There is a Tory argument for a second Brexit vote

Theresa May’s government has perfected the art of negotiation by capitulation. Two years after the Brexit referendum, the sequence - bold demands, blunt rejection, and humiliating retreat - is dismally familiar. There is nothing to suppose the dynamics of the end-game will be any different. The prime minister wants a deal - and Britain desperately needs one - so it will be on others’ terms.

The result will be a Brexit that satisfies no one. Ministers can close their eyes, shrug their shoulders and stumble onwards. Everyone else should know the destination is a boulder-strewn no man’s land - an “out-but-in” Brexit that leaves Britain weaker, poorer and marginalised. Among the valiant souls in Whitehall tasked with negotiating, the distance between despair and resignation has shortened almost to nothing.

There is one other option. Britain could stop and think again.

The lies of the Leave campaign have been exposed. Turkey is not joining the EU; the extra £350m a week for the NHS was a cynical deception; instead of recouping a dividend, Britain must pay a hefty Brexit bill; membership of a free trade area stretching from Iceland to Russia was a fiction; so too were promises of income and corporation tax cuts and 14 new nuclear submarines. The reality is slower growth, weak investment and cuts in living standards. Then there is the foul aftertaste of the anti-migrant campaign waged by cabinet Brexiters Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

Erdogan re-election threatens further instability in Middle East

---

Kathy Sheridan: Varadkar deserves our respect even if he is a man

---

Martyn Turner

---

World View: Trade deficits with China are not the real threat

---

On its own, the Brexiters’ false prospectus offers compelling cause for the country to reconsider whether to press on regardless. Couple the mendacity with the peerless incompetence and factionalism that are the hallmark of the government and the case for second thoughts is overwhelming.

Voters were asked whether they wanted to leave the EU. Deciding to leave, they offered no instruction as to the future relationship with the EU27. The single market, the customs union, the European Court of Justice, free movement of labour - none of these appeared on the ballot paper. The legislation made it plain that the referendum was consultative. In so far as voters sent a signal it was the closeness of the result: 52-48 per cent. This was not a nation looking to rerun the second World War.

Mr Johnson pretends otherwise. When not heaping praise on US president Donald Trump, the foreign secretary has shared his views on the Brexit impact on jobs and investment. “Fuck business,” he says. Mr Johnson goes to bed each night dreaming he is Winston Churchill to Mrs May’s Neville Chamberlain. No, we are not supposed to laugh. Nothing must obstruct his fantastical quest for the keys to No 10.

At this point, Brexit ideologues invoke something called “the will of the people”. We may not know what the people intended, but the result is inviolate. To suggest otherwise is an abrogation of democracy. This is tosh. Democracy confers on the people the right to change their minds. That is the point. If it were otherwise, there would have been no referendum in 2016. The matter would have been settled in 1975.

Ah, some say, but a second vote would be too “divisive”. This flimsy proposition collides with an unfortunate fact. Britain is already hopelessly, well, divided. Between the nations of the UK - England (though not London) and Wales backed leave, Scotland and Northern Ireland remain; between the nostalgia of elderly leavers and the instinctive Europeanism of young remainers; between bustling big cities and forgotten provincial towns; between graduates and those left behind by the education system. The fractures are deep. Wrenched out of Europe, Scotland will not long stay shackled to English nationalism.

The referendum promises to bend out of shape parliamentary democracy. For Britain actually to leave the EU requires another House of Commons vote. Yet a large majority of MPs believe this will harm the nation’s security and prosperity. So when they are presented with a final decision on whatever ramshackle deal is on offer, these MPs are expected knowingly to throw overboard what they believe to be the national interest.

Hold this thought. Politicians elected to safeguard the interests of the nation will feel compelled - some by loyalty to party, others through fear or weakness - to discard conscience in favour of what they believe to be a damaging Brexit. What could be more corrupting of democracy than a chamber of elected politicians trampling on their own judgment of what is best for Britain?

Tories should understand this more than most. They revere Edmund Burke as the father of modern Conservatism. He spoke eloquently about the solemn and overriding duty of members of parliament. “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Churchill took the cue: “The first duty of a member of parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgment is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain.”

The first referendum cannot be rerun; and it is too late for parliament alone to undo the damage. But once an agreement is reached, MPs must surely show themselves at least half-true to conscience and duty by offering voters the honest choice they were denied in 2016 - between EU membership and the terms on offer from the bloc if Britain leaves.

Philip Stephens is a columnist with The Financial Times

- Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2018