How to break the Brexit deadlock
3 min read
Not one of the many proposed Brexit options has majority support in the Commons. If we want to find where the parliamentary consensus lies, we need to move on from out-dated, binary choices, writes Helen Goodman
Divisions were invented by Thomas Cromwell in 1529 to expose and intimidate those Members of Parliament who were opposed to the King’s will. They’ve had a good run, but when faced with complex problems and multiple options, this binary choice does not provide a helpful decision-making process. It is therefore easy to defeat a motion but difficult to build consensus for a proposition.
We saw this with Lords reform: everyone wanted it, but couldn’t agree on how to do it. In 2003, no option passed. In 2007, four options passed and therefore there was no clear steer.
We face the same impasse with Brexit. Not one of the many Brexit options being proposed from all corners of the House has majority support, and the reality is that not every MP is going to get their first choice.
A different decision-making approach is therefore required if we are to break the Brexit deadlock.
Ken Clarke and I put forward such a mechanism in our amendment to change the way Parliament votes on the Brexit options and find where the parliamentary consensus lies as the basis for the next steps. It aims to do so by conducting a paper ballot whereby Members rank their preferences, using a similar alternative vote method used to elect chairs for select committees.
The ballot would be transparent and not secret to ensure accountability to the public on how their Member of Parliament has voted.
The advantages of this approach are three-fold. Firstly, it would produce a clear winning option and consensus. Secondly, it prevents the unhelpful gamesmanship we saw when voting on Lord’s reform, and thirdly, the order in which the options are presented is neutralised.
In short, it provides an elegant, straight forward and democratic method by which we can reach a parliamentary consensus and move forward.
This proposal is certainly not a “Wrecking Amendment” designed to block Brexit. It merely presents a procedural path for Parliament to come together, agree a plan, and move forward fairly and rationally. If we have a No Deal Brexit on 29th March this year, we would prefer it to have been because Parliament consciously chose this route, rather than because time ran out due to the indecision and in-fighting we are currently witnessing.
With the clock ticking, it is high time for Parliament to step up and make a decision. Our amendment provides a much-needed key to unlock the current deadlock and end the uncertainty which is causing serious damage to the UK’s reputation and economy.
Helen Goodman is Labour MP for Bishop Auckland
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
