Last week’s Question Time audience in Derby delivered a warning shot when they cheered the prospect of No Deal.
It is a glaring act of mental collectivisation to lump Our Future, Our Choice in with those who think that over 75s should not be allowed to vote.
The only way of ruling it out is to change the table itself: in other words, to abandon Brexit, or prepare to – as Remainers should admit.
It amounts to wishful thinking, not a workable, sustainable answer. And it’s not as easy to implement as some of its advocates make out.
The unique nature of divisions over it could overwhelm the Party’s traditional pragmatic instinct for office.
Not only would he hand control to a minority of MPs, but the supposed cross-party requirement would count defectors as endorsement from the Government benches.
Today, May is swinging towards her Party’s leavers. The logic of the Chancellor’s position, and that of his allies, is to block her – or try to.
The suffrage movement fought for those of all backgrounds to have the vote. This cannot be called into question for the sake of political gain.
There is a now a window of opportunity for a better, more sensible and cross-party debate than the one we had in the referendum campaign.
The International Trade Secretary says “we seem to be losing our focus” on “deliver[ing] on what the British people voted for”.
The shadow brexit secretary says the “chances now of a deal that doesn’t have a backstop are very very slim”.
He argues that, rather than being “plotters”, MPs who are looking to stop “no deal” are addressing a “national crisis”.
She calls that an “overblown” description, and says “it’s a strange sort of coup that starts with a whole lot of democratically elected members of Parliament”.
The object of the exercise is to absorb within a stable democratic practice a new element which, if unabsorbed, may have fatal effects.