If Parliament cannot agree on a Brexit plan, the decision must go back to the people, argues The Economist newspaper.
[...]In its favour, a new referendum is the purest way of overturning the old one or forcing Remainers to accept Brexit. But it would be hard to pull off. Unlike an election, a referendum requires legislation and could take months. A simple, binary choice would be clearer than one MP’s suggestion of a three-way one. The alternatives should be between staying in the EU and the plan that emerges from negotiations with the European Commission. For this to be credible, the EU would have to agree that Brexit could be reversed. Unlike the chimeras of the first referendum campaign, the choice facing voters could at least be costed and debated.
Be in no doubt, a referendum is a desperate remedy. No matter that Brexiteers deserve most of the blame for failing to come up with a plan that could win the assent of the EU and the trust of the country. They will inevitably see a referendum as a betrayal, depicting it as a stitch-up in which Mrs May first neutered Brexit and then schemed to give Remainers a second chance. Even as a last resort, a referendum would thus leave Britain divided and unhappy. How much better if Parliament were to spare the people and make up its mind.
Full editorial on The Economist
© The Economist
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article