Category: 2019

  • Extracts From Sir John’s Major Speech at Newcastle Cathedral – 7 February 2019

    Extracts from the speech made by Sir John Major to the North-East England Chamber of Commerce event held at Newcastle Cathedral on 7 February 2019.


    BREXIT

    Our relations with Europe have divided opinion more than any other policy in my political lifetime.

    I – more than most – can empathise with the frustrations and shortcomings of the EU: I lived with them for years.

    But there are bigger issues at stake that are being ignored, or brushed aside, or dismissed as so-called “Project Fear” when – as we are discovering – they are all too real.

    I believe Brexit is regressive. The campaigners for “Leave” promised better times, yet Brexit will deliver far worse times.

    This is not just my view.

    The Centre for European Reform estimates Brexit is already costing our public finances £320 million a week. And this, of course, excludes the “divorce bill” of £39 billion, and the growing cost across Government of managing our exit from Europe.

    In addition, almost every sector of business has warned of trouble ahead – and every independent study of every conceivable Brexit – even by our own Government – shows that once we leave, the UK will be worse off, year after year after year ……

    I can recall nothing to match this.

    It is the first time in our long history that any British Government has embraced a policy of self-harm, despite their own advisers warning that it will make our nation weaker – and our people poorer.

    And what makes this even more extraordinary is that we are a welfare state society. Those who will suffer the most are those who have the least.

    This includes the less affluent regions of our United Kingdom; those on low incomes; and our young – who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU – but will have to live longest with the consequences of leaving it.

    Over time, the young may prove to be the biggest losers.

    In advance of Brexit, they fear for their future. Post Brexit – if they turn out to be right – they may neither forget nor forgive those responsible.

    A FAIR SOCIETY

    Over recent decades, the global economy has lifted two billion people out of absolute poverty – but, as it has done so, it has also widened the gap between “the haves” and the “have nots”.

    Britons know they live in a democratic country, but many no longer believe they are living in a fair society.

    And, in this, they are right. I entered Number 10 twenty-nine years ago with an ambition to build a country “at ease with itself”. I failed. So have all my successors.

    But, today, the need to build such a society is even greater.

    In the 1840s, Benjamin Disraeli wrote of Britons being divided into two nations: the rich and the poor.

    Over 170 years later, events have entrenched far too wide a disparity. In incomes. In opportunities. In prospects. In social investment.

    As a society, we have a moral duty to reduce inequality – not tolerate it. We must eradicate the roots of resentment.

    Yet, to cure the ills of inequality, we need money. Money is as essential to create a fair society, as medicine is to create a healthy one.

    I know of only one source of continuing wealth, and that is a healthy, growing economy. We cannot achieve that without investment to build a booming business sector.

    And, as we achieve that, we must share the proceeds of growth more evenly.

    I don’t wish to overstate this.

    The poverty of today is not the grinding poverty of yesteryear. At the height of our Empire, millions of Britons struggled to eat. But relative poverty – the invisible poverty that often bypasses social safety nets – is still a potent issue.

    It cannot be right that – in the fifth or sixth richest nation in the world – food banks have become essential in the lives of so many people.

    And poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. The human spirit can endure great hardship; but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

    We see poverty as a social evil which, of course, it is. It destroys lives. But I would argue that it is far more than that – it is an economic evil, too.

    It wastes talent. It thwarts ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair, and communities in decline.

    The case against poverty is unanswerable. Ending it may be expensive but – in the long-term – it may be more costly not to do so.

    Poverty isn’t only about money. About empty pockets.

    Even in the Britain of today, the lifespan of the poorest in some of our great cities is 20 years shorter than that of the comfortably well-off.

    Is that acceptable? Of course not – and every part of the political spectrum – Left, Right and Centre – should have an equal ambition to end it.

    The good news is that progress is being made. A record number of people are now in work.

    The counterpoint – as the Resolution Foundation has reported – is that over 70% of the new jobs are self-employment, or zero hours contracts, or agency worker contracts. These tend to be low paid without any security of employment.

