A People's Vote on Brexit is not as simple as it sounds

I have been thinking a great deal recently of exactly how the mechanics of a Peoples’ Vote on Brexit could work.

It has been said that Westminister is unable to find a way forward, that brexit is a shambles, as if this alone justifies a people’s vote. This is a dangerous misreading of the situation. It risks repeating the mistake of the first referendum. Parliament must never again say “we cannot decide, let’s abdicate our responsibility and instead make the public take a punt - the gamble will then be their responsibility”.

Parliament remains responsible for putting forward legal, practical and well-defined choices, and only such choices. It must be absolutely clear beforehand how any outcome will be implemented, otherwise the arguments will just resume again. The inclusion of any ill-defined options in the people’s vote would enable charlatans promising everything for nothing to hijack the debate once again.

There are three well-defined options are on the table already. The EU has indicated it would accept a Canada (Third Country with NI in the CU), Norway (EFTA) or Remain. These are all practical and well-defined outcomes. The latter two are also clearly legal.

The first, Canada option is more problematic as it requires a customs border between NI and GB. This would not be right without the consent of NI. So the ballots in NI should include a question for consent to such arrangements. Without a majority of NI consenting, the Canada option should be taken off the table and the vote becomes a run-off between the other options.

The Chequers plan appears to be dead, and hence does not qualify as a ballot option for the time being. It is clearly not practical if it assumes the EU will agree to arrangements it has already rejected.

In order for a “no deal” scenario to qualify for inclusion on the ballot, the plan would need to be far better documented. It seems the Minford Model is behind much brexiteer thinking. Minfords’ model could be the basis for a “no deal manifesto” but needs to include peer-reviewed projections, not just one man’s opinion. Overall, I think it would take a lot of work for such an option to get to “practical and well-defined” status in the eyes of an impartial judge. I am sure Mr Rees-Mogg would disagree and he is welcome to prove me wrong. Also it is clear no-deal would lead to a hard border in Ireland. This means the NI vote should provide for a veto on this option in the same way as the Canada option would.