I note that some MPs like Phillip Lee (HERE) are suggesting that if the PM fails to get parliament to agree to her deal, she must put it to the country in a referendum. This is perhaps the only way she might be able to force MPs to approve the deal but it will take months to organise and no guarantee that even with the impetus of a second referendum behind it, her deal would get approved.
But let us consider for a moment that the PM, in the next few weeks, begins to see that a second referendum is the only way out of the parliamentary maze for Brexit. There is after all a finely balanced House, with a blocking minority for all potential deals - except perhaps for remaining in the EU. Laura Kuenssberg at the BBC said this morning (HERE):
"Those who were pushing to force her out on Wednesday simply won't give up. Just watch their resistance as, and when, a modified compromise with the EU actually makes it to a Commons vote".
So, we can I think safely assume that the deal, modified or not, will never be ratified by the present parliament. First of all, to give time for a referendum the EU would have to be involved because Article 50 would need to be delayed by a few months. Would Brussels even agree to a referendum where one of the possible outcomes was leaving without a deal? I personally would doubt it.
No deal is the default option at the moment which is making governments and businesses across Europe very nervous. If another referendum had the same outcome, what would have been achieved except for delaying the catastrophe for a few more months? And I don't think any British government that wanted to continue in office, would like to see it either.
And defining what no deal actually means would also be impossible - is it a cliff edge, a managed no deal, a string of mini deals? - any second referendum would have the potential to be just as uncertain as the first. No, let us assume no deal is not on the ballot paper because it simply could not be there.
I can't see the ultra precise EU leaving anything to chance. I think they would ask that the referendum be about the deal as already agreed or remaining a member of the EU.
Both outcomes would have the advantage of being relatively clearly defined. In the event her deal wins, there is a clear path to a transition period where our future relationship, already outlined in the political declaration, can be negotiated in detail, even if it takes a few years.
I know this is making a lot of assumptions and none of this may happen, but if I'm right, the two options would be take the deal or stay in. And if so, this should be relatively easy for remainers to argue that if we are to go for a deal so close to membership, we might as well be a member. Dominic Raab has already said the deal is worse than staying in.
Being a rule maker is better than being a rule taker.