    The minimum wage – which, wrongly, I once opposed believing it would destroy jobs – is rising faster than inflation, which remains modest.

    Taxes have been cut on low incomes.

    We should welcome these modest advances even as we work towards a high productivity/high wage economy – which is surely the Holy Grail of employment.

    This can be achieved – but is more likely to be so if Government and the market work together. The Government, alone, is insufficient. So is the market. But, together, they can be a formidable force for good.

    I have focused on fairness – and inequality – because the lack of it is eating away at our social fabric, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

    We British have a conscience and – as our country becomes richer – relative poverty: of income, of resources, of opportunity, of equity, becomes even less acceptable.

    To minimise these disparities – and to end them where possible – will boost national health and wealth, and also ease hardship and exclusion. All of this is essential if we are to become a contented nation.

    INVESTMENT IN THE NORTH

    The Left of politics must accept the role of the market. And the Right must accept that the State is a player, not a bystander, in building up our business strength.

    The private sector, alone, cannot deliver the level of capital investment our nation needs. Public Sector investment is crucial and – large though that contribution is – it has halved as a share of total investment over the past forty years: this is too great a fall.

    Outside London, only the South East and East Anglia are net contributors to the Exchequer. That cannot be in our national interest.

    What is in our national interest is to promote the regions and sell their advantages – which is why public investment is so vital, and policies such as the Northern Powerhouse are so important.

    Consider the attractions of the North: it has more space and less congestion. Fewer hours are lost in the daily commute which, in any event, is less expensive. Land and buildings are cheaper – as is housing. All this helps minimise labour costs.

    And, to add to its attraction, the towns and cities of the North are within easy reach of some of our most beautiful countryside.

    A new body, Transport for the North, has been set up to improve transport links between the main cities of the region and – between 2015 and 2020 – a total of £13 billion has been allocated to improve them.

    If we are truly to lift up our regions we have to create more wealth within them.

    That requires an up-to-date infrastructure that improves production, and encourages business to invest. With interest rates at their present historic low, there has never been a more cost-effective environment in which to do so.

    Of course, there are always arguments against too much Government spending. Today, it is the size of the fiscal deficit. Tomorrow, it could be the cost of borrowing. There is always a reason for inaction.

    But, sometimes, Government has to be bold – and I believe that time is now.

    To those who disagree, I simply ask: “If not now, when?”.

    And, I ask, too: what will be the long-term economic and social cost of allowing the present disparity of investment and opportunity to continue? I can tell you – it will be far too high.

    Some will argue we should be cautious. I would argue there is a distinction between caution and inertia.

    Is there an element of risk? Of course. Is it manageable? I believe so: it is essential we inject some hope and optimism into our future.

    Without that – hope will remain the missing ingredient in the lives of too many people.

    Why do I choose this moment to press so hard for this?

    Because – next month – we are due to leave the known benefits of the European Union, and head into an unknown post-Brexit future. As Japan – with its large UK investments, including in the North East – has already made clear, this will attract less foreign investment and may imperil existing investments.

    So the case for action is compelling – and immediate.

    In recent decades – through no fault of its own – the North-East has lost shipyards, coal mines and glass manufacturing.

    Analysis by the Department for Exiting the EU has forecast that – under the most extreme “no-deal” post-Brexit scenarios – the North-East economy could contract by up to 16%.

    No Government could – or would – stand by and watch that happen – but even the fear of it suggests that measures to protect the North-East must be put in place – and quickly.

    Business isn’t just a matter of profits and dividends. It’s a crucial part of any community. No business: no jobs. No jobs: real personal hardship and emotional despair.

    So, helping business to succeed is not only economically essential, it is politically – and morally – the right thing to do.

    THE WAY AHEAD

    I would like to see a Secretary of State being given specific responsibility for the Regions, with far-reaching powers.

    He or she should work closely with regional Mayors and all areas of local government to co-ordinate their activities; to fight for more investment; more effective connectivity; and to create an environment attractive to investors – both from within the UK and overseas.

