The Conservative Party used to have a reputation for pragmatism – and for being sceptical of rigid ideologies. Watching the Brexit fanaticism of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, you could have been fooled for thinking this is no longer part of its DNA.
But the pragmatists are now fighting back. More and more patriotic Tories are coming out in favour of a People’s Vote as the party gathers for its annual conference in Birmingham.
Many are influenced by “process of elimination” thinking. The Chequers proposal being pushed by the prime minister is dead. The “Canada” scheme being peddled by Johnson would damage the economy and tear the country apart by creating a sea border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Crashing out with no deal at all, which Johnson would be happy with if he can’t get Canada, would be crazy. The only sane option left is to ask people if they still want Brexit.
Dominic Grieve has just written a brilliant column for the Sunday Telegraph, making the Conservative case for a new vote with arguments worthy of Edmund Burke. Meanwhile, John Major, a man who exudes pragmatism and good sense, gave unequivocal support for a new vote on Friday. The former prime minister said Brexiters presented a “fantasy case” in the referendum and “almost nothing that was said to be the case has turned out to be the case”.
Heidi Allen also came out for a new vote yesterday. The South Cambridgeshire MP’s support comes hard on the heels of Amber Rudd’s statement that a People’s Vote is “absolutely” preferable to quitting with no deal. They join Anna Soubry, Justine Greening and Sarah Wollaston – all strong Tory women.
Why, one might ask, are women more prominent in the campaign for a People’s Vote than in the male-dominated hard Brexit camp? Could it be that women tend to be more pragmatic? Is it because women, in general, have swung more rapidly against Brexit than men – with 58% now wanting a final say on the deal.
Demand a vote on the Brexit deal
Click here to find out morePolite rebellion by true conservatives
We are witnessing what Grieve calls a “polite rebellion” by pragmatic Tories. They may not make as much noise as Johnson and Rees-Mogg. But they have greater claim to call themselves conservatives.
Among other things, they are worried about how Brexit is damaging the economy – and the Conservatives’ reputation for economic competence.
The public purse has already been hit by £500 million a week – dwarfing Brexiters’ fake promise of £350 million a week for the NHS – according to new research by the Centre for European Reform. The economy is 2.5% smaller than it would otherwise be – and that’s before Brexit has even happened.
The head of the CBI has revealed that the boss of one UK-based carmaker has been flown by private jet to meet President Emmanuel Macron, in an attempt to persuade the company to move manufacturing to France after Brexit.
Business is turning against Brexit and in favour of a People’s Vote, according to a survey of 1,000 businesspeople for the People’s Vote campaign by YouGov. Only 26% think the Tories are pursuing business-friendly policies on Brexit. Almost three-quarters think we are heading for a bad deal; and they back a new public vote by 57% to 43%.
Grieve writes:
“It is now clear that there is a significant group of Conservative MPs who think that a People’s Vote – a vote on the final form Brexit will take, is absolutely indispensable for the future wellbeing of our country. The fact that this view is now shared by most of the parliamentary Labour Party and almost all the other opposition parties, demonstrates that the possibilities of a consensus on process is available that can lead to a far less divisive outcome than the one that threatens to engulf us.”
Grieve hopes Theresa May herself will come to see the wisdom of doing this. If she doesn’t, it is looking increasingly likely that there will be sufficient MPs in Parliament to force her to.
Edited by Luke Lythgoe
Grieve’s statement above, that a people’s vote should be merely on the form that Brexit takes, is worrying, if he actually means that. The turnout would be low as many if not most Remainers would not bother to vote. If I voted at all, I would write REMAIN on the ballot paper
John,
Peace.
Read the whole Grieve piece. It ends with:
“I would, of course argue that we need to change our national position. We should choose to return to our union with twenty seven like minded European partners, whose values we share from centuries of interconnection and whose futures are intimately bound up with our own”
If he has his ways, Remain will be on the ballot.
It is imperative that such a vote includes an option of remaining as a full member of the EU and also that any such people’s vote is properly regulated and the people properly and fairly informed about the issues involved. We don’t want a repeat of the 2016 one where the leavers lied with impunity.
I absolutely agree with John King. The option to remain must be part of any further vote, if we hav such a vote. I worry about this though. If voters had a choice between a deal (good or bad) concocted by the Prime Minister, or no deal, or remaining, the votes could be split 3 ways with an even less decisive result than the last one. I have not joined the campaign for a new vote. There is no guarante that common snse would prevail second time around. If a second vote resulted in a small majority for remain (similar in size to the leave majority in 2016) this would not really be satisfactory and the leavers would continue to agitate.
Parliament needs to “take back control” and sort this out for us.
It will be essential to make it easy to vote both in the location of voting stations and opening hours. Free taxis for the elderly and disabled might be a good idea. Also care must be taken to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised or misled or misdirected regards location and opening hours. There may be dirty tricks brought to play by the desperate and after the deeds are done they cannot be easily undone. It will be difficult to reuse the lies that misled voters the last time but who knows what new ones might get dreamed up by the motivated?
There is no problem in holding a multiple question referendum. Just use an Alternative Vote so that people can rank their preferences.
This is far more respectful of the voter and we will know (a) exactly what is the public view with no alliances or tactical voting to skew the data and (b) that the outcome will be ‘acceptable’ to at least 50%, even if it isn’t their first preference.
If there is indeed another vote, the Remain side need to mobilise voters in the same way that Leave did in the 2016 referendum. Research shows that the vast majority of people who did not vote, want to remain. This makes the marginal Leave victory even more of a travesty, and not a true representation of democracy.
The decision to leave vote was an absolute fiasco…… such a tiny majority voting to leave should not have been allowed for such a major issue! Simples!
Hopefully the public now have a better understanding of reality and will vote remain.
The devil is always in the detail!
For the referendum to be democratically respectable and comply with the UK’s “constitutional requirements” as a definitive mandatory plebescite it must conform to the EU acquis which is currently the law of the land.
Not least, this would require that all affected citizens and arguably all resident EU citizens are included in the voting electoral roll. Most essentially, the long-promised correction of the aberration whereby expat UK citizens are excluded must be put into effect, and arguably also the 16 to 18 year old demographic which will be most affected for the longest time should be included.
Given the enormous magnitude of the constitutional upheaval and the massive prospective loss of human, social, and civil rights implied by secession from the EU, a respectable threshhold quorum must be set for any major change to the current status quo by which the UK is a full member of the EU. There are many models in other democratic countries, e.g. 60~65% of turnout of not less than 40% of the electorate, or 50% + 1 vote of the entire electorate etc.
A result based on a simple majority of turnout even if this is as low as one in three of the electorate is about as undemocratic as it gets and is totally unacceptable.
The questions on the ballot paper should be the simplest part:
Do you wish for the country to leave the EU on the terms proposed by the government?,
or
Do you wish for the UK to remain a full member of the EU?
Just read that Hunt said if the UK is backed into a corner by an uncompromising EU ‘We will fight!’. Is he living in the land of Nod along with May and all the other rabid Brexiters? It was a bit frightening to also read that he was speaking as someone with his eye on the PM’s seat. Would this be his reward for trashing the NHS and opening the door (further) to privatisation? What on earth are these people thinking? Dominic Grieve is an acceptable face of the Tory party but the rest of them are so far off the deep end it is surreal.
Scotland in any future vote will include 16, 17 & 18yr olds to vote.(After all, it is their future we are voting for) EU nationals in Scotland will vote & Scottish citizens in EU will have a postal vote. I doubt Westminster will allow this in England!
2 choices…
1. Leave EU without a deal
2. Remain a full member of EU