Thread by @JolyonMaugham

We are horribly divided. HM Government, and her Opposition, have lost the consent of the electorate. The Withdrawal Agreement has failed. Our options seem to have narrowed to Revoke and No Deal. What should Theresa May’s successor do? THREAD

I have come to think that a second referendum – posing a binary choice between Revoke and No Deal – is the wrong way forward. We might price in the democratic cost of the referendum but we cannot calculate the democratic cost of the outcome. /1

Neither Revoke nor No Deal has a democratic mandate. Revoke ignores the 2016 majority for Leave but no one voted for No Deal. And these are not just points for constitutionalists – if ignored, their painful consequences will ripple down the generations. /2

We need to build a solution that has a mandate. There needs to be a meaningful process that delivers one. This cannot be short-circuited with the shallow legitimacy of a further Referendum between two flawed outcomes. /3

There has been too much talking by MPs telling people what they voted for. They need instead to listen to what people want. If we peel away the labels of Remainer and Brexiter we may yet discover that there is much that we desire in common. /4

There is such a process. An official Inquiry could be established to determine what model of relationship with the EU, acceptable to the EU, commands the greatest support in the electorate. We could listen to what the people, and the experts, say. /5

If that model was outside the EU we could act accordingly – either rewrite the framework for our future relationship or abandon the withdrawal agreement. If that model was inside the EU we could remain. /6

The Inquiry could happen after revoking Article 50 – with a possible re-trigger – or it could happen without a revocation by asking the EU for more time. The outcome could be franked by a referendum if the Inquiry felt support between the alternatives was finely balanced. /7

Politically, the EU’s interests are best served by a process that delivers a stable mandate for whatever future relationship we choose. Legally, despite what several MPs have claimed, I can see no impediment to this course. /8

The outlook may seem grim. But it need not be grim. We can still turn the clock back to 24 June 2016. We can yet build a popular consensus, an exercise required by a narrow win in an advisory referendum with flawed campaigns.

We can do now what we should have done then. /ENDS