    But improving infrastructure, although essential, is insufficient on its own.

    I would like to endorse – and add to – the excellent report by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership on “Educating the North”.

    Any increase in business activity will need a workforce with academic and technical skills. Education and training is not only the route to higher incomes, it is the engine-room of our collective futures.

    By education, I mean not only academic education, but vocational and technical education which is, socially, still undervalued.

    We need to act on the reality – which is that the man or woman in overalls often has skills more valuable to our national wellbeing than many of those in suits.

    Such skills include technology, engineering, electrics, plumbing, bricklaying, carpentry and roofing. The age of robotics may destroy many jobs, but will not destroy these.

    And if we are to lose immigrant skills – which, mistakenly in my view, appears to be the public will – then developing our own skilled workforce becomes a matter of economic life and death.

    A whole-hearted approach to re-skilling our nation requires a full reform of our school curricula, more technical colleges, and a continuing expansion of non-academic education. It also requires high-quality apprenticeships, and more post-school training.

    Ministers know this, and are acting on it. But we have no time for a long-term roll-out, we need a skills revolution – and we need it now.

    The cry of “Action this Day” is as important in an economic war as it is in a military campaign. Our country will not succeed – cannot succeed – without the skills that investors need.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme – 19 January 2019

    The text of Nick Robinson’s interview with Sir John Major, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 19 January 2019.


    NICK ROBINSON

    Sir John, good morning to you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning Nick.

    NICK ROBINSON

    As well as a little sympathy and a little empathy perhaps for Theresa May, what advice would you give her this morning?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I have more than a little sympathy, I think that she was handed a poisoned chalice and it has been extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult, apart from the substance of the issue, because of the divisions blocking one particular movement by her or another, as you set out a moment ago. So her position has been all but impossible, and I think the country recognise that. But we are now reaching a critical few weeks, we’re due to leave on 29 March and so we’re running out of time.

    If we leave in chaos and without a deal, that seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes and the Prime Minister is going to have to find a way round that. Her problem is that there are some people in Parliament, some anti-European enthusiasts, who would actually prefer no deal and will stand in the way of compromise. So the task for the Prime Minister is to find a way to go around them and there are only limited options to do that.

    NICK ROBINSON

    She says that her duty, and she said it the other day outside Number 10, is to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people. She may disagree with you might she not? She might say no, I have a duty to make sure we do leave on whatever terms. Is she wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Any Prime Minister has many duties. Of course she needs to look at the result of the referendum, but she mustn’t forget the 48% of the people who voted, who actually voted to stay inside the European Union and whose views cannot lightly be brushed aside as though they didn’t exist. But the Prime Minister has other duties as well, it has become evident in the two years since 2016, much clearer than it was, what the impact of that is going to be on the lives of everyday people in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Government and Parliament have a primary duty also to look after the people’s future well-being, their well-being and the well-being of those young people coming onto the register who weren’t there in 2016, and those in future years, so there are a whole series of responsibilities that the Prime Minister must weigh.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Just to be clear, before we move onto how she might do what you want her to do. If she thinks that there is only one duty, the duty to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people as she puts it, you would say no, there is something that trumps that, more important, even if that means breaking your word, if it means delay or if it means changing your mind?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I would say that there are other duties that are equally important that stand alongside it, if I may put it that way. Let me come back to the question of the result of the referendum, before we move on to what we might do. I think the argument that because that there was a majority on one day, under a particular set of circumstances, that must stand absolutely sacrosanct for ever, even though public opinion may change and facts may change, is a very difficult one to accept.

    Democracy is always nuanced, 48% wish to remain, and yet the leavers, who quite frankly won the vote with dubious tactics and downright falsehoods in some cases, totally ignore them. It’s even more bizarre if you actually look at the figures, only 37% of those eligible to vote actually voted to leave, 63% either voted to stay or did not vote.

