This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/parliament-brexit-options-labour

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
If we are at a Brexit stalemate, we need a new parliament If this is Brexit stalemate, only an election will truly resolve it
(about 9 hours later)
“Decent people, hopeful of a better country, conned by a bunch of chancers, tricksters, charlatans and cowards.” Decent people, hopeful of a better country, conned by a bunch of chancers, tricksters, charlatans and cowards.” It is hard to disagree with that despairing verdict from the former Tory minister and ardent remainer Ben Gummer, whatever the outcome of the forthcoming police investigation into Vote Leave’s spending and reporting practices before and after the EU referendum. This is not to downplay the significance of the Electoral Commission’s finding that the official leave campaign bent the rules by channelling cash into a small campaign run by a young fashion student, with whom it then worked suspiciously closely. But it’s never just been about who spent what. It was always about taking responsibility for the message that money was funding, too.
Whatever the outcome of a police investigation into Vote Leave – which was formally accused by the Electoral Commission yesterday of dodging EU referendum spending limits by channelling cash to a campaign run by a 23-year-old fashion student – it’s hard to disagree with that particular cry of anguish from the former Tory minister (and ardent remainer) Ben Gummer. It’s a bit late now for Michael Gove, who along with the current cabinet ministers Liam Fox and Dominic Raab sat on Vote Leave’s campaign committee, to acknowledge that whipping up fears about imaginary Turkish immigrants flooding Britain may not have been a great idea after all (or, as Gove put it in an interview for the Labour spin doctor Tom Baldwin’s book, he’d have preferred things to have a “slightly different” feel). Some leading liberal leavers – those for whom it genuinely wasn’t about immigration but about lofty notions of sovereignty, who are still willing to make some reasonable compromises – seem to be belatedly realising that their instincts weren’t shared by their new friends, and that they have unleashed something they can’t control. Now some are visibly sidling away from the sinking ship. Shame the rest of us are still trapped in the hold, with the waters rising.
It’s not just about the money. Michael Gove, who sat on Vote Leave’s campaign committee, has now suggested that maybe whipping up fears about imaginary Turkish immigrants flooding Britain was a bad idea after all; or to be precise, that things would have had a “slightly different” feel if it was up to him. Watch the liberal leavers – those for whom it really wasn’t about immigration and who were potentially most open to pragmatic compromises – sidle away from the sinking ship. Just a shame the rest of us are trapped in the hold, with the water rising. For railing against what happened two years ago doesn’t change the reality now. Railing against what happened two years ago doesn’t change the reality now. The soft Brexit deal agreed at Chequers less than a fortnight ago may not be entirely dead, but it has sustained life-threatening injuries. There is an ominously sharper focus to the rebels’ efforts, which may have something to do with the Brexit minister Steve Baker’s resignation and resumption of his role running the rebel whipping operation. Monday’s drama in the Commons suggests they are systematically chipping away at the Irish backstop (the agreement that if a workable solution to the Irish border problem isn’t found before we leave, we basically stay in the customs union until it is), having realised just how much hinges on it. The backstop is the guarantee the EU wanted in return for a transition deal, under which we could leave in March but with two years’ grace to resolve a daunting number of outstanding issues. No backstop suggests no transition. No transition means jumping off a cliff.
The Chequers deal for a soft Brexit agreed less than a fortnight ago may not quite be dead but it’s suffering life-threatening injuries. Monday’s drama in the Commons saw rebel Brexiters systematically targeting the Irish backstop (the agreement that if a workable solution to the Irish border problem isn’t found, we basically stay in the customs union until it is), having evidently realised just how much hinges on it. The backstop is the guarantee the EU wanted in return for us leaving in March with a daunting amount still to resolve, but two years’ transition period in which to resolve it. No backstop suggests no transition. No transition means jumping off a cliff. That prospect in turn has sharpened resolve among Tory remainers, encouraging them to support last night’s vote on whether to stay in the customs union unless some other way of guaranteeing frictionless trade emerges. Parliament is starting to look horribly like a pinball machine, in which Tory leavers and Tory remainers take it in turns to ping a helpless Theresa May one way or the other. If this logjam can’t be broken, then we may move alarmingly fast towards a choice between no deal, no Brexit, or pleading for more time and hoping something turns up.
