There was a story about two years ago
which suggested that when Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary his response
when given what he considered to be bad news – usually about Brexit – was to
cover his ears and hum the national anthem loudly until those giving him the
news went away. I’d like to think that
it isn’t true – having ministers simply ignoring the facts doesn’t exactly promote
faith in government – but in his case it’s all too believable.
And he’s still at it. Last week, he said
that anyone calling for a second referendum on Brexit is “doing the work of the Scottish National party” by making it more
likely that there would also be a second referendum on Scottish independence,
leading to the end of the UK as we currently know it. I’m not so sure that that’s true, in reality –
a second EU referendum which led to a ‘remain’ outcome might actually make it
less likely either that a second independence referendum would be held soon or
that the majority would vote ‘yes’. The
point, however, is that he seems to believe that independence can be prevented
by simply not allowing a vote; as though preventing anyone from delivering the
bad news means that the bad news doesn’t exist.
It’s true, of course, that in terms of political reality, even if not in
strict constitutional terms, independence cannot come about without a public
vote of some sort but trying to prevent people from expressing their opinion is
not the same as preventing them holding that opinion. Ultimately, if the people of Scotland want
independence, in any sort of functioning democracy (a not entirely irrelevant
caveat these days), then that outcome can only be delayed, not prevented, no
matter how loudly Boris hums the anthem.
It isn’t only Boris, either. One of the arguments used by those opposing a
second EU referendum is that we cannot simply ignore the 17.4 million who voted
to leave. It’s true, of course, that
asking people to say what they want and then ignoring the answer is a dangerous
thing for a democracy. But given the increasingly
strong evidence that, if another vote were to be held, it’s more than possible
that the result would be very different, what definition of democracy says that
is it better to ignore the probable majority now in favour of the actual
majority three years ago? It’s another
example of fingers-in-ears; people’s opinions don’t count unless they express
them through the ballot box, and if they are not allowed to do that then they
can be ignored.
In truth, there isn’t a simple
non-damaging way out of the situation which we’ve reached. Whatever is decided, some people are going to
feel that they’ve been cheated and deceived, and with considerable
justification. But testing the state of
opinion again is always going to be a better option than simply humming ‘God
Save the Queen’ ever louder.
Posts
4 comments:
I have always believed that referendums simple does not fit the political culture of the UK and Wales.
Your post outlines some of the issues, in that some Remainers (not you) are still banging on that a 3.8% majority is not good enough, or in Wales a 9.6% majority, but are totally silent on the 0.7% majority that created the Assembly, which renders their position a little less creditable.
However ,you state a new way around the current little difficulty ,by stating that “strong evidence” that the mood has changed ,can I suggest as a neutral observer that there might be some difficulties with this solution ,in that how do we measure “strong evidence”, as having been involved with polls you would have to come to a settled view on samples and how they are conducted – don`t hold your breath on that one.
What would have worked is a register of registered voters that voted one way or another -as you get in the US ,and an agreement of a percentage swing in that would necessitate a re-run of the same question, but recognising that both sides have in the meantime, indulged in being economic with the truth, this will cause difficulties of respecting another outcome.
The other question would be if this was established, should other political questions be open to referendums, such as –
Military expenditure, with “toys for boys” aircraft carries?
Opening up education to private companies.
Deconstructing the NHS and rebuilding it in line with the EU models?
The list could go on and on.
Spirit,
I entirely accept your point about the difficulty of assessing whether opinion has or has not changed, and in setting some sort of threshold for assessing whether the amount of movement has been 'sufficient' to warrant another vote. For all their failings, opinion polls are the best information that we have.
The underlying problem is that referendums do not sit well in a system of representative democracy such as that in the UK, particularly when there are no defined criteria for when one should or should not be held. The result is that we get a referendum, or calls for a referendum, on an issue not because it fits with some pre-defined set of circumstances deeming that a referendum should be held, but because it's a way out of difficulty for one or other of the dominant political parties in the UK or because a party or group which can't gain a majority through the electoral system wants to try and over-rule parliament by a direct vote. In the case of the first EU referendum in 1975, it was the result of a split Labour Party, in the 2016 EU referendum, it was the result of a split Tory Party; and the devolution referendums were the result of a split Labour Party. And calls for a vote on independence without first winning a majority for that in the Senedd look like an attempt to use a direct vote to over-rule parliament.
For the long term, my own position is that we need a formal written constitution - ideally for an independent Wales, but as long as we're part of the UK, for the UK as a whole - and the trigger for a referendum (assuming we want to include such a process in the constitution at all) is a change to that constitution. Coupled with a move to proportional representation, that would provide a degree of stability and protection from the results of a winner-takes-all approach to representation in parliament.
In the short term, we have a problem as a result of a referendum called by Cameron who clearly gave not a moment's thought to the possibility that he might lose it, where only one of the two outcomes was defined in any meaningful way and where the government and parliament legislating for the referendum also assumed that only one result was possible and were unwilling to legislate for the other when the detail became apparent. There is no easy answer to the situation; no way of pleasing everyone. But holding another referendum looks to me like the 'least worst' option - not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know.
I think your analysis is very fair, the one message that has not got through to people are that public votes under our current system of government, are not binding on HMG.
This impasse was not created overnight, and in my view, has been decades in the making. Briefly, you are spot- on, a written constitution would be of value, but with a head of state being publicly and actively engaged in the role of defending voters from government between elections and upholding the law. The current system does allow this – see Coronation Oath and other rituals, the problem is that if the head of state goes to sleep, or is not up to the job, there is nothing that can be done.
Deep in my water ,I feel the loss of constituency power has added to this perfect storm ,where party leaders have become crown princess and come with the dreaded Leaders List of candidates most with shiny new Media Study degrees .They have the capability of being nominated without ever being a member and have never toiled in the dark mills of branch and constituency work, or ever attending a conference to understand the basis philosophy and values of the party. This power grab was done in the name of creating “one message” in the 24/7 news world – in the old days one message was called fascism!!
So, we have in the Parliamentary Tory Party, people who should be in the Liberal Party, in the Labour Party again people who should be in a Social Democratic or Liberal Party and as a result we have the fragmentation that is going on.
I can not see any workable solution coming from this side of the channel and waiting until November might get Brussels new team to address the big question of what the EU is going to look like in the coming years.
I think your analysis is very fair, the one message that has not got through to people are that public votes under our current system of government, are not binding on HMG.
This impasse was not created overnight, and in my view, has been decades in the making. Briefly, you are spot- on, a written constitution would be of value, but with a head of state being publicly and actively engaged in the role of defending voters from government between elections and upholding the law. The current system does allow this – see Coronation Oath and other rituals, the problem is that if the head of state goes to sleep, or is not up to the job, there is nothing that can be done.
Deep in my water ,I feel the loss of constituency power has added to this perfect storm ,where party leaders have become crown princess and come with the dreaded Leaders List of candidates most with shiny new Media Study degrees .They have the capability of being nominated without ever being a member and have never toiled in the dark mills of branch and constituency work, or ever attending a conference to understand the basis philosophy and values of the party. This power grab was done in the name of creating “one message” in the 24/7 news world – in the old days one message was called fascism!!
So, we have in the Parliamentary Tory Party, people who should be in the Liberal Party, in the Labour Party again people who should be in a Social Democratic or Liberal Party and as a result we have the fragmentation that is going on.
I can not see any workable solution coming from this side of the channel and waiting until November might get Brussels new team to address the big question of what the EU is going to look like in the coming years.
Post a Comment