POINT OF ORDER
EARLIER this year I dismissed the idea of a second Brexit referendum, which some people were proposing at the time.
I argued that it would not actually solve anything and could lead to a ‘neverendum’, with the losing side demanding a third vote, then a fourth, and so on.
Instead, I suggested that the best way out of the Brexit impasse would be for Theresa May to come up with a deal that satisfied as many people as possible – it seemed pretty clear that it would be impossible to please everyone.
But six months later, the hope of a Brexit compromise seems as far away as ever. To quote the Prime Minister, “Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.”
The only difference now is that time has all but run out, with Brexit currently due to happen automatically, deal or no deal, on March 29.
So, having tried everything else, is it time to give a second referendum, the socalled People’s Vote, another look?
Mrs May’s draft withdrawal agreement, which has been backed by EU leaders, will not get parliamentary approval in its current form. MPS are guaranteed a ‘meaningful vote’ on the final deal under the EU Withdrawal Act.
The Prime Minister, therefore, has been trying to get further assurances from the EU over the temporary nature of the Irish backstop – a key sticking point – in the perhaps vain hope that this will be enough to satisfy MPS.
As things stand, it does not seem like Mrs May will be able to secure those assurances, with the EU unwilling to reopen negotiations.
But it gets worse. Not only is there no parliamentary majority in favour of Mrs May’s deal, there is no majority for any other deal either. And there is certainly no majority in the Commons for a potentially disastrous no-deal Brexit, although this is currently the default outcome awaiting us on March 29, unless positive action is taken to avert it.
A growing number of people are saying that the only way out of this deadlock is to put the question back to the people in a referendum.
One argument in favour of this is that whatever outcome it led to would have a clear democractic mandate – meaning there would be no need for MPS, journalists and other pundits to divine what sort of Brexit people were actually voting for back in 2016. (If you need reminding, the referendum ballot paper made no mention of customs unions, single markets, Irish backstops, free movement and the ECJ, meaning it’s impossible for anyone to say with certainty what voters’ views on those issues were – anyone who says differently is lying.)
But there are still major problems with a second referendum – chief among them the issue of what question to ask. If people do not approve of Mrs May’s deal, should the alternative be a no-deal Brexit? Or should Remain be an option as well?
A three-option referendum brings its own complications, especially when the public appears as divided on the issue as it is on Brexit. Should voters be asked to rank the three choices in order of preference? If so, there are various ranked choice voting systems which can be used, which can potentially give different outcomes for the same votes.
Using an unfamiliar voting system in order to accommodate three or more options could weaken the legitimacy of the result. But people will also cry foul if any option is excluded from the ballot.
And then there is the belief among many Brexit supporters that any second referendum is simply an attempt to overturn the result of the first referendum, a conspiracy to deny the ‘will of the people’.
Another referendum would also take time, which means the March 29 deadline would have to be extended. Some people would see such a delay as a betrayal in itself.
All these are legitimate arguments against holding a second referendum, and I still think it is unlikely to happen. But I genuinely can’t see another way out of the current mess. If you do, I’d love to hear it. Picture: Steve Bould
‘
’