At
Plaid’s conference over the weekend, the party’s leader suggested that the
party ‘might’ consider calling for a second referendum on Brexit if the UK Government
decides, as seems increasingly likely, to walk away with no deal. It’s a step closer to the Lib Dem position
that any deal must be put to a second vote, but it seems to me that they’re
both missing the point, and identifying the wrong trigger for a second vote.
In
Plaid’s case, the implication is that it doesn’t matter what the nature of any
deal actually done is; as long as there is a deal there’s no need for a confirmatory
vote. But we already know that any sort
of deal will be inferior (in purely economic terms, which is, sadly, still the
only criterion which our politicians seem willing to apply) to that which we
currently have, so the logic of the position is that an inferior deal is
acceptable with no further vote. I find
it hard to reconcile that with ‘standing up for Wales’.
Personally,
I favour a second vote regardless of the nature of the deal, which actually
makes me closer to the Lib Dem position on this question. (There’s a first time for everything.) There is however a caveat, which is that the
trigger for a second vote should not be whether there is a deal or not, or even
the precise nature of the deal, but whether there is clear and sustained
evidence of a shift in public opinion.
Without that evidence, demanding a second referendum will inevitably be
portrayed as trying to make people vote again and again until they take the ‘right’
decision. And it would, in all
probability, be a complete waste of time and effort. But with that evidence, it is possible that
even the very best deal – of the sort which the Brexiteers promised us would be
an absolute breeze – would be rejected in favour of remaining in membership. And the electorate always has the right to
change its mind on anything.
The
job of politicians who still believe that remaining a member would be in the
best interests of Wales (and I suspect that is a majority of them, even if they’re
afraid to say it) is to work to bring about that change in opinion, not wait
for it to happen of its own accord.
Posts
3 comments:
Interesting idea to get another chance to get the right decision, but your cunning plan,
“but whether there is clear and sustained evidence of a shift in public opinion”.
Begs more questions, what determines “clear” .5% 1%,10%25% and sustained evidence, is that over a month, six months or a few years, before the machinery goes to work?
The Dixon Test for Referendums (DT4R) will I assume apply to all past referendum decisions and not the ones you are not happy with, therefore the establishment of the Assembly at Collaborator’s Cove will I am sure be raised, as this much unloved body or is it the people that make a handsome living that are unloved? The majority for this decision was wafer thin compared to the European result.
The DT4R would be great fun, but would make running these events a stress plus operation.
One strange thing is that the Liberals have been more “honest” on this issue, but I simply cannot understand why they are not calling a referendum on the Welsh Assembly?
Well, yes, that is the danger with referendums, a device of which I am not a huge fan, and which in my view should have only a limited role in a parliamentary democracy, restricted to situations where there is a clear binary choice, the implications of both outcomes of which are well-known. Sadly, that's not always the way in which they've been used. They are, rather, called by politicians who can't agree amongst themselves within their own party and use the idea of 'direct democracy' to solve their own internal disputes.
"Begs more questions, what determines “clear” .5% 1%,10% 25% and sustained evidence, is that over a month, six months or a few years, before the machinery goes to work?" I entirely accept the point that there is no objective definition of the words 'clear and sustained' which can easily be applied. Opinion polls, elections etc can all give an indication, but if the general expectation were to be that the result would be little different, then the 'test' such as it is, fails. Clearly, the mere fact that someone doesn't like the decision is not an adequate reason for asking people to vote again; there has to be some indication that people have changed their minds. I haven't attempted to give a precise definition of that, but I'm sure that it's not beyond even the limited capacity of our legislators to arrive at criteria for assessing whether there's been a change in opinion or not. And in the context in which I wrote this post, the absence of a deal does not, of itself, provide adequate reason for a new vote without some sort of evidence that it might be rejected - otherwise it's just a cop-out by politicians afraid to take a decision themselves.
"The Dixon Test for Referendums (DT4R) will I assume apply to all past referendum decisions and not the ones you are not happy with, therefore the establishment of the Assembly at Collaborator’s Cove will I am sure be raised, as this much unloved body or is it the people that make a handsome living that are unloved?" Well, again, yes. I cannot argue that the people have the right to change their mind on one decision, but not on another, so it isn't only decisions that I don't like that are open to being revisited. I think that in this latter case there's rather more evidence at present that a referendum would affirm rather than reverse the decision, and that evidence as things stand would be reason to reject a repeat vote. But who can tell what movements in opinion will take place in the future?
There is an underlying point here which is worth making. If the future of the country (whether Wales or the UK in this context) is to be put to the people in a vote, it's important that those arguing for one outcome or the other don't treat it as a matter purely of winning or losing, whatever venal means they have to use to get that result (which is the way many of them seem to treat elections). It should, rather, be about winning hearts and minds for a particular vision of the future. The absence of that was the problem with the vote for the establishment of the Assembly and the vote for Brexit - whilst in both referendums there were some who voted from conviction about the future, there were others who treated it more as a short term transactional issue - and they were encouraged in that view by short termist politicians.
When the day comes for Wales to become independent, I want it to be a decision which we take collectively and confidently; a positive decision for the long term future. That means winning people over to the concept - a task which has been given minimal attention over the past two decades.
When you say that you’re not a fan of referendums – I know exactly what you mean.
If I may add some new points to the DT4R, I would make the following-
- No question should be government sponsored, as this sucks in people who are voting against the government and not the question.
- Like in Switzerland the question should only come from public petitions.
- The general list of voters should not be used, but those interested in the question, should register to vote for that question, when the date is set.
I would like to offer my changes to elections so it would be known as the SBMET4E.
- Candidates standing for a seat and less than 24% of the constituency turn out, would only sit for one year.
- Less than 38%, they sit for two years.
- Less than 46%, they sit for three years.
- Above 46% they sit for a full term.
That would perk things up and empower the local branches.
Post a Comment