Given Farage’s comment
before the 2016 referendum on the EU that a narrow Remain victory would be “unfinished business” and lead to a demand for a second referendum, there was a
strange and unusual consistency about his statement
last week that he was “warming to the
idea” of holding a second referendum, even if his motive was more to do
with ensuring a complete separation than allowing people to change their
mind. However, consistency and Farage
are not concepts which sit together well for long at a time, and he
subsequently seems to have reverted to his previous position, which was, in
essence, that any vote which goes his way is irrevocable; it can only be revisited
if he loses.
The reaction
from within his own party underlined what a happy ship UKIP isn’t at present
with some saying that his judgement is “shot to pieces”
and some even calling for his expulsion from the party. The UKIP AM for South Wales Central has become
somewhat notorious for making outrageous comments, but I suspect that he’s
actually more in tune with the membership of his party than those who would
prefer him to be more guarded. His
comment "Why would you run the risk?
We've won the vote, why would we put that at risk by having a second one?”
neatly summarises the attitude which the Brexiteers (including Farage apart
from last week’s brief wobble) have held since the referendum.
Democracy is
not, and can never be, a case of making a decision on one day and living with
that for ever after; there has to be an opportunity to revisit decisions once
taken. It has seemed since the
referendum that the Brexiteers are demanding ever more stridently that those of
us who feel the wrong decision has been taken are duty-bound to remain silent
and support the result, and that anyone who does not is some sort of traitor. It’s a fundamentalist, almost totalitarian,
approach to an issue which saw the electorate divided almost equally.
The issue is
not whether a second referendum is undemocratic or not, it is about what
circumstances, in a democracy, should be considered sufficient reason to
revisit a decision taken by popular plebiscite.
The Lib Dems have been arguing for some time that the emergence of more
detail about what Brexit actually means, and the incorporation of that detail
into a deal of some sort provides the ideal opportunity and should be the
trigger. I’d agree that it’s the obvious
opportunity, but I’m not sure that it’s sufficient in itself. The more important factor to me is clear
evidence of the sort of change in public opinion which would enable a majority
of MPs to argue that holding a second referendum is meeting a public demand
rather than merely expressing their own view.
We’re not yet
at that point, although I’d like to think that we can get there. What doesn’t help, though, is for politicians
who would prefer to see the decision reversed to be arguing that there are no
circumstances in which there can be a second vote, because ‘the people have
spoken’. It’s as though they want to opt
out of any responsibility for opinion leadership and simply wait for people to
change their minds unprompted. They are,
effectively, discouraging rather than encouraging a change of opinion.
Posts
3 comments:
Stupidity beyond words.
A second referendum might well offer us the opportunity to declare ourselves once more loyal to the concept of the EU. But so what? Unless the EU 27 want us back in we can't go back in. It's the same with Scotland. Leave the union by all means. But don't expect to be allowed to re-join at a later date. Or not without consequences.
Why, if it was so easy we'd all vote for an independent Wales secure in the knowledge that England would take us back if we subsequently had a change of heart.
No, we have to live with the consequences of our decisions, no matter how distasteful. It's been a jolly a good lesson!
Perhaps you missed this one earlier today? And there's still time, as things stand, to stop the process - although I'd agree that if we simply let it happen and then re-apply, there may well be consequences.
"No, we have to live with the consequences of our decisions, no matter how distasteful." If people make a decision and stick to it, then that is, of course, true. But if people make a decision, and then come to regret it in a timescale which allows a rethink, are you really saying that there should never, ever, be any possibility of a change of mind? It's a strange black and white view of a technicolour reality.
For sure we can change our minds ... the hard part is getting others to change their minds, especially those others we may well have rather recently offended (in this instance the EU 27).
'Think before you act' used to be quite a common expression in former times. Perhaps it's time for a come back!
Post a Comment