Culture wars could trump class wars.

MPs’ failure to come together increases the chance that hard Brexiters will frame the crisis as an opportunity to get people to vote against their economic interests.

It is a matter of national shame that the civil war in the Conservative party led to the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union. That war continues today. The split is now between those who believe Britain needs a new partnership to maintain links with the EU, and those who think what’s required is a clean break. The level of ideological commitment to the latter idea might surprise many who consider the Tories the natural party of government. Supposedly a party of sceptics who distrust dogma, it has been torn by ideology over the course of much of its history.

Theresa May has tried to keep both sides together with her Brexit deal. However, it has failed three times to convince enough of her own MPs, with resistance from both wings. Instead of seeing the referendum as a mistake to be ameliorated by wise counsel and sensible debate, many Conservatives have taken leave of their senses. There appears to be no limit to what the fanatics expect the rest of the world to do for Brexit Britain. In their world, nations will queue up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets, and abandon their instinct to protect their own industries in favour of the UK. This magical thinking has led Tory MPs to chase unicorns. A few think they have caught some.

It is these delusions MPs were seeking to banish by voting on softer forms of Brexit; whether a confirmatory referendum was needed; and if revoking article 50 in the face of no-deal Brexit ought to be contemplated. None secured a majority on Monday night, though a customs union with the EU was only defeated by three votes. A plebiscite on the terms of departure missed by 12. Plainly there is a consensus waiting to be found. Mrs May remains boxed in by her own red lines and those of her hardliners. If she were to soften Brexit, she risks her colleagues not supporting her in a vote of confidence. If she does not, Mrs May faces the same threat from the majority in parliament who have already voted to prevent no deal.

Mrs May may be tempted by self-interest for an early election. This would be a mistake, one that confuses party with nation. Those pushing Mrs May towards resolving Brexit at the ballot box see leaving the EU as a way of getting people to vote against their economic interests – a precondition for a Tory victory. About seven out of 10 Conservative MPs represent constituencies that voted to leave. Around six out of 10 Labour MPs represent leave constituencies. Some voters who delivered Brexit – especially left-leaning ones in poor areas – will suffer disproportionately from its policies. Yet the passion of Leave voters has intensified, lending Brexit a sour introspective nationalism. 

Hard Brexiters tap into this with the idea that leaving the EU could see a turbo-charged Thatcherism return. This would deliver a supply-side shock to the economy draped in populism and hostility towards Europe. It’s why they want Mrs May to act before the tyranny of the status quo sets in. A large section of the cabinet thinks nothing of putting ambition before nation. The flippant parochialism and narrow sectional interest of today’s Conservative party is quite breathtaking. It cannot be pretended that the tone of debate suggests that the Tory leadership is experiencing anything but its most self-absorbed hour. Appearing remote, self-interested and unaccountable is not a good look.

That is why politicians must come together. The 2016 referendum vote needed to be interpreted in a meaningful way: with transformative policies to address what gave rise to it; a plan to deal with the harmful consequences of leaving the EU; and a device to underscore any Brexit deal’s democratic validity. Instead Brexit is becoming about partisanship and signalling values. As a recent Euromedia 24 analysis found, the most damaging effect of entrenching a belief that government cannot make a difference is that it deserts those for whom it could to the whims of fantasists and ideologues.