    NICK ROBINSON

    I’m keen, and I know you are, to look forwards.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Absolutely, but let me finish this sentence. It will be 100% of the population who may be hurt if we leave or if we leave with the wrong deal. That is a very clear responsibility for the Prime Minister.

    NICK ROBINSON

    The point I merely wanted to put, and then let’s go forwards as you say, is about how the Prime Minister gets round those people, your phrase, who are a block. I need to put it to you, because it’s only fair, you say what the leavers said, but at the time of the referendum, you said and I quote, if we come out, we are out, that is it, if we vote to stay out, we are out and we’ll have to get on with it. You too can eat your words can’t you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I am happy to eat my words. The most important thing at the moment is what it is actually going to mean for everyday people. People like you and I Nick, to be frank, whatever happens we’ll be OK. We may be hurt a bit, we might gain a bit, but we’ll be OK. I’m no longer in politics, I have no axe to grind,  I’m not part of the remain campaign and I’m certainly not part of the leave campaign and I can look at it quite dispassionately, I don’t have to get elected, I don’t have an executive, I don’t have whips telling me what to do.

    I will tell you my fear. My fear is that millions of people who do not deserve to be hurt, businesses, individuals, families and young people with prospects are going to be hurt. If I have to eat my past words because I now realise that is the case, then I will make a meal of them every single day, because it is the future and those people who I believe are the primary responsibility of Parliament. If Parliament does not address that responsibility, then Parliament in my view will have failed in its duty.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Two things that you’re advocating this morning. First, that the Prime Minister should, to return to that phrase, get round those critics who you say want to crash out without a deal, in your words, leaving Britain in chaos. How can she get round them without producing a mass walkout of the Cabinet and a catastrophic split in her own party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ll come to that, but may I make some suggestions as to what might happen? Some will be more difficult for the Prime Minister to swallow than others. The obvious one is that the Prime Minister lifts some of her red lines, which would put us in a completely different situation. There’s no sign that she’s going to do that, but that in the national interest is an option that is worth her considering. But, if she won’t, I think that there are only three other options. Let me take them and consider how likely they are.

    The first is that the Cabinet decides the way ahead. Frankly, I think that is now impossible, the Cabinet is too split and there are people in the Cabinet who have made it clear that they would prefer no deal. I don’t think they will be moveable and she cannot move with a united cabinet and I am afraid that she is trapped, and it’s very unfortunate for her, but that is the position.

    The second is that Parliament decides. Parliament is also split, but I think that there are signs that Parliament may be able to reach a consensus and there is hope there. We might come back on how to do that a little later.

    If neither of those produces a policy, if the Cabinet can’t agree and Parliament can’t agree, there is only one option left standing and that is a second referendum, now that more facts are known than were known in 2016.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Let’s take the second of your options, and then come back to the referendum, let’s take it that Parliament will decide. As a former Prime Minister, is it constitutionally proper, is it sustainable in truth, for Parliament to in effect become the executive? To become the body that forms policy and then takes it abroad, takes it to the European Union to negotiate, it’s not actually doable is it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think that is extremely difficult and that wasn’t what I was going to propose. The Prime Minister argued valiantly for her deal, she fought for it, she got a deal, but the House of Commons killed it and killed it comprehensively. So her deal is dead and I don’t honestly think that tinkering with it is going to make very much difference, if any difference at all. So the Prime Minister still needs a deal. If she can’t deliver one that Parliament accepts, then she will need to become a facilitator, a mediator, to find out what Parliament will accept. I think there is a way she can do that, I personally would hope that she puts down a series of motions so that Members of Parliament can indicate their preference. We can then see whether there is a consensus in Parliament that is possible, that Parliament would accept.

    Ideally for that, all party leaders would permit a free vote, so we can get an honest representation of Parliament. That is in the Prime Minister’s interests for this reason, it’s the only way to get an absolutely honest answer from Members of Parliament and if it is a free vote, it removes the danger of resignations from Government or the opposition front bench because they disagree with their leader’s policy.

