MPs face some exceptionally difficult decisions today. There are no easy options: they're weighing up different types of harm, based on uncertain calculations for the future, amidst rising public fury. If I were an MP I'd back the Letwin Amendt & a referendum. Here's why.[THREAD]
1. The case against Johnson's Deal is very strong. It puts us on course for a much harder Brexit than anyone envisaged in 2016. All serious economic projections suggest a substantial hit to GDP, household income and the public finances - and we all know who will bear the brunt.
2. The Deal is being sold on a lie: that it "gets Brexit done". In fact, it simply creates a new cliff edge at the end of 2020, when we will face the whole Deal/No Deal scenario again. If FTA negotiations founder, we'll have until July to request an extension: another cliff edge.
3. Industry has had less than 48 hours to respond, but the alarm has already been sounded by the CBI, Food & Drink Council, car makers, airlines, fishing groups & manufacturers' organisations. Even the most sympathetic are requesting clarification. It would be wise to supply it.
4. The Deal buys us a few months respite from Brexit & probably a temporary economic uplift. Sterling will pick up, some investment will unblock & customs arrangements won't change for a year. We'll be told the "doomsters" were wrong - & BJ will fight an election on that basis.
5. But we will have bought an illusion. Within months we'll be arguing about the next stage. We'll be back on the conveyer belt to "No Deal" when the transition ends. Business will be plunged back into uncertainty &the public will be furious that we've not, after all, "moved on".
6. The idea we should rush this through in 48 hours, to meet an artificial political deadline, is insane. The revised Deal covers c.600 pages. Even industry groups are uncertain what it means for them in practice. Any rational country would want to know what it is signing up to.
7. But for the same reason, we shouldn't just bin this. The patience of the wider public is at breaking point. Voters are entitled to expect MPs who oppose "No Deal" to consider any *actual* Deal very carefully before they reject it - and this is the only Deal currently on offer.
8. A democracy can change its mind, but that has to be done through a due democratic process: a GE or referendum. Unless and until that happens (& it's in Parliament's hands to make it happen) MPs should engage in good faith with any serious attempt to carry out the 2016 result.
9. The Letwin Amendment does this. First, it ensures a "good faith" basis for the debate. It ensures that, if MPs vote for the Deal - so extinguishing the Benn Act - it cannot then be dropped for a No Deal Brexit. That is a legitimate safeguard and, regrettably, a necessary one.
10. Second, it gives the House time to study the Deal properly. It makes time for industry to consider it in detail and report back on the implications. It allows us to make an informed decision, rather than voting in the dark. That process should be time-limited: say 2-3 weeks.
11. At the end of that period, we need to come to a decision. We now know what Brexit means for the man who led the Leave campaign in 2016. We have a Deal backed by nearly every Leaver in Parliament. There can be no serious claim that this is "not Brexit". So it's time to decide.
12. Parliament should not, in my view, simply reject the Deal, or attempt yet more negotiations under someone else. Instead, it should ask the public whether, after full consideration of what's on offer, it wants the terms negotiated by Boris Johnson or the terms we now enjoy.
13. A referendum on a Deal backed by Boris Johnson could not be dismissed as a Remainer "fix". It would allow the public - not "elites", not "the establishment", but the public - to test the Brexit negotiated by Boris Johnson against the Brexit promised by Boris Johnson in 2016.
14. It's not a perfect solution: a referendum would be angry, polarising and would further extend the Brexit agony. But we're already angry, we're already polarised & the Deal offers only the pretence of closure, ahead of years more argument. But it does three things of value.
15. It shifts the debate from Brexit in the abstract to a specific Brexit Deal. It ends the conflict between direct democracy & parliamentary democracy. And, crucially, it allows us to think before we act, rather than rushing into the unknown through exhaustion and ennui. [END]
