The British public deserves to be afforded the same respect as trade union members – which is why we back a Final Say

It has been a terrible couple of weeks for the advocates of a hard Brexit. Having demanded for over a year that the government get serious about plans for leaving Europe with no deal in place, they must have been horrified when ministers started to spell out the consequences: food shortages, petrol queues, vital drugs in short supply, flights grounded and the army taking control.

Many hard Brexiteers reacted by denouncing the cabinet as sellouts and crypto-Remainers, but the shrewder of the ultras have realised that now is not the time. Like scholars of Chairman Mao’s theses on guerrilla warfare they have decided that when their enemy – in this case a prime minister desperate to avoid crashing out with no deal – attacks, they must retreat.

In fact, they have taken more than that from the Great Helmsman: the guerrillas were told they had to move amongst the people like anonymous fish swimming in the ocean, and that is just what Michael Gove and his allies now plan to do in government. They have become the strongest proponents of Theresa May’s latest negotiating ploy: advocating a “blind Brexit” that looks superficially like our current EU membership on the date of exit.

Blind Brexit works for May because it delivers something – anything – other than no deal and means she can at least claim to have negotiated an orderly exit from the EU.

For the country, though, it is anything but a good deal. It would mean surrendering the few negotiating cards we have left and instead relying on a piece of paper – a warmly worded political declaration between the UK government and EU27 – to secure the future. Historical precedent tells us just how poor a trade that would be.

A blind Brexit would mean we have settled almost nothing at the time of Brexit day next March. We would in effect be marching blindfold off the gangplank having convinced ourselves we will be in a better position to cut a deal while bobbing along in the ocean than remaining on deck.

Of course, we would be plunging not into the warm waters of the Caribbean but the political limbo of a “transition period” in which we would be required to accept all new and existing EU rules and regulations without having any say on their formulation or even having a judge on the court that enforces them.

To mangle the metaphor, this would put us on a two-year gangplank. That is not long enough for businesses to make vital decision and for ordinary people the uncertainty will cloud the future – making a move of house, a car purchase or even a family wedding feel like a major gamble.

The hard Brexiteers know that once the two years are up the future of Britain is up for grabs. Once Britain crosses the exit line on the 29 March there is no way back. Gove and his allies known that, once the transition period is over, they would have free rein to rip up workers’ rights, environmental regulations and safety standards, no doubt all in the name of pursuing trade deals. Instead of taking back control, we would cede it to the Trump administration and others eager to capitalise on our weakness. We know from the US what that would mean in terms of inequality and public health.

The hard Brexiteers know that a blind Brexit is no deal delayed, not averted. The logic of Brexit is clear: the only way to survive it is to indulge in a bonfire of regulation and to become the sort of offshore service centre that makes Hong Kong look tame. That, of course, is why so many on the Conservative right are such enthusiasts.

We are now at a moment of decision. In only a few weeks parliament will return and MPs will face the biggest choice about our country’s future since the war. The blind Brexit option might look superficially attractive – after all it gets us to the transition period and the least immediate change. But it is a poison pill.

The dilemma for MPs is that there is no majority in parliament for an alternative and they may fear doing nothing takes us straight to no deal.

The only democratic way ahead is a people’s vote. In the trade unions it is standard practice for our members instruct us to negotiate a deal. We then return with the best deal we can get and put that to a vote – to accept the deal or stay with the status quo.

The British people deserve the same respect. By a narrow majority they instructed the government to negotiate a deal but, as polls increasingly show, they are increasingly unimpressed with the results – more than 70 per cent of people now expect Theresa May to get the UK a bad deal.

It’s why we are so pleased The Independent has taken the lead as the first newspaper to call for the people to take back control with its Final Say campaign. Now is the time for all of the left to unite behind the demand that the people are in the driving seat.

If people are satisfied with the results they can vote for the deal, accepting any changes to jobs, public services or safety standards as their choice. If, however, people don’t believe that what they’re offered matches what we currently have, or what was promised in 2016, they deserve the chance to reject the deal and think again about our relationship with the EU.

Brexit is not a game. Done badly it could cripple our economy for decades and harm our ability to deal with the real challenges we currently face, including inequality, rising child poverty, the lack of affordable housing and – as this summer has shown so clearly – the rising threat of climate change. Only a Brexit deal that strengthened our economy and our ability to tackle challenges at home and abroad, and which committed future governments to maintaining our current rights and protections, should be actioned – and the public deserve the right to say whether in their opinion the government have got such a deal or something far worse.

Billy Hayes is the former general secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU)

Mike Buckley is director of Labour for a People’s Vote