    NICK ROBINSON

    A free vote with significant political history, which you and I will know, but this is what Ted Heath did back in the 1970s when there was a pretty catastrophic split about whether to join what was called the Common Market. Why do you believe that the free vote is an essential part of this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    For many reasons. Firstly, if there’s a whip then many Members of Parliament would follow the whip out of loyalty to their party or their leader, rather than loyalty to their conscience and their constituents. That’s not necessarily because they’re bad people, I don’t think they are, that’s just the way things are in Parliament. You are part of the Conservative tribe, the Liberal Democratic tribe, the Labour tribe. Wherever you can, you prefer to stay with the leadership view on issues.

    This is such a unique issue that I think it would be an act of statesmanship by the party leaders to say, because of the very strong opinions held on either side, we are going to lift the party whips so that Parliament and the country can get a genuine view of exactly what it is that Members of Parliament think is best for our country, or perhaps, least bad, for our country. It’s a unique way of doing it, but I think it is justifiable.

    NICK ROBINSON

    You’ve set out at some length exactly what you think should happen. Allow me to put it to you, what some people will be saying, not least within your own party, as a recent poll showed that 76% of grassroots Conservatives would vote in another referendum, if it were offered, for leaving with no deal at all. What they’ll say is that we know what Sir John Major thinks, he wants us to stay in. He doesn’t want any sort of deal, therefore they would argue that what you are doing is coming up with what Boris Johnson said the other day is shameful, was dishonest, and is weakening our negotiating position, as it is ripping up promises made to the electorate and statements made to the EU.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I must say that being called dishonest by Boris Johnson is a rum thing to happen. If I may counter with your statistic, 56% of people in the latest polls say that they would prefer to remain in the European Union. So, I think these ancient statistics really don’t enlighten things very much. I think we have to concentrate solely on what is right for the people of this country.

    NICK ROBINSON

    But clearly what they think is right for the country is to leave the European Union as people voted for, there is not a single view of what is in the national interest. If there were, we wouldn’t have the problem.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Of course there isn’t Nick, but there is clear evidence that people’s views are beginning to change, not dramatically, but there is growing evidence that is continuing that people would like a second referendum and their views about what the right outcome is may have changed.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Would you stomach your second option? If you’re going to have a series of indicative votes in the House of Commons, I know you won’t be taking part, but it means people like you who would like to remain, like you who want a second referendum, might have to accept that they can’t get their way for the sake of compromise. They might have to back a deal for some sort of Brexit that they don’t like, they don’t want, but they’d bite their lip and agree to. Would you urge people who share your views to be prepared to make that sort of compromise if necessary?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Everyone may have to compromise as in a circumstance such as this, no-one is going to get their way. Many people think compromise is weak, but I think compromise is often very wise. We had to compromise at the beginning of the Northern Ireland peace process. I had to consult, if not compromise, when we actually went to war with the first Gulf War, it is wise to consult and to compromise. If we can reach an agreement which avoids the country being as bitterly split as it might, is it not worth swallowing some new ideas and swallowing some things you might not like? I would much prefer to stay in the European Union, I voted that way and I have not changed my mind that that is in our interests as a country and is in our interests for commerce and is in the interests of the well-being of millions of everyday people.

    NICK ROBINSON

    What about an election to resolve this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think an election is going to do a great deal. Mrs. May has been committed to we must honour the Brexit deal, which means leave, and so is Mr Corbyn, so I’m not sure that will prove anything. One of the more stupid things I’ve heard Ministers and others say recently is that 80% of the public in the last election voted for parties who wanted to leave. That is completely stupid, as people would have voted for 100 different reasons, not only on Europe. I voted for the Conservative Party at the last election, but it doesn’t mean that I want to leave the European Union.

    NICK ROBINSON

    I was speaking to voters last night in Milton Keynes, some remain and some leave, and what was striking was that every single one of them believed that we would delay leaving the European Union. Is it your conclusion that delay is now inevitable?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think that it is inevitable, but I think it would be wise and it is now probable that we will actually have to delay. I think that is right, because even if the Prime Minister doesn’t put down these facilitating motions, then it maybe that other people will. The opposition could on an opposition day, and even if they don’t, perhaps senior Members of Parliament could put down early day motions covering different issues simply so that Members can sign them and give an indication of where Parliamentary opinion is.

