U-turns are possible on the road to hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/12/u-turns-are-possible-on-the-road-to-hard-brexit

Version 0 of 1.

Jonathan Freedland is right that the referendum result has to be honoured (Who speaks for the 48% as we lurch to extreme Brexit?, 8 October). That does not mean, however, that it is sacrosanct, any more than the result of a general election. Those who argue that it is undemocratic to seek its reversal if circumstances have changed ignore the fact that it is an essential part of democracy that no decision should ever be irreversible.

As Freedland states, leavers did not vote for the most extreme rupture of our relations with the EU that will cause profound damage to our economy. But we are now heading inexorably towards a hard Brexit, since the government has made immigration control of our borders its top priority, which is incompatible with staying in the single market or the customs union.

When this realisation sinks in – the decline in the value of the pound shows it is already happening – domestic and foreign investment will decline, a flood of companies will emigrate, London will probably cease to be the financial centre of the EU and we are likely to face a severe, self-inflicted Brexit recession. In time that is likely to cause a major change in public opinion, as many voters for leave will feel they were conned. This change will fully justify a rerun of the referendum, after the conclusion of the negotiations, before our departure becomes inevitable.

It is widely assumed that once we trigger article 50 and announce our intention to leave, this sets in motion an irreversible process. However, this assumption does not appear to be legally correct. In an article for the Financial Times, Jean-Claude Piris, former director general of the legal service of the Council of the European Union, has pointed out that invoking article 50 and declaring “an intention” to leave is a “unilateral act that does not depend on what other members think or do” and that “In law, the word ‘intention’ cannot be interpreted as a final and irreversible decision”. Nothing in article 50, he wrote, would prevent the UK, in conformity with its constitutional requirements, from withdrawing its unilaterally declared “intention”.

Those who voted remain are therefore perfectly entitled, legally and democratically, to do everything possible to avoid a disastrous future for this country. Indeed some of us regard this as our duty.Dick TaverneLiberal Democrat, House of Lords

• One of the most worrying aspects of the Brexit debate is theconstant attempts by the Brexiteers to deny the legitimacy of debate following the referendum: “the people have spoken” is their sole refrain whenever a contrary voice is heard. Yet scrutiny, challenge and debate are not optional extras in a democracy, they are the very essence. It is beyond ironic that those who argued so vehemently for parliamentary sovereignty should resort to the royal prerogative and so deny the very democracy they claim to have fought for. Roy BoffySutton Coldfield

• Just suppose that the referendum had produced exactly the opposite result, with just over half of those who voted choosing to stay in the EU. Would the government have been entitled to go for hard remain and join the euro and sign up for the Schengen agreement? And, if so, would the leavers have accepted that the British people had made their decision and there was nothing more to be said?Kath AspinwallHathersage, Derbyshire

• The prime minister (May quick to reject cross-party calls for Commons vote on the single market, 10 October) believes that the government can proceed with Brexit under the royal prerogative without the authority of parliament. Brexit will inevitably involve the repeal of the European Communities Act. Only parliament can repeal an act of parliament. Any other view would be a constitutional nonsense.

The prime minister might do well to recall that over 300 years ago we fought a civil war on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, and at least one monarch lost his head as a consequence.Derek GambellBromley, Kent

• Your coverage of Theresa May’s conference speech (‘Change must come’: May consigns Cameron to history, 6 October) omitted one of the most intriguing remarks that she made: that “it is time to reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right”.

The libertarian right, unlike the socialist left, is strongly entrenched within Mrs May’s own party. Its disciples include Liam Fox and David Davis, as well as Nigel Lawson, who tells us that Brexit offers the chance to complete his interpretation of the Thatcher revolution, by shrinking taxation, regulation and the state as a whole. The Taxpayers’ Alliance, with its close links to the Republican right in Washington and the leadership of the leave campaign, propounds libertarian doctrines; so does the Institute of Economic Affairs. Both are regularly and admiringly quoted in the rightwing press.

If our new prime minister really intends to take on the ideologues within her own party, then it will not only be the Labour party which will be faction-ridden over the next few years. Of course, she may back down before their passionate pressure; but if so, the social and industrial agenda that she has just set out will be a shell. Those of us on the centre left, from Liberal Democrats to Labour social democrats, should exert as much passionate pressure on the prime minister from the other side not to slip away from the promises she has just made in order to hold her divided party together.William WallaceLiberal Democrat, House of Lords

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com