Those MPs who fear Brexit should refuse to vote for it by Hugh Muir

Hugh muir

on the rock-strewn road to Brexit, we seem to have reached a questionable consensus. Few can credibly believe that the appeal court judges usurped the constitution by asserting parliament’s role in deciding how Brexit proceeds. There is, however, the assumption that if and when parliament gets to vote on article 50, MPs will assent, as to do otherwise would be undemocratic and morally
indefensible.
Mindful of the 52/48 referendum result, it is said, they would be obliged to mirror the views of those who yearn to leave – including a majority of constituents in most Labour seats. But is that a given? Interrogate for a moment the thinking behind this.

There will be some MPs who could have jumped either way on 23 June. But what are we asking of the others who felt strongly about remaining within the EU? Are we reasonably expecting them, in their possibly deepening belief that Brexit will be calamitous – transforming perhaps a first-ranked nation into a second- or third-ranked one – to actively assist in that process?

Who else would be expected to do that? Imagine an airline pilot instructed by unhappy passengers to crash the plane. Or a surgeon, convinced in a belief that an operation will kill the patient, being ordered to do it by family members. Which constructor would be told to erect a building they know will fall to earth? Which captain would be ordered to sea in a ship they feel sure will sink? It isn’t elitist to acknowledge that – for all the populist disdain of experts – we still expect those we rely on to deploy good judgment on our behalf.

This of course leads to the question posed by Edmund Burke: are MPs delegates, elected to gauge and reflect the popular view; or individuals selected for their intellect and good judgment? It’s a bit of both, for we know that parliament does act as a check on populist impulses. Without it – if one believes years of opinion polling – we would still be deploying the gallows.

I cannot see that, with the elements of Project Fear still a long-term reality, and the chaos of the government’s Brexit operation unfolding before our eyes, it would be unreasonable or undemocratic for MPs to say this path was a ruinous one and that they refused, as individuals, to lead us down it. If ever there were an issue to be debated as a matter of conscience, this is it. One cannot argue that the risks of Brexit are existential and then insist that normal rules apply.

Of course a British people determined to invoke article 50 and achieve Brexit should be able to do so, and parliament as a body cannot ignore the electorate. But fearful MPs can and should use all means at their disposal to avert catastrophe, whether that entails diverting the nation away from the path of hard Brexit towards a softer alternative, or engendering a rethink of the whole thing.

That would be undemocratic, the Brexiters will say. But I don’t think it would. It is perfectly possible to accept the result of 23 June and at the same time use the democratic process to persuade the electorate that the decision it made was a mistake: to say that, while serious problems within the EU exist, this solution is the wrong one.

Is it not through a perennially accepted process of reflection and revision that parliament can repeal bad legislation it has previously enacted; how, every so often, we replace one government – previously and democratically mandated by the people – with another of different outlook?

Get over it, you lost, chant the Brexiters, but our democracy was never designed to be a sudden-death penalty shootout. Prior to 23 June, Ukip’s Nigel Farage said a close vote would not settle the matter. On Sunday he conceded that the result is not legally binding. He can hardly complain now if remainers refuse to sit on their hands.

Last week Stephen Phillips, Tory MP for the Lincolnshire Brexit stronghold of Sleaford and North Hykeham and a leaver himself, resigned his seat over the government’s attempt to keep parliament at arm’s length over the nature of Brexit. He did not say that Brexit should not happen. He said the way Brexit was being pursued was – in his judgment – wrong and that he could not be part of it.

What happened thereafter is instructive. “We look forward to campaigning to elect a new Conservative member of parliament,” said local party chairman George Clark, to help Theresa May deliver on the “exciting” Brexit vision. So Phillips used his judgment, followed his conscience and helped in his own small way to shape this fundamental debate. His local party, meanwhile, exercised its right to pursue its own objectives. This may not on its own change the course of history, but at least in Sleaford and North Hykeham no one is now illogically conflicted.

In time we may say of Phillips that nothing in his Westminster life became him like his leaving it, for he now sets an example to colleagues. If I were an MP convinced that Brexit as envisaged was a momentous error, grievous to to the nation, I would be telling my constituency this was my considered position and that I would be doing everything democratically possible to soften or halt it. This might, after discussion, prompt a rethink, or it might prompt the local party to seek a replacement, as will happen in Sleaford, and that would be its right. But if all MPs who see calamity coming followed their consciences, they would be making a contribution commensurate with the gravity of this moment.

It would be a personal sacrifice for some, but it would also be a public service. A reminder that serving the public and ceding to its populists are often quite different things.