Those convinced a people’s vote is the answer need to acknowledge that it has taken two years even to begin to understand what happened beneath the bonnet of the last referendum; not just the alleged fiddling of spending limits but Russian attempts to influence it, the gaming of Facebook, and a whole new level of casualness with the facts among leading players.
It is perfectly possible, of course, that none of these things changed the result or that both sides sailed close to the wind at times. But without watertight solutions to those problems, it would be madness to hold another public vote on a complex, emotive and simultaneously very technical issue, only this time organised in more of a hurry. Besides, what would be on the ballot paper?
Decent people, hopeful of a better country, conned by a bunch of chancers, tricksters, charlatans and cowards. https://t.co/fQUsxhXMQ4Decent people, hopeful of a better country, conned by a bunch of chancers, tricksters, charlatans and cowards. https://t.co/fQUsxhXMQ4
That prospect in turn sharpens resolve among Tory remainers, who will seek revenge today by voting for Britain to stay in the customs union unless some other way of guaranteeing frictionless trade emerges. But if they don’t prevail then we could move alarmingly fast from the three choices on offer last week – no deal, no Brexit, or soft Brexit – to a menu of no deal, no Brexit, or beg for more time and hope something turns up. Rerunning the old choice between leave and remain could simply put us back to square one, with no more idea of how to deliver the undeliverable. If it’s a choice between more than two options, the risk is that none will command a majority. A yes-or-no vote on the final deal could work if there actually was a deal. But with the best will in the world, it’s hard to see how the EU can negotiate one when Britain’s position seemingly changes daily and the prime minister no longer seems to be in control of the process.
Those convinced a people’s vote is the answer need to acknowledge that it’s taken two years even to begin understanding what happened beneath the bonnet of the last referendum; not just the alleged fiddling of spending limits but Russian attempts to influence it, the gaming of Facebook, a whole new level of casualness with the facts. The urgent question now is whether there’s any one version of Brexit on which parliament can conceivably, if reluctantly, agree. If there genuinely isn’t, that problem can only ultimately be resolved by a new parliament. A general election in which Labour finally gets off the fence, admits to its own leave voters that the all-gain-no-pain Brexit they were promised during the referendum doesn’t exist in real life, and offers an alternative route, would be an imperfect solution, because a general election is never about just one issue: it’s always going to be clouded by other considerations. But if parliament really is approaching stalemate, a general election feels like the only logical outcome.
It is perfectly possible, of course, that none of these things changed the result and that both sides sailed close to the wind at times. But without watertight solutions to those problems, it would be madness to hold another public vote on a complex, emotive and simultaneously very technical issue only this time organised in more of a hurry. Besides, what would be on the ballot paper? If it’s a choice between more than two options, none is likely to command a majority. A yes-or-no vote on the final deal could work if there actually was a deal, but it’s hard to see how one can be negotiated unless the British prime minister can wrestle back control of her own position. The long, inglorious gamble – that if Labour just sat tight and waited for the Tories to screw it up, it could swoop in and collect the spoils – may, in other words, be close to paying off. Just so long as that doesn’t accidentally pave the way for a disastrous no-deal Brexit costing hundreds of thousands of jobs, of course. This is going to be one extraordinarily long week in politics.
The urgent question now then is whether there’s any one version of Brexit on which parliament can conceivably, if reluctantly, agree. If there genuinely isn’t, that problem can only ultimately be resolved by a new parliament. A general election in which Labour finally gets off the fence, admitting that the Brexit promised during the referendum can’t be delivered and offering a genuinely alternative way out of the impasse, would be the only way out of constitutional gridlock.
Or to put it another way, if parliament genuinely has reached stalemate then the gamble that if Labour sat tight and waited long enough for the Tories to screw it up they could then swoop in and collect the spoils would be close to paying off – just so long as it didn’t accidentally deliver a disastrous no-deal Brexit costing hundreds of thousands of jobs instead. Brace yourselves.
• Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist• Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
BrexitBrexit
First thoughts Opinion
Article 50Article 50
European UnionEuropean Union
Foreign policyForeign policy
ConservativesConservatives
LabourLabour
commentcomment
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content