There are two ways of looking at what happened in last week’s indicative votes in the House of Commons.
For the supporters of a no-deal Brexit, this was an opportunity to claim that no progress had been made and that we were still on track towards their dream – and everyone else’s nightmare – of crashing out without any agreement.
In a way I don’t blame them for saying this because they have to say something and after last week, where all the varieties of no-deal Brexit were overwhelmingly crushed in the votes – they don’t have much else.
The other way is to see the events in context. The plan never was to pick a winner and press ahead. Instead what we were trying to do was find which ideas could be built through compromise and consensus into a majority opinion in the Commons. And we certainly showed that was very possible.
Two motions did better than others, though of course neither passed. Kenneth Clarke’s proposal for a permanent customs union won 265 votes and my motion secured 268 votes.
My motion was not actually about a form of Brexit, but about what we should do once Parliament had decided on which sort of Brexit it thought best balanced the promises made in the referendum and what we now know about the risks, costs and harm of leaving the EU. It said, building on the hard work of my colleagues Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, that once Parliament had done that, we should put that deal to the people for confirmation.
It is now very clear that any sort of Brexit will leave many disappointed. Instead of Brexit being the “easiest in human history” we were promised it will actually be one of the most complicated ever attempted and inevitably that will mean compromises. Instead of getting ‘the exact same’ terms of access to the European Single Market – the world’s biggest marketplace – we will face barriers or costs or both. Instead of having nothing to worry about over the Irish border, we now know we have every good reason to be concerned about the future and stability of the Irish peace process.
All of these things need to be considered when we decide on what sort of Brexit we really want to press ahead with. My view is that the costs – which will be heavy – will almost always outweigh the benefits – which will be small – of leaving. Of course, we could opt for a soft Brexit in order to limit the economic damage, but by doing so we would lose power and influence and end up bound by the same rules.
I know others disagree. That is their right. But I do not think it would be right for Parliament to pretend that something as complex as this is a simple translation of the 2016 referendum result. In my view it has become our duty to again ask the public if they want to press ahead.
The process that began must result in Parliament mandating the Government to seek a longer extension so that any such new deal can be properly negotiated and scrutinised.
Doing that will mean also being ready to contest the European Elections. I do not see that as any sort of insuperable problem, though I recognise there will be reluctance to take such a step. The failure to do so appears increasingly as if some in Westminster are afraid of the voters: which is never a good place to be for a democratic politician.
What would be truly ridiculous would be to crash out of the EU with a very bad deal simply to avoid an election contest. Three weeks of campaigning versus thirty years of living with a Brexit that makes no sense for Britain: that is surely what counts as a “no brainer”.
Dame Margaret Beckett is the Labour MP for Derby South