    So there are a whole range of events that could happen that are pushing us to delay article 50. I think that, in many ways, is wise. It may be that we end up leaving, but it is better to leave when we are prepared to leave, and in a position to leave, than when we are patently not prepared which will be the position on March 29, barring a miracle that I personally cannot see coming about. So, I think it is probable that we will have to delay.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Sunday Times – 13 January 2019

    The text of the article written by Sir John Major for the Sunday Times, published on 13 January 2019.


    We are at a seminal moment in our nation’s history. First, let me say something about the prime minister. At the referendum she voted — albeit without enthusiasm — to remain in the EU. The nation voted to leave. Yet, despite her personal preference, Mrs May has deployed every ounce of her energy to honour the result of that vote. She does not deserve the personal venom directed at her, nor the bile of fair-weather political colleagues who have turned from supportive flatterers to would-be assassins.

    Our country is now in an unhappy state of mind. Far from bringing the nation together — as the prime minister hoped — the divisions unleashed during the 2016 referendum have become ever more bitter and entrenched.

    Brexiteers are keen to pin the blame on others. But we are only in this sorry position because of the false pledges and undeliverable promises they made to the British people in 2016. The “leave” voters were marched up to the very top of the Hill of Expectation, and it is hardly surprising they now feel a sense of injustice at having to be marched back down again.

    The easy promises made by the Brexiteers have been exposed as the fantasies they always were. All voters — be they “leave” or “remain” — feel cheated, ignored and thoroughly ground down by the whole process.

    Those who led the country into this chaos have much to answer for. But, at least, we are now in a better position to judge what leaving the EU will actually mean for the United Kingdom. Even the government has admitted that — under any and every form of Brexit — every part of the UK will be worse off. Our country will also be weaker and less influential; and those in our society who have the least will suffer the deepest deprivation of all. It would be morally reprehensible to allow this to happen.

    The majority of MPs know this but, astonishingly, the most diehard of the Eurosceptics still refuse to accept it. To them, the EU will always be the “enemy”, and our nation should be prepared to pay any price to leave. In human terms — as prices rise and jobs are lost — this will be a very high price indeed, and end up being paid by the very people who should not be expected to bear it.

    The Labour leadership has added little or nothing to the European debate. Yet, having expressed no clear policy position whatsoever during the negotiation process, Jeremy Corbyn now proclaims that a general election is the only way forward. He speaks of his wish to “heal divisions”, while at the same time using language that can only foster further feelings of social disquiet.

    In any event, what would a general election solve at this particular time? As things stand, the Conservative and Labour leaders would both be campaigning for Brexit. So the country would have to endure yet another election campaign — which would no doubt prove even more divisive than the last — before parliament ends up exactly where it started. How would that, by any stretch, serve the national interest?

    Crucial decisions have to be made now, not later. But there is no consensus on what they should be. Any government should think very carefully before forcing through a vote that has few real supporters within parliament, widespread opposition from without, and one that would leave the country vulnerable to decisions made by others. The Labour Party has had two years to propose a credible alternative. As we move into the 11th hour, it still has nothing more to offer than political games. The people of this country deserve so much better than this.

    We must avoid doing more harm than has already been done. Divisions can only be healed if common ground is sought. And common ground is, now, emerging. One majority view — from parliament, business, trade unions and electors — is that it would be deeply harmful for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal. I agree. The cost of a no-deal Brexit to our national wellbeing would be heavy and long-lasting. The benefits are close to zero. Every single household — rich or poor — would be worse off for many years to come. Jumping off a cliff has never had a happy ending.

