Advertisement

Dominic Grieve: The PM must heed the million marchers and put a brake on Brexit

The rapidity of events over recent days reflects a deepening political crisis. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to put the Brexit deal she has negotiated to the House of Commons as she believes it will be rejected yet again. She has gone to Brussels and secured only a very limited extension to Article 50, displacing the cliff edge to no-deal chaos by only a fortnight.

There are clear signs that the EU no longer believes that her deal is deliverable but does not want to be seen to be pushing the UK into no deal against its wishes. The Commons for its part has indicated by a strong majority that a no-deal Brexit must be avoided.

To this, the past 24 hours have added rumours of a coup against Mrs May by members of her own Cabinet. But there is clearly no consensus among them as to who should replace her or of what should be done next. In this vacuum of Government decision-making it is possible that the Commons will vote today to seize control of the House of Commons order paper on Wednesday, so as to start debating alternative options to the PM’s deal whether the Government wishes it or not.

But it does not follow that this will immediately identify where a majority lies for an achievable outcome for Brexit. Indeed, in the short term it is perfectly possible that no majority for any course of action will emerge.

Meanwhile, more than a million marchers turned out in London on Saturday to ask for a People’s Vote on any final deal negotiated and to ask to be given the option to vote to Remain in the EU as an alternative. More than five million people have signed an online petition to Parliament to revoke Article 50, so great is their concern as to the consequences of leaving. But these actions have been ignored or dismissed by many in the Commons on the grounds that the decision to leave in 2016 is set in stone and is therefore irreversible.

Dominic Grieve (Matt Writtle)
Dominic Grieve (Matt Writtle)

It is this perverse impact of the 2016 referendum that is doing more to undermine democracy in this country at present than anything else. For democracy to function properly it requires accepting the absolute right of individuals and groups to campaign against decisions previously taken by majorities and to seek to change them. And it also requires all who participate in the democratic process to engage with those with whom they disagree, so that they can both understand the opposite point of view and seek to moderate it by argument.

While this can sometimes look a bit chaotic, it has enabled us in our modern history to build acceptance for change while avoiding making disastrous mistakes.

By refusing to consider going back to the public, and trying to close down the possibility of a People’s Vote, the Prime Minister and like-minded parliamentary colleagues are doing our country a grave disservice. They are contributing to the political paralysis which they condemn because it takes off the table the one proposal that could give clarity to what the public want and which — whatever our personal views on Brexit — we have a commitment to try to implement.

I have no doubt that those who campaigned for and voted leave in 2016 did so with honourable motives. But nearly three years on it is impossible to say that the hopes they articulated are being fulfilled. The free-trade deals with third countries have vanished. The “liberation” from EU law will be replaced by at least 20 months of subservience to it when we go into transition. The presence of the Northern Ireland backstop as a requirement of leaving has highlighted the reality that treaty obligations with Ireland — separate from the EU — limit our ability to adopt different regulatory frameworks or tariffs from the EU, a subject about which next to nothing was said in the referendum.

"Responsible government must mean pausing the process and asking the public what it now wants"

It is these problems which have led to both my ERG colleagues denouncing the PM’s deal and to many others concluding it offers our country a poor future. The public agrees — only 14 per cent consider it a good outcome.

Many parliamentary colleagues are searching for alternatives. There are numerous ideas being advanced as to how the agreement might be changed to make it better or different. A Norway- style relationship or a customs union or Common Market 2.0 are being promoted. They may be worth examining but all have drawbacks and constitute an even greater continuation of EU influence over our lives than the deal on offer. They would need time to work up and negotiate if we are to turn them into a new and much more tightly drafted political declaration. It is by no means clear if the EU will accept some of them.

Others are promoting the idea that changing our Prime Minister will miraculously transform the situation. But while her insistence on pushing on with her deal and refusing to contemplate alternatives has not helped promote a solution, there is nothing to suggest another politician will do better unless attitudes to the referendum result change.

The million marchers were making a point that cannot be ignored any longer. They and the five million petitioners are expressing their democratic right to object to a Brexit deal that offers nothing but short-term dependence and long-term uncertainty. They are rejecting the chaos of a no-deal Brexit which the Prime Minister has also indicated is unacceptable. Therefore responsible government must mean pausing the process and asking the public what it now wants and if it still wishes to leave. We can combine this with the development and presentation of any deliverable alternatives.

Our first task this week must therefore be to secure the Article 50 extension we need to reset our debate and to break out at last from the disastrous straitjacket that refusing a public vote on any deal has imposed on us.