Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May leaves Downing Street in London, Britain, December 10, 2018. (Phil Noble/Reuters )

Theresa May has decided to delay Parliament’s “meaningful vote” which was scheduled for today. The vote on her draft Withdrawal Agreement was predicted to undergo a humiliating defeat so instead, May has traveled to Brussels to try to negotiate better terms with the EU on the backstop — the arrangements to prevent the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.


The Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow said this delay was “deeply discourteous” behavior by the government towards MPs. But if only said MPs cared as much about their own deep “discourtesies” toward the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU in 2016.

For millions of voters, Brexit was a principled decision to reclaim sovereignty and take back control of British borders, laws, and trade and so — yes, for millions of Brits, May’s most recent deal is a miserable disappointment. It is not Brexit.

Ultimately, the Withdrawal Agreement would implement a range of restrictive and regulatory policies, prevent new trade deals with non-EU countries and undermine the integrity of the union by tying Northern Ireland ever closer to the EU. All while draining the national budget of billions of pounds through the EU divorce settlement. Worse still, the official legal advice explains that there is “no way out” of the agreement without the EU’s permission. Whether she admits it or not, May is aware of these shortcomings.


However, the response from a number of MPs has been disingenuous. Some are even using their opposition to May’s deal to push their thinly veiled anti-Brexit agenda. This much is clear from their proposed alternatives.


First, the Norway-style deal sometimes known as “Norway-plus” as advocated by Amber Rudd, the Tory Work and Pensions secretary. This deal would keep the UK in the single market, continue freedom of movement, plus create a customs’ union with the EU. Leaving the single market and customs’ union are, by the prime minister’s own admission in her famous 2017 Lancaster House speech, criteria of Brexit. Norway-plus is not Brexit.

Second, the discussion of a second referendum or so-called “Peoples’ Vote”. Around 100 MPs, including 35 Conservative MPs, have suggested a vote on the specific terms of Brexit, including the option to avoid Brexit entirely. Aside from the fact that this would take around 14 weeks to organize, such a measure would be horribly divisive, shatter trust in politicians for generations to come, and be seen as the type of betrayal of sovereignty that prompted Vote Leave in the first place. (Again, clearly not Brexit.)


Meanwhile, only a small number of ministers such as Andrea Leadsom and Jeremy Hunt are insisting that May prepares for the event of a “managed no deal.” (Which, given the EU’s track record of belligerence and May’s continual negotiating failures, seems like the only available at this point for a real Brexit.) In truth, preparations for “no deal” should have started two years ago. The failure to do so has weakened May’s negotiations and, furthermore, allowed those who never wanted Brexit in the first place to get their own way by a combination of blaming and scaremongering.


This week, for instance, Theresa May told the Commons that it was now faced with a “fundamental question.” She posed the rhetorical question: “Does this House want to deliver Brexit?”


Disgracefully — though unsurprisingly — she was met with shouts of “No!”

The British people did not vote for a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or a medium boiled Brexit. They voted to leave the European Union. This decision was, fundamentally, a matter of sovereignty. The various attempts to undermine and block this decision is a devastating betrayal, not only of Brexit but of democracy itself.