But the ludicrous Spitzenkandidat process, in which the lead candidate of the largest party in the European Parliament elections becomes Commission president, will almost certainly hand the job to one of the same old federalist suspects: a German MEP named Manfred Weber.

As Weber once said, European integration is “not negotiable for us”. This is the truth that Remainers demanding a second referendum deny. EU membership always required the surrender of national sovereignty, and the motors of integration will keep on firing. There is no sovereignty case for remaining in the EU after all: Brexit is the only way to take back control.