Would A People's Vote Really Solve The Brexit Deadlock?

British parliament is in deadlock over the Brexit situation. Many have called for a second vote to help break the impact. But will it really solve the problem?

I'm not so sure.

I voted to Remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. Therefore, one might assume that I support a people's vote. However, I think it is fraught with more risks than people realise.

I'm not concerned about people making threats about the rise of the far right. I don't consider the threat of violence to be a reason for not doing anything.

However, the original referendum did cause toxicity between friends and family and I do believe the same tensions will start again. There needs to be a period of diffusion.

The first problem, is that Leave voters can rightly claim that there has already been a vote. Do we keep voting until we get the right result?

I also sense that those campaigning for the People’s Vote are assuming that there will be a resounding win for Remain. But would there be? There is no sufficient evidence to show that that would be the case.

What if Remain wins by 51% - 49%% it would be a narrower victory than the Leave win of 2016. Where would that leave us? The Leave voters would argue or campaign for another vote. More deadlock.

The next question is, what actually goes on the ballot paper. May’s deal? Remain? Norway+? No Deal? What voting system do we use? First past the post or the alternative vote system? Arguments will ensue about how to run the vote.

Should ‘No Deal’ be on the paper? There is a strong argument that it should. What happens if the public vote for it? It is a very realistic prospect. A no deal exit could happen anyway, but this time it will be the public that will get the blame.

Therefore, I believe It is a far more risky idea than people realise. It could make things worse. The only way a People's Vote could solve the problem (for Remain voters) is that Remain wins with a clear victory. There is no evidence to suggest that that would happen.

Since the original referendum, there has been a general election, which was billed by some, including Theresa May, as the referendum part 2. This backfired, as May’s Conservative party lost their majority. They lost seats in Remain voting areas, particularly London, which were considered safe.

The result could indicate that there should have been a cross party compromise deal that they could have taken to Brussels. To date, this has not happened, with Theresa May trying to please all factions of her party. This has failed.

Labour have now proposed a Norway+ model. Could this be the compromise? Should the UK stay in the single market and the customs union? This would not please everyone as it would mean retaining the 4 freedoms, including movement of people. I do believe this could pass through parliament.

Perhaps this is a solution for now which could be reviewed in a few years time. Instead of another referendum, it would allow each party to launch their own policy on Brexit. We could even have found that the appetite for this issue has waned.

Before I finish, I have another reason for wanting to avoid a People's Vote. I believe that referendums should be banned. My reasons for this has nothing to do with the toxicity of the Brexit debate.

Referendums take away the responsibilities of elected leaders and blame then gets put on the public.. As with the EU referendum, the devil was always in the details and this is not how democracy should work. It is our nation's leaders that should be responsible for major decisions.

I voted to Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, but I would settle for a Norway+ Brexit. It may be a better solution than risking a People's Vote.