"It's time for a real referendum on Europe" pledged Nick Clegg. An army of committed Europhiles were supremely confident that the public would see how intelligent, moderate people were certain about the benefits of EU membership and would vote "the right way". Most opinion polls agreed with them.
In fact, a Europhile government, led by europhiles - Cameron and Osborne - created Brexit out of nowhere. There was no prospect of UKIP ever forming a government, however much difficulty they might cause the Tories, and no other party were interested in leaving the EU.
Presumably, most of those confident centre-right men would, in private at least, now regret their confidence before the referendum, and appreciate that Brexit was really their doing: there was no need to hold a referendum, it was one of choice. And yet many of the same people have been campaigning vigorously over recent months for what they call a "People's Vote" (a referendum by any other name). While most have described this as a vote on the deal, their reaction to the description of Labour's stance on a vote "on the deal" suggests that they really intended a simple re-run of the original referendum. Again, the confidence is impressive. The polls are with them. People realise that they had a moment of stupidity in 2016 and now they're back to believing and following their superiors... History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Because, let's face it, what the referendum did not give a government was a mandate for a specific deal, nor a mandate to leave with no deal. And the 2017 election did not give a government that either, as no party won a majority. The one thing that could give a government that mandate is another referendum. Cue the "sensible, moderate" turkeys to push for another vote for Christmas.
If May's "deal" (if there is one) is defeated in parliament, she will be faced with three clear options. 1) To crash out with no deal (except that would clearly be defeated in parliament too); 2) to call a general election; 3) to call another referendum on her deal. The options in a May referendum would almost certainly be for her deal or no deal.
If people want to avoid a bad deal or no deal, the obvious position to push for is a general election and a Labour victory. In such a scenario it is unthinkable that the Labour Party negotiating team, led by Keir Starmer, would not push for article 50 to be delayed and for negotiations to start again in a wholly more constructive way, without the belligerence and hostility of the last two years and where crashing out with no deal would not be anywhere "on the table".
That way, avoiding "no deal" or a "bad deal" is guaranteed. That way, we are more-or-less guaranteed some sort of "soft Brexit" which, that morning in 2016, most on the "remain" side of the argument would have seen as the best possible outcome. If May has a vote on her deal, then you have more-or-less guaranteed a dog's dinner or a hard Brexit. It's not rocket science. Indeed, those who wish to have no Brexit at all would also have their best chance in the general election scenario, as the date would be pushed back, the risk of no deal would be gone and there would be time for events to play out and alternative outcomes to arise.
And so to Labour policy. I didn't back having this so-called "people's vote" but I am above all a supporter of party democracy and recognise that I'm in a minority on this. But if we are going to pursue such a policy, we need to ensure that we minimise the risk. Remember, we are currently talking about an alternative to a general election: the Tories writing the question, hoping to get their preferred outcome.
What could the questions be? The most likely May question is:
May's deal (some variation on Chequers if she eventually gets something agreed) vs no deal.
Much less likely, I think:
No deal vs remain
The chances of some sort of three-way referendum are almost none. You couldn't fairly have a referendum where the vote could be split (e.g. remain vs. bad deal vs no deal) and I can't see any prospect of the Tories calling some sort of complex preferential vote, with AV or SV, for instance.
In the first scenario: I would anticipate low levels of interest and turnout: nobody is terribly enthusiastic about any sort of deal May might muster, as such I think it highly likely that "no deal" would win.
No deal vs remain is of course likely to be much closer, and so I can see why some "remainiacs" (for want of a better word) might see this as their best chance. But again, campaigning for such a vote is creating the conditions for no deal in a scenario when such a chance is not required. It is Nick Clegg 2015 re-loaded. Those who say that "no deal" would be a disaster (and each day brings a new more alarming headline about the possible consequences of such a decision) would not be wise to call a public vote on it.
Instead, if we must have another vote (and I would prefer a general election) the question that Labour should campaign for, and vote for in parliament (while voting against other alternatives) is the vote between May's deal (whatever that turns out to be) and re-starting negotiations (which could only reasonably be done by a new government).
If Labour can unite around that strategy at this stage, regardless of whether they were Remain or Leave in 2016, perhaps it can also lead a similar coming together among the public and we can finally move beyond the division that Clegg, Cameron and Osborne brought with their hubris.
