A thread on #peoplesvote following the interventions by Sadiq Khan yesterday, and the Observer (here) today.
For reference, I am a remainer. But, I have become concerned about the #peoplesvote campaign, largely because I cannot see how a people's vote will deliver what it seems to promise. There will be a fuller blog next week. 2/
There are big questions about the framing of the question, the timing, and the implementation of the #peoplesvote. Many of those are considered here. 3/
But for now, the politics, with a focus on the Observer story. 4/
I agree with all the comments about the broken state of politics, and the mismanagement of the Brexit process. But can a PV, as the Observer claims, provide a way out of the democratic conundrum? 5/
MPs, says the Observer, will have a choice between TM's deal and no deal. Reasonable Parliamentarians will be obliged to vote for the deal to avert disaster. The Observer predicts a 'blind Brexit' outcome. 6/
It dismisses Labour opposition to TM's deal, claiming that there would be no GE because the Tories and the DUP would not vote for one. And it is sceptical that a better deal could, even with extra time, be found. 7/
So... the solution is said to be a people's vote, so that we can deliver our verdict on the terms of our departure from the EU (well, on a blind Brexit outcome). 8/
There are all manner of problems with this approach. A key point worth remembering is that a PV will only happen if it is endorsed by a majority in Parliament. 9/
Say the Tories and DUP cobble together a deal, agreeing an Irish backstop, and fudging the future relationship declaration. 10/
How likely are they to agree to put that deal to a PV, in which the choice is TM's deal or remain? If the Observer is realistic enough to know that the Tories won't vote for a GE, it is surely realistic enough to know that they won't vote for such a PV. 11/
And how are the Brexiters, who perhaps might have expected TM to come away with a more independent deal, likely to react to a PV? Will they feel that the PV enables their voice to be heard? 12/
And how about fans of a soft (EEA style) Brexit? Can they sensibly be asked to choose between TM's deal and remain? 13/
In short, a lot of the objections to the nature of the choice facing MPs can, and would, be levelled at the PV. The TM deal/no deal choice is, for many, no choice at all. The TM deal/remain choice will, for others, equally be no choice at all. 14/
The reality is that the first part of the story (tweets 6 and 7 above), on the options for Parliament, gets things wrong. While the PV can only present us with stark choices; Parliament can be more nuanced. 15/
Those opposed to TM's plan can present plans of their own. We are seeing the travails of the ERG. We are not seeing anything from Labour. What is their Brexit vision? 16/
Supporting a PV (as Sadiq Khan did yesterday) is, or may be seen to be, a proxy for supporting remain. Far better, if that indeed is the position, to do so, and to do so loudly, seeking to change voters' mind. I argued for that here: blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/08… 17/
When TM's deal (and all this thread is based on the assumption that she does manage to find a deal; that is far from certain) is considered in Parliament, there are a range of options - it is not just TM's deal or no deal. 18/
If the deal is accepted by Parliament, I think that we are stuck with it. But if it is rejected, no deal is not inevitable. It is difficult to see that the Government would survive. There would be desperate attempts to fashion a 'better' deal. 19/
It is reasonable to suppose that both a harder (Canada style) and softer (Norway style) Brexit would have support. An extension of A50 would be likely. 20/
The politics would be 'interesting', and I think not reducible to a PV; either between TM's deal or remain; or no deal or remain. 21/
Now... if anyone has got this far and in particular if you disagree, I would be really interested in hearing from you. I can't see any circumstances in which Parl would be a deal to a PV. But perhaps others can? 22/22
