Even Theresa May should embrace the idea of a vote on the final Brexit deal

Imagine you’re back at school and you can’t be bothered to do any work for the most important exams of your entire academic career. Alarmed by your indifference, your parents ask what you propose to do. Imagine how they would react if you told them you were thinking of having an extended summer holiday, to put off the moment of reckoning for as long as possible.

Quite frankly, this is where our government now is in the Brexit negotiations. A longer than usual summer recess seems to be the best these great minds can come up with.

The problem is we are not in school, Brexit is not homework and the bullies will do more than give us a bloody nose. The EU is like the strict exam board of governors and appears to have no time for excuses or interest in making Theresa May’s sloppy government look good.

It is a measure of Ms May’s desperation that she said in Belfast last week that the EU was trying to achieve an “economic and constitutional dislocation” of our country. That kind of talk may play well with the hard-right Brexiteers who are too painfully holding her and her government hostage, but it doesn’t impress Brussels.

Ms May needs to realise that we can all see she is now merely playing for time and there are only a finite number of options open to her: a general election, a leadership challenge or a people’s vote.

Justine Greening is the first ex-cabinet minister to call for a second referendum. John Major, the former prime minister, has added weight and credibility to the call for a people’s vote, saying it is “morally justified”. I agree, and so, increasingly, do others. A recent poll showed that, if there were a second referendum, the public would be likely to vote 54 per cent to remain in the EU and only 46 per cent would be in favour of leaving.

That is of course the real reason that Jacob Rees-Mogg and his bankroller Brexiteer friends are saying so loudly that this would amount to a rejection of democracy if there was a vote on the real options, as they quietly move their businesses overseas. The truth is they fear the consequences of the democratic process being played out, with their reticence only serving to prove them illiberal, antidemocratic bigots.

The plain truth is that there is no majority in parliament for any deal. The EU thinks the prime minister’s Chequers plan is too favourable to the UK, and the Brexiteers think it’s too favourable to Brussels. A Norway deal would mean accepting free movement and paying large amounts to Brussels; a Canada-style deal means the prospect of a hard border returning to the line on the map that separates Eire and Northern Ireland. Viewed through the lens of Ms May’s parliamentary party, there is no consensus, no coming together on any of these options. Brexit is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

I’ve occasionally seen Ms May in the Commons looking across in desperation to Jeremy Corbyn and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – as Tony Blair looked to Iain Duncan Smith and the Tories in the run-up to the Iraq war – hoping that just occasionally he would say something that might concentrate minds on her side. But, oh no, he’s too preoccupied now with fighting a legal challenge from a Jewish group that has accused him of antisemitism.

Ms May should therefore not glumly accept her last remaining hope of getting out of this mess but embrace it. Indeed, a people’s vote may yet save her and her party and give them a real decisive mandate.

A report last week from the Independent Commission on Referendums stated that referendums are the best way to resolve major constitutional issues, such as those relating to sovereignty, saying: “They work best when they are held at the end of a decision-making process to choose between developed alternatives.”

There are some who say there is a legal requirement under the European Union Act 2011 that promised no government would be able to amend or replace EU treaties without an act of parliament, and no law that would increase Brussels’ power over the UK that could be passed without a referendum. This is often referred to as a “referendum lock”, but, as a matter of fact this is no longer relevant as Schedule 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repeals the whole of the European Union Act 2011 from a date to be specified by the secretary of state. In any event, the 2018 Act is sufficient parliamentary authority, together with the Implementation Bill, which the government will bring forward when the deal (or no deal) is agreed.

A second referendum would require an act or amendment to a motion once the terms of our proposed departure are clear, as they were not in 2016. To my mind, the most democratic choice would be a choice between these three options, with a first and second preference on the ballot paper:

And very importantly, given the implications for the future, the vote must be extended to 16 and 17 year olds.

So, I say this to Ms May: chuck the insurmountable problem you now have straight back at the people. Democracy is ultimately a partnership between politicians and people. If the politicians can’t cope with what we ask them to do, we, the people, can and will help. Ms May, you’re not alone in this.

Gina Miller is co-founder of SCM Direct and a transparency campaigner