Could cancelling Brexit provoke yellow vest-style violence? It has happened before

By January this year, the gilets jaunes (Yellow Vests) riots in France had cost the lives of eleven people, with some 4,000 civilians and police injured. Almost a year on, the protests continue. The French have, of course, a long history of revolts, several of which boiled over into revolutions. The British like to think that this could never happen here. They are wrong.

An unnamed “senior Cabinet minister” is quoted in the Times today, warning that Britain risked a “violent, popular uprising” if a second Brexit referendum overturned the result of the 2016 one. “In this country we never had the gilets jaunes…People don’t think it’s possible in this country just because it has not happened before. Now they have a model —gilets jaunes — they have encrypted phones to coordinate it, and it only takes a couple of nasty populist frontmen to inspire people.”

In fact, the minister is mistaken. It has happened here. Not only have we had the 2011 riots, the fuel protest of 2000 and the poll tax riots of 1990, but also the violence that accompanied the miners’ strike and the Wapping dispute. Ever since the Satanic Verses protests of 1989, Islamists have used violence in Britain, culminating in the terrorist attacks that began in 2005 and reached a climax in 2017. Terrorism in Northern Ireland spilled onto the mainland many times during the Troubles, culminating in at least two attempts to kill the Prime Minister; any attempt to exploit Brexit to bring about a united Ireland could reignite that violence.

Brexit has provoked the most serious political division in living memory. For a relevant comparison, one must go back to the pre-Victorian era, when politically-motivated riots regularly erupted on the streets of London and elsewhere. The most notorious of these, the anti-Catholic Gordon riots of 1780, had to be quelled by the Army, with estimates of the death toll ranging between 300 and 700. The more celebrated Peterloo Massacre of 1819, by comparison, cost 18 deaths and up to 700 injuries.

More comparable to the present crisis were the political upheavals that accompanied both Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and the Reform Act of 1832, both of which were accompanied by riots. Indeed, the Duke of Wellington — whose support for the Roman Catholic Relief Act had finally overcome George IV’s resistance — only called off the Tory diehards opposing the Reform Bill due to the fear of revolution. This anxiety resurfaced repeatedly during the 19th century, but the police force created by Sir Robert Peel was able to prevent a repetition of the riots that had been such a familiar feature of British politics throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. The London mob became no more than a distant memory; even the General Strike of 1926 was largely peaceful.

What are the triggers that could set off a British version of the gilets jaunes? The Prime Minister has appealed for calm, but defended his right to use the term “surrender Bill” to describe the Benn Act which is intended to force him to ask for an Article 50 extension if he fails to secure a deal before October 31. There is clearly a fine line between robust debate and language that incites violence. So far, extremism on both sides of the divide has been more or less held in check: each faction clings to the hope that normal constitutional processes will enable them either to honour the referendum result or to prevent Brexit. As soon as it becomes clear, however, that one side or the other has lost, the ensuing rage and despair could trigger violence on the streets.

The focus on Boris Johnson arises from the fact that he is seen by Leavers as their last hope, while Remainers scent victory if they can box him in or even bring him down. The confrontation between Parliament and people which has been his strategy cannot take the form of an election, unless the Opposition can be provoked into allowing one. Despite being thwarted both by the Commons (where he has now lost all seven votes) and by the Supreme Court, his chief adviser Dominic Cummings is quoted in the Times thus: “We are enjoying this, we are going to leave and we are going to win.” And Boris Johnson remains determined to “lance the boil” — a typically double-edged metaphor.

Both sides must consider carefully what price they are prepared to pay for victory. The Prime Minister told the Cabinet last night that the Tory “Spartans” would have to compromise. The Liberal Democrats have abandoned a second referendum, which Labour still advocates, and instead demand revocation of Article 50. Any hope of compromise seems now to be receding, both in London and in Brussels. Retired judges (including Lord Sumption and the aptly-named Sir John Laws, the uncle of Dominic Cummings) are threatening Boris Johnson with jail if he refuses to obey the “surrender Bill”. But the spectacle of a Prime Minister in prison would surely bring Leavers onto the streets.

The drama seems to be reaching a crescendo. For the moment, Boris Johnson still holds the initiative. He is right to warn that the cost of cancelling or even postponing Brexit would be “a catastrophic loss of confidence in our political system”. That threat may yet force the Commons to pass whatever deal he offers them — assuming that the EU is prepared to offer one. But the Prime Minister knows enough history to realise that any victory which requires the resurrection of the London mob would be a pyrrhic one.