The Economist

The EconomistJuly 21 st 2018 43

For dailyanalysis and debateonBritainvisit

Economist.com/britain

1

S

INCE the vote to leave the European Un-

ion in June 2016  the more optimistic

among those on the losing side have been

lobbying for a rematch. Some argue for a

re-run on the basis that Brexiteers lied dur-

ing the campaign and broke election law

(on July 1 7th the Electoral Commission

fined the official Vote Leave campaign

£ 61  000  or $ 80  000  for deliberately ex-

ceeding spending limits). Others say the

public deserves a chance to vote on the fi-

nal deal which will bearlittle resemblance

to the glittering one they were promised.

Yet the idea ofa second vote has never tak-

en off. Polls have shifted only slightly in fa-

vourofremaining and there is no great en-

thusiasm for another plebiscite which

would be the fourth nationwide vote in as

manyyears.

But the idea of revisiting the referen-

dum is back in play. By law Theresa May’s

governmentcannot sign a Brexit deal with-

out MPs’ approval. And in the past couple

of weeks it has begun to look as if Parlia-

ment will reject any deal. The Labour op-

position has set six tests for the agreement

which lookdesigned to be unpassable. The

Conservative Party meanwhile is in a re-

bellious mood. This week hardline Tory

Brexiteers forced the government to

toughen its approach to customs before a

faction of Tory Remainers forced it to soft-

deal that would be its subject. Labour says

a referendum is “not its policy” and that

MPs should sort out the mess. Butit has left

the door ajar: “To take [a second referen-

dum] off the table completely when there

might be a set of circumstances where Par-

liament cannot deliver a meaningful vote

would be a mistake” Tom Watson La-

bour’s deputy leader said on July 15 th. The

Scottish Nationalists would not oppose a

second referendum; the Liberal Democrats

would vote for one (provided theyremem-

bered to show up as their leader failed to

do ata vital Brexitvote thisweek). Mrs May

has ruled out the idea—but of course two

years ago she ruled out a snap election.

There would be little time to organise a

new plebiscite. It took seven months to

pass the bill for the original referendum.

That process could be speeded up espe-

cially now that Britain has a “here’s one I

made earlier” template for such a vote ar-

gues Eloise Todd of Best for Britain which

wants a second referendum. But it would

almost certainly be necessary for Britain to

ask the EU for more time. It would proba-

bly agree believes Charles Grant of the

Centre for European Reform a think-tank

though it would hope to resolve matters

before elections to the European Parlia-

ment at the end ofMay.

If all this could be done in time what

would be the question on the ballot? Brit-

ain has never had a multiple-choice refer-

endum of the sort that Ms Greening sug-

gests though they are not unknown

internationally. Finns were asked in 1931 if

they wanted to scrap prohibition main-

tain it or remove it only for weak drinks

(they overwhelmingly chose to abolish it).

In 1977 Australians opted for “Advance Aus-

tralia Fair” as their national song from a

en its policy on medical regulation. More

defeats were avoided by as few as three

votes. It is hard to imagine MPs agreeing to

the unappealingdeal thatMrsMayis likely

to bring back from Brussels later this year.

And iftheydon’t Britain could crash out of

the EUon March 29 th with no deal at all.

Many in Westminster therefore won-

der if the only way to break the deadlock

may be to send the matter backto the peo-

ple. One way would be with yet another

election. Tory whips reportedly told their

MPs that the government would call one

over the summer if they defied it on key

parts ofits Brexit plan. But would Mrs May

election-flunker extraordinaire risk it?

Polls put Labour narrowly ahead ofthe To-

ries. In anycase a narrowvictoryfor either

party could leave Parliament in the same

stalemate since Labour is also divided

overthe best approach to Brexit.

So a second referendum is being pro-

posed as a way to get a clear answer. On

July 16 th Justine Greening one of Mrs

May’s former cabinet ministers proposed

avote with three options: stayin the EU; ac-

cept the deal that Mrs May agrees on with

Brussels; orleave with no deal.

There are formidable obstacles to such

a vote. Parliament would have to legislate

for the referendum which might be tricky

ifthat same Parliament is against the Brexit

Another vote on Brexit

Here we go again?

The prospect ofparliamentarydeadlockhas revived talkofa second referendum

Britain

Also in this section

44 UKIP bounces back

Bagehot is away