I knew something was wrong when both groups of protesters outside Parliament cheered on Tuesday when the Brexit vote was finally declared.
The remain-supporting old man in the white shorts convinced that a fatal blow had been delivered to Brexit versus the leave chanters, adorned in their union flags, certain in the belief that it’s now just a painless wait until 29 March and the bright, sunlit uplands of the WTO.
Well, they can’t both be right, so what really has happened? The truth is nobody really knows. What does seem certain is that the Prime Minister’s ‘deal’ has been kissed a loveless goodbye by a thumping parliamentary majority. Bits of it may re-emerge, bruised and disfigured, probably to be received with equal disdain unless treated to a very convincing facelift. But the Prime Minister has made clear that the next stage of this saga will be more parliamentary than governmental, and that any solution needs to meet ‘the public interest’. That doesn’t sound like no-deal to me.
So if by a parliamentary solution she means reliance on the Opposition, what will this look like? Norway, possibly; Canada, less so. Although there seems to be some appetite for a second referendum, it’s not as popular as its proponents suggest – but that might change if Labour exhausts its attempts at forcing a General Election. I am told that 100 Labour MPs are ready to endorse that idea should their no confidence vote, or votes, fail.
Worried Conservative MPs (and there are plenty of them huddled in corners this week) think that using Opposition votes to a deliver a watered down version of of watered down version of Brexit is a betrayal that will result in many years’ punishment at the hands of our members and core vote. Others think we are split anyway, and that will still be a better option that no Brexit at all, others the worst of all Tory worlds – no Brexit plus Prime Minister Corbyn.
By nature I am not a gambler, so I wouldn’t take bets on any of these outcomes, although some seem more plausible than others. For any new deal to work we need to move mighty quickly to avoid having to extend Article 50 and miss the March deadline by which we have set so much store. And that assumes we can get enough agreement in parliament to even get to that stage, with the Brexit clock ticking loudly in the background.
For the referendum enthusiasts, the Commons experts anticipate the time needed to legislate, agree questions and fix the event itself would take us well into 2020. Added to their challenges is their overly honest admission that the whole exercise is designed to derail Brexit, rather than offer voters a real choice to support or veto the deal on offer.
A general election solves little either as it would end up being a Brexit referendum in all but name, but with casualties. If you think Conservatives don’t want an election you should talk to some of the Opposition, incensed by the fact that despite all of this they cannot break ahead in the polls and who would much rather face a post-Brexit electorate than voters who might want to know what their Brexit policy actually is.
So rather than lots of options, there are in fact almost none. If we want to restore and maintain credibility, we have to display calm and competence. We need to leave, ideally on 29 March but definitely by way of a negotiated deal. There seems little love for no-deal and a resistance to the government, Parliament and the country being held to ransom by 30 or 40 colleagues for whom this is their sole (and honourable) purpose in life.
It’s been a perplexing period here. Somehow we have allowed quite a narrow group of ardent Brexiteers to define what 17.4million people voted for back in 2016. This is simply not the case. Despite all its flaws, the deal on offer was as good a definition as any. To claim to speak on a huge and disparate ‘leave’ electorate is as disingenuous as remainers claiming that voters ‘didn’t know what they were voting for’.
Yet the opportunity for reasoned debates has long since passed. It’s emotional, not practical, these days, egged on by the cancer of social media that gnaws away at our consciences and which blurs the lines between legitimacy and insanity. We all say that we don’t care, but we do. Nobody likes a thousand angry emails (however absurd some of their demands may be) and it’s hard to resist an intemperate response or believing, just for a moment when they start, “we’ve always voted Tory, but...”
And as for a Plan C? I will leave that to Blackadder’s General Melchett: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through”.
Simon Hart is the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West