Marmite wars, reports of a multibillion pound divorce settlement, a surge in hate crime and a legal action testing the government’s use of the prerogative to start the process of leaving the EU without a vote in parliament: Brexit was never going to be easy. It is taking its toll on the economy. The loss of business confidence risks jobs; sterling’s unprecedented devaluation since 23 June will mean rising prices. The row between Tesco and Unilever over their profit margins is a reminder that the light at the end of the tunnel belongs to a monstrous oncoming express.
It is not only the economy: the country is profoundly at odds with itself. Remainers and leavers spar angrily over the rival authority of the popular vote and elected MPs. The referendum was won with a 52-48% vote in favour of Brexit. MPs elected in 2015 on issues other than Europe split roughly 150-475 in favour of remaining. There are MPs who voted leave representing constituencies that voted remain and MPs who voted remain representing constituencies that voted leave. This is hardly surprising, but it is dangerous. It is a moment for parliament to be at the heart of the national debate.
That is not only because it is the source of legitimacy for the government. Parliament is the place where the country’s rival perspectives can be mediated. It is where the national consensus that the Brexit minister, David Davis, says he wants can be reached. Westminster may not have had quite so critical a role to play since Britain joined the European Community 44 years ago. Whatever the judges decide, the Commons must be closely involved in the whole process of withdrawal.
Theresa May is taking an extraordinary political risk by seeking to conduct negotiations only by executive authority and in such a style that she is hardening the nation’s divisions. By her tactic of excluding parliament, sheltering behind her “Brexit means Brexit” mantra – as if the decision to leave and the terms on which it happens are the same thing – she is playing to her party at a high cost to the country. On Wednesday, she at least conceded a debate before article 50 is triggered. That is an important step, but it is just not enough for a move that will affect the life of every Briton – and a good many non-Britons too.
The precedents are important here. In 1971, before the then prime minister Edward Heath signed the accession treaty taking Britain into Europe, there was a six-day debate in the Commons, informed by official economic impact assessments and other papers. After the treaty was signed, the European communities bill was fought over line by line for more than 300 hours. In a country that was as divided then as it is now, the debates not only legitimised the government’s decision but played an important part in the process of acceptance.
For the debate, MPs must have authoritative information about the costs and consequences of the options the government is prepared to consider. That means at least one green paper that examines them. It is also necessary to work with the devolved nations and outline the implications for them. That is not the same as demanding to know the negotiators’ bottom line, nor would it bind them to pursue one course or another. It is an opportunity for the Commons to fulfil one of its fundamental roles, that of scrutinising the executive. It is a moment to inform a wider public about possible consequences and, by excluding some possibilities, to narrow the field of uncertainty. It is the basis for consensus.
And then there must be a vote. The tone and style of the Commons debate this week showed that most MPs are putting this debate above partisan allegiance. Europe has always been an issue that cuts across party lines and MPs from across the house are already working together to insist that the government wins parliamentary approval for its stance before it sets the clock running on withdrawal. Some people see this as a cynical attempt by MPs to manoeuvre the government into a position where they might be able to overturn the referendum result. There are loud cries of treachery from the battalions on pro-Brexit newspapers anxious to perpetuate Mrs May’s slur against a metropolitan elite alleged to be hungry to thwart the popular will. But if parliament has not consented to the government’s broad negotiating strategy before talks begin, then many MPs wonder how, when the time comes, the government will win their approval for the final outcome.
