In
recent days and weeks, the Prime Minister has repeatedly demanded that MPs “put
the country first” and “act in the national interest” rather than pursuing
party political interests. In principle,
it’s an entirely reasonable expectation; the problem is that it doesn’t equate
directly with supporting her deal in the way that she demands. For what it’s worth, I believe that the
overwhelming majority of MPs (there are a few, of course, who put their own
personal interests first) are trying to do what they think is ‘right’ for their
constituents and the country as a whole, it’s just that they define what is ‘right’
in different ways. Some also, of course,
define ‘country’ in a different way than May – it does not necessarily follow
that what’s good for England is good for Scotland or Wales.
What
May actually thinks about anything is a mystery even to those closest to her
(and perhaps also to herself), but her words suggest that she thinks that the
national interest is served by honouring the result of the 2016 referendum,
since doing otherwise damages (further) people’s faith in the UK’s system of
democracy. In a limited sense, I’d agree;
telling people that you’re giving them the decision and then ignoring the
result is indeed damaging, and I can see that the ‘national interest’ is served
by implementing the result. But it is
surely also ‘in the national interest’ that the government does not wreck the economy
or take decisions which lead to shortages of food or medicines. It is surely not ‘in the national interest’ to
destroy jobs and opportunities, especially for our young people. And it is surely not ‘in the national
interest’ to reduce standards of environmental and employment protection. Determining where the balance lies between
those different factors is always going to be a matter of opinion, not fact;
and opinions will differ. Holding a
different opinion on such a complex issue is not at all the same thing as
acting against the national interest, as the PM seems to be claiming.
Demanding
that people act ‘in the national interest’ is just rhetoric; the real question
is who defines where that interest lies and on what criteria. It is far from being the simple question as
which she presents it. There’s another
aspect as well – she claims to be defining it in terms of ‘honouring democracy’,
but what history teaches us is that individual leaders of governments who claim
that they, and they alone, are the arbiters of what constitutes the national
interests aren’t usually over-interested in democracy. Claiming the unique right of definition and attacking
all those who disagree as enemies of the people are the hallmarks of
dictatorship, not democracy.
Posts
2 comments:
Like you, my senses now tell me that the nation has had enough of all this politicking. Another referendum is one solution but a straightforward 'we're leaving, goodbye' is another.
I suspect if we had a referendum on what next, 'goodbye, we're leaving' would carry the day by a huge majority. If it's this hard to leave after forty years we sure as hell don't want to wait fifty years.
"Like you, my senses now tell me that the nation has had enough of all this politicking." I'm not sure how you read this in to anything I wrote. It's certainly not what I said.
"I suspect if we had a referendum on what next, 'goodbye, we're leaving' would carry the day by a huge majority." I'm not so sure about that - it's certainly not what the polls are saying. But it's unlikely that any such referendum would ever be held, because there's little point in parliament legislating to give people a vote on a proposition for which there is no parliamentary majority willing to implement it. That underlines the problems of seeing referendums as something somehow apart from 'normal' democratic processes, on which I've posted before. Those who want a 'no deal' need to ensure that they elect a parliament willing to enact it before there is any point in having a public vote on it.
Post a Comment