    Shrill Brexiteer voices continue to tell us that it would be “disrespectful” to the British people if we do not leave the EU on March 29; that it would be a “betrayal” to propose another referendum. What nonsense they speak — yet another pithy slogan from those who fear that the victory they obtained two years ago, by such dubious tactics, is slipping from their grasp. How can asking the people to make a decision based on facts ever be a betrayal of democracy? Facts that, as each month passes, further disprove the fantasies that were once so shamefully peddled.

    Moreover, it must never be forgotten that 63% of those eligible to vote during the referendum either voted to stay or did not vote at all; 37% of the voting public hardly constitutes the overwhelming “will of the people” they speak of: yet another facile soundbite.

    The real betrayal and disrespect to the British people is not the prospect of a second referendum — this time definitive and binding — but the promise of leading them to an economic and social utopia that never has, never will and never could exist. During the last referendum, deception was the leave campaign’s weapon of choice: “Win by any means — fair or foul.” And how foul it has been.

    Amid the overall confusion, we are now invited to explore alternative options. Some now seek a “Norway” deal, others a “Canada” deal, or even an “Efta” deal — not one of which is better than the status quo.

    At the same time, we are told that there are “only two options on the table”: the prime minister’s deal or no deal. But this is yet further obfuscation. There is a third deal on the table, which is the one we currently have. Why would any country — least of all our own great country — accept a “least bad” option, when a far better one is already in play?

    In the midst of chaos, it is sensible to pause and think. To review all possible options and seek a majority consensus.

    Article 50 was triggered — and the deadline of March 29, 2019 was set — before we knew what we wished to do. Two years later, we still have no agreement on that.

    The only sensible course now is for the government to revoke article 50 and suspend any decision on departure. This may be politically uncomfortable, but any short-term political disruption pales into insignificance when compared with the long-term damage that could be wreaked on our country as a whole.

    The choice between a “bad deal” and “no deal” was never one that our country should have had to accept. A mature democracy should be prepared to remain with the status quo until we reach as much of a national consensus as possible. No true democracy should deny a considered choice to its people.

    But we may need a new process to enable this, and that process needs to go far beyond self-interested party politics.

    One option would be a consultative process — led by parliament — to report on the intricacies of our future relationship, which is far more complex than a simple “yes” or “no” about our membership of the EU. Properly organised, this could be completed well within the timescale of a transitional pause.

    I accept that many “leavers” will be frustrated by this delay, and suspicious of it. But only a minority of the voting population voted to leave. Unless we seek a more consensual policy, 100% of our present and future population may have to live with the bitter consequences of a bad deal.

    I would therefore suggest that, while there remains no consensus in parliament about how best to proceed, the government should, without delay:

    ● Ask parliament to rescind the European Union (Withdrawal) Act;

    ● Withdraw the article 50 notification;

    ● Establish a national consultation process;

    ● Agree “headline” points on our future relationship with the EU and put that outcome to a binding referendum, with the option of maintaining the status quo. The binding nature of this should be enforced by the confirmation from each party leader that the outcome of this further referendum would be definitive. Only this will provide voters with the facts and reassurance they need to reach a final decision on where best our country’s future — and their own personal future — lies.

    The ramifications of the 2016 referendum have led us into a territory way beyond party politics, tribal loyalties and personal ambition.
    Across the UK, there are many people who feel unsettled: uncertain and worried about their jobs, about debt, about how they will house their families — and how they will feed them. They are fearful of what the future holds. The dominance of Brexit in our political debate has done nothing to alleviate that fear, and much to fuel it.

    The intolerance, belligerence, vituperative language, threatening conduct that this debate has spawned; the families, friends, neighbours and communities that have been fractured — sometimes beyond repair — due to opposing political views, has not only been an unedifying spectacle, but also profoundly un-British. It is not who we are as a nation.

    One of the most hackneyed mantras of the leave campaign was that our sovereign parliament should “take back control”. Another absurd slogan, of course, for she has never lost it.

    But now is the time for the Mother of Parliaments to exert all the power and control within her means — before it’s too late.

    Only then can the healing process begin, and our country be put back on track to the long-term prosperity that promotes social cohesion and national unity.