I have sat on the Supreme Court Brexit decision for a day or so. Some things need time to ferment before it's best to comment. Three thoughts dominate all others though.
The first is that this refendum was meaningless: the Supreme Court has confirmed it was legally required to take place but it had no ordained legal consequences, at all. None were specified. It was, legally, inconsequential.
Second, this shatters the myth that the Tories always have a plan: not only did they not have one, they had not even thought of the need for one.
And third, because no-one in any leave campaign published a manifesto nor did they make good the deficit.
As a result the vote on 23 June was for an inconsequential non-plan.
Now I am not denying its political significance: 52% of people were so disenchanted with the status quo that they voted to leave the EU. But that was not binding. And nor was it in any real sense meaningful. That's partly because this was opinion on one day. It's partly because we know the victory was secured by lying. It's partly because the margin was so small and the rest of the country need to be respected. But most of all because there was nothing to be bound by. Literally, that is true. At best there was an indication people wanted to leave the EU. On every other issue there was total silence: nothing at all.
And that is precisely why all opposition parties are required to now demand a plan from a government that got us into this mess. And to say there will be no progress, no Article 50 notice and no negotiations until we know what the plan is. This is not defying the will of the people. It's upholding it. It is the government, without a plan or reason, that is still not being either logical or appropriate and is as a result letting the people of this country down.
Surely Labour can, at the very least, say this?
Can't it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’ve said much on Brexit but an interesting article again from Fintan in the Irish Times. I’m still struggling to make sense of Brexit. I’ve said before that there always seems to be about 5% of the population which will vote against the establishment as a matter of principle and would want at least a 55%-45% result before taking it seriously. To run through a hard Brexit on close to a 50-50 referendum result is crazy.
I get very disturbed every time I hear “The Will of the People” trumpeted by the right as killer argument. To reminiscent of my father Kevin’s description of Hilter’s rhetoric in Nazi Germany in the late 30s when he was doing his PhD.
Here is an extract from Fintan:
“Brexit is a perfect vehicle for this zombie cult. It fuses three of the archetypes of heroic English failure.
There is the last stand, exemplified by Gen George Gordon at Khartoum, another fiasco that quickly became a byword for heroism in the face of inevitable disaster: Brexit is imperial England’s last last stand.
There is the suicidal cavalry charge: May hilariously threatened Europe that if it does not play nice, she and Boris will destroy its economic artillery with their flashing sabres.
And there is the doomed expedition into terra incognita to find a promised land. This kind of heroic failure is exemplified by Sir John Franklin’s fatal search for the Northwest Passage in the 1840s.
The gods of history were surely sending a message when, just three months after the Brexit vote, they allowed Franklin’s ship, HMS Terror, to be found at the bottom of an Arctic bay.
Yet, unheeding of this omen, HMS Brexit sets sail into uncharted