It is astonishing to reflect that the prime minister’s announcement on Wednesday of her resignation plans was by no means the most important political story of the week. Far from it, in fact. In normal circumstances – of which you may have a dim recollection – Theresa May’s declaration that she “won’t stand in the way” of “a new leadership” once her Brexit deal was approved would have driven all other news to the margins, rocked the markets, gripped the world. But, in these extraordinary times, such a story is just another day at the office.
And rightly so. As significant as the identity of the next Conservative leader undoubtedly is – not least because that person will probably be the next prime minister – it is small potatoes compared with the redefinition of Britain’s relationship with the European Union and the scandalously amateurish process by which that matter is being decided.
True, the two questions are entangled to the extent that May’s successor will have a central role in the next phase of negotiations – assuming, of course, that the Tories remain in office for much longer. But it is a huge mistake to imagine, as many Tories do, that May is the fundamental cause of all their problems, and that the present shambles can be resolved by a simple change of personnel in No 10.
In the mire of speculation about emerging leadership campaigns, cabinet plots and a prospective snap election, it is wise to keep the spotlight firmly focused on the infected mess of Brexit itself. It should be apparent by now that no political messiah is coming to save us all from ourselves.
First, there is Monday’s second series of “indicative votes”, scheduled according to Oliver Letwin’s amendment that has transferred control of Brexit business to the Commons. The first round, last Wednesday, was a dismal embarrassment, in which all eight options were rejected by MPs, acting like 650 toddlers refusing to agree what to have for tea. If England is indeed the mother of parliaments, she had a pretty miserable Mother’s Day this year.
To make amends, MPs now have the chance to conduct a serious quest for consensus on the way forward, and to acknowledge the weight of the responsibility they face. This is not a parlour game, or an exercise in party-political point-scoring, or an opportunity to snigger, pout and heckle like a the executive committee of a failing glee club: it is the most important debate on the nation’s future since the second world war. How it is settled will define the economic, institutional and social destiny of this country for many decades to come.
So it would be nice if the Commons could see its way clear to at least approaching some form of agreement. Only two proposals commanded significant support last week: the motions in favour of, respectively, continued membership of the EU customs union (defeated 272 to 264) and a confirmatory referendum (295 to 268).
There is still, it seems, a measure of confusion in Westminster about what all these constitutional configurations mean. Interviewed by Sophy Ridge on Sky News on Sunday, Emily Thornberry – who could soon be foreign secretary if Labour gets its way – revealed that she did not understand the Irish border backstop and its central feature: namely, that the whole UK would remain in the customs union while it was in operation. Such lapses do not inspire confidence in the capacity of parliamentarians to strike a deal. But this is no time for fatalism.
My own – perhaps quixotic – hope is still that MPs will reach agreement on the version of Brexit that they find least repellent, attach it to a people’s vote, and then force the government’s hand by enshrining the proposal in a private member’s bill. This is the only means of ensuring that the executive is obliged to follow any Brexit plan devised by the Commons. It involves horrendously complex procedures and would necessitate the suspension of certain parliamentary standing orders. But it is achievable.
As the week begins, there is a four-way battle between those who, astoundingly, favour no deal (170 Tory ministers and MPs have written to May, commending this option); the champions of continued membership of the customs union (Labour plus some Tories); May herself, who is trying to bring her deal back to the Commons for a fourth vote; and the growing number of MPs who back a referendum.
This much is true. The case for a public vote is much stronger today than it was in 2016. Three years ago, David Cameron was trying to stave off the threat of Ukip and to manage lingering resentment over his abandoned promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The context in April 2019 is very different, and a textbook instance of the political setting in which a plebiscite is appropriate. There is, barring a breakthrough this week, a parliamentary impasse, a logjam so total that the UK could still conceivably crash out of the EU by default.
And, after such a reckless and haphazard process, there is a strong case for the electorate to be given a final say on its outcome. As the great constitutional authority AV Dicey argued, a referendum is “the best, if not the only possible, check upon ill-considered alterations in the fundamental institutions of the country”.
It seems to me that, if the leave option is as completely marvellous as its champions insist, a final vote on its merits will be a straightforward affair, supplying clear confirmation that they were right all along. Unless, that is, the “bad boys of Brexit” are actually scared of the outcome. But that couldn’t be. Could it?
• Matthew d’Ancona is a Guardan columnist
