In the few days
that have passed since Thursday’s vote, there has been some speculation as to
whether the decision taken in the referendum can be reversed. Several possible routes have been suggested,
but all of them look highly problematic to me.
Most MPs supported
the Remain side; in theory, under the unwritten UK constitution, referendums
can only ever be consultative, and the sovereign parliament in Westminster can,
if it chooses, ignore them. However,
theory isn’t the same as practice, and it would be a very brave bunch of
parliamentarians who decided to ignore the wishes of the electorate after giving them the choice. And given that
under the first-past-the-post electoral system, a party only needs to gain
around 35% of the vote to gain an absolute majority of seats, if they were to
try it, it’s entirely conceivable that the next parliament would contain a
majority for leave. Even if large
numbers of people do change their minds, I don’t see the level of support for
Brexit dropping below around 35% any time soon, and I can easily conceive of
them all voting for the same party in such circumstances. We have some experience to draw on here - it
would mirror what happened in Scotland after the 2014 referendum.
Another
mechanism suggested is a second referendum, with more than 3 million already
having signed a petition calling for one.
This particular petition was actually started before the referendum took place (in a touch of irony, by a member of the English Democrats who was concerned that the ‘leave’ side would be robbed of victory!), and
tried to set a threshold for victory which was not, as it happens,
achieved. But it’s difficult to see the
justification for changing the rules after the event; and not liking the result
isn’t really a good enough argument for demanding a replay. If it were, no election would ever be final!
One suggestion
that has been made is that if we have another election in the autumn – which appears
to be at least a possibility at present – then if all the parties stood on a
platform of over-turning the result, or of holding a second referendum, then
the situation could be reversed. The
problem with that is that there is at least one party which would never agree
to that; and that business about 35% being enough for a majority comes back
into play. Majority UKIP government,
anyone? Frying pans and fires are the
words which come to mind.
There has been
talk that the Scottish parliament could block exit for the UK by refusing to
agree to the necessary Legislative Competence Motion. I suspect that would serve only to expose the
reality that throughout the devolution process, Westminster has always retained
the right to over-rule the devolved parliaments any time it so decides. That might give an extra push to Scottish
independence aspirations, but EnglandandWales would still be out.
The Lib Dems
have already said that they will fight the first post-Brexit election campaign
on a platform of re-joining the EU. It’s
a potential way forward, of course – but it’s inconceivable that the Tories
would do the same, and highly unlikely for Labour either. The terms for re-entry would be unlikely to
include all the little opt-outs for the UK, making it harder to get parties to
support the proposal. And there’s still
that little business of 35% leading to a majority…
It is, of
course, possible that, after completing the negotiations with the other 27
members of the EU and establishing the detailed nature of the terms of the
divorce, the government of the day would then decide to put those terms to
another referendum in around 2 years’ time, if – and it’s a big if – there was
clear evidence from polling that there had been a significant change of heart
amongst the electorate. I can’t imagine
the other 27 members looking kindly on a member state which caused them to
waste huge amounts of time and effort over two years to arrive at a settlement
and then said, “sorry, we’ve changed our minds”. They’d probably agree, but in their position,
I’d be looking to get rid of at least some of the unique UK opt-outs which they’ve
agreed to over the years.
That is,
though, probably the best hope for those of us who would prefer to stay. But even then, the key is that question of having
clear evidence of a significant change of heart amongst the electorate. And, in turn, the key to that is that those
politicians who support remaining have to do a great deal more to sell the
positives of European integration than they’ve done to date, something which
looks very unlikely to me at present.
Oh, and because of the 35% issue repeatedly mentioned above, it would
also require voting reform as a pre-requisite, so that 35% couldn’t then elect
a government which would take us out anyway.
Overall, I’m
pessimistic about any chance of reversing the decision taken. Out probably does mean out. And all this has come about because of one
man’s inability to deal with an internal disagreement in his own party. Cameron has a lot to answer for.
Posts
2 comments:
There is always talk of a second referendum when the result has been close or the campaign has been particularly contentious. We saw such calls after the narrow welsh devolution victory in 97, and in the aftermath of the scottish independence referendum two years ago. Such calls of course came to nothing as will such calls for a second referendum after last Thursday's result.
So yes folks OUT really does mean OUT - too late to change your mind now! And whatever the shortcomings of the remain campaign and the oft criticised 'project fear' messrs cameron and osborne were spot on when they warned us there would be no second chances.
Speaking of David Cameron i do think youre being a bit hard on him. He was after all only implementing a conservative manifesto promise. And he led from the front during this campaign - perhaps if jeremy corbyn had adopted a similarly high profile on the remain side the result would have been different? It's certainly astonishing to contemplate that the leader of the uk labour party didnt appear in one major televised debate during this campaign.
While welsh devolution certainly progressed while 'Dave' was in number 10 - the primary lawmaking powers referendum (a referendum labour had put off for years and would have continued to put off) and more recently a wales bill that will give wales a 'parliament' and which will give us tax varying powers (important fiscal powers which welsh labour leader carwyn jones appears intent on trying to thwart).
"He was after all only implementing a conservative manifesto promise. True, but it was only in the manifesto because he couldn't resolve the dispute within his party...
Post a Comment