The most
often-used argument against a second vote on Brexit is that it would be a ‘betrayal
of democracy’; the people have voted and have expressed a clear conclusion and
that desire must now be respected and implemented. One of the problems with that argument is
that what people actually voted for isn’t entirely clear. Amongst that majority for Brexit, there were
many different strands and views about what the outcome should be. In those circumstances, the politicians have
little choice but to try and interpret what people wanted and act accordingly.
In essence, the
government has interpreted it as being a vote to leave all the institutions of
the EU and be free of all EU rules and regulations, whilst at the same time
enjoying all the economic benefits of membership, and that has been the basis
of its negotiating position. The Labour
Party’s position is essentially the same – what else does ‘exact same benefits’
without membership of the single market mean?
As an interpretation of what people were voting for, it doesn’t seem unreasonable
to me, and it was effectively what many of those campaigning for Brexit said we
could have. They were lying, of course,
but the fact that what they were offering was a lie doesn’t mean that people
didn’t vote for it.
It isn’t an
entirely impracticable solution either; as long as the EU27 are prepared to
abandon some of the basic tenets of the single market to accommodate the UK’s
wishes, a negotiated settlement along those lines is an entirely possible
outcome. Given their assumption that a
solution which unpicks basic aspects of the single market and undermines the
whole European project is as valid a basis for negotiation as any other, it’s almost
understandable how shocked the UK Government is to find that the EU27 don’t
take the same view and aren’t prepared to meet the UK halfway.
The point,
though, is that demanding that the EU respect the decision of the UK and
accede to the UK’s demands oversteps the bounds of what is democratically
possible. The UK government can interpret
the referendum result as being binding on it and is probably right to do so
(even though we were told it would not be), but its interpretation of the outcome cannot be binding on the
other 27 member governments. The people
of the UK may have the right to determine what the UK wants, but they have no
democratic right to determine what others will do, and there is no point in the
UK government (and opposition) trying to pretend that they have. Democracy has limits.
And that brings
us back to the question about whether a further vote is or is not an affront to
democracy. If the Labour-Tory interpretation
of what people voted for is correct (and it seems a reasonable interpretation
to me), and if that outcome is simply unattainable, then where does that leave
the democratic mandate? People are
wholly entitled to vote for a fantasy world in which the rest of the world
gives us whatever we want (although there are serious questions to be asked
about the competence of any government which actively facilitates a vote which leads to such a silly proposition in the first place), but when the government finds
that it cannot deliver, what should it do next?
The answer coming from some quarters seems to be a demand that we all
need to try harder to wish a compliant world into existence, but that just adds
to the fantasy.
When a government
is in a situation where it knows that what it thinks people voted for cannot
ever be delivered, hiding behind the mantra that ‘the people have spoken’ is no
solution at all. Their choices are
limited: they can deliver something completely different which they are pretty
certain a majority would never have supported; they can tell people openly and
honestly that what they asked for simply isn’t available and ignore the vote;
or they can ask the people to think again and choose from the available
options. The first two look to me like
bigger affronts to democracy than the third. But the biggest affront of all to democracy is
to pretend that the people can have whatever they want. Unicorns cannot be magicked into existence by
a referendum; government and opposition parties which both pretend that they
can are doing more to undermine democracy than anyone calling for a vote to
choose between realistic options.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment