Best for Britain, with the help of former Attorney General Dominic Grieve and some constitutional lawyers, has produced a detailed summary of the unexplored options that might lead to a People's Vote. It is not a delusional wish list but a hard look at what is politically possible and practical. The document, called Roads not yet explored: Routes to a Final Say, is HERE. It claims that in parliament, a second vote has "the most support - and growing at the fastest rate".
First of all, it admits the default position is that we will leave on March 29th unless the government takes some steps in law to stop the process. Parliament cannot avert the disaster directly. This is the starting point.
So, essentially it looks at ways the House could force the government to act. A lot of it is technical, presumably aimed at MPs but one way they suggest is via amendments to the Finance Bill:
"Such an amendment would be one making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain). But if a majority for that amendment does not exist at that time another approach is possible, by uniting those who want a Final Say with those who want to rule out no deal. It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes [income tax and corporation tax] unless either a deal had been approved according to the terms of the existing legislation (namely passing a resolution and an implementation Act) or a referendum had been arranged".
So, essentially it looks at ways the House could force the government to act. A lot of it is technical, presumably aimed at MPs but one way they suggest is via amendments to the Finance Bill:
"Such an amendment would be one making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain). But if a majority for that amendment does not exist at that time another approach is possible, by uniting those who want a Final Say with those who want to rule out no deal. It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes [income tax and corporation tax] unless either a deal had been approved according to the terms of the existing legislation (namely passing a resolution and an implementation Act) or a referendum had been arranged".
This would cause immense problems for the government's finances, so these amendments, if voted through by a majority, would have to be accepted.
The document takes the PM at her word in that she said on 14th November the options are her deal, no deal or no Brexit. Since the first option is unlikely to pass through the House in January, this leaves the two other options, both of them quite extreme positions for the opposing sides. None command a majority although no Brexit would probably win if MPs were given a secret vote.
Given the deadlock it is hard to see an argument against another vote.
On the same day as Better for Britain published the ideas, a letter appeared in the East London and West Essex Guardian (HERE) from an Andrew Smith in reply to an earlier letter from a Paul Olford, obviously calling for a second vote. Mr Smith attacked the notion as farcical:
"Paul’s idea that the people would vote on the various alternative treaty wordings is farcical - that is why we have a representative democracy".
Given the deadlock it is hard to see an argument against another vote.
On the same day as Better for Britain published the ideas, a letter appeared in the East London and West Essex Guardian (HERE) from an Andrew Smith in reply to an earlier letter from a Paul Olford, obviously calling for a second vote. Mr Smith attacked the notion as farcical:
"Paul’s idea that the people would vote on the various alternative treaty wordings is farcical - that is why we have a representative democracy".
This is the problem isn't it? We do have representative democracy but leavers argue that in the 2016 referendum, MPs gave the Brexit decision to the people and they voted to leave. Now that MPs can't actually agree what leaving actually means with an impasse in parliament what do they propose?
Immediately after the 2016 Referendum, The Washington Post had an article with the title: The British people have spoken. But what exactly did they say?
More than two years later it has become clear, we don't actually know what they said precisely enough to carry out the will of the people. In these circumstances, and with far more information to hand, I see no alternative but to ask them to clarify their instructions, and if necessary, set a new goal for politicians. This seems blindingly obvious to me.
Brexiteers object only because they fear remain winning a second vote. But if the will of the people is to be done why not?
The Guardian (HERE) is reporting cross-party talks to get the clock stopped and give more time:
"Cross-party talks have been under way for several weeks to ensure the 29
March date is put back – probably until July at the latest – if the
government does not push for a delay itself. It is also understood that
cabinet ministers have discussed the option of a delay with senior
backbench MPs in both the main parties and that Downing Street is
considering scenarios in which a delay might have to be requested from
Brussels".
The report makes clear though that, if granted, the extra time could not be used for more wrangling inside and between the parties in the UK:
The report makes clear though that, if granted, the extra time could not be used for more wrangling inside and between the parties in the UK:
"Brussels has made clear that it would consider putting back the date of
Brexit for a good reason, but has stressed that this could not mean
reopening negotiations. The EU would be willing to allow extra time for a
second referendum to take place".
The options are narrowing and a second vote seems more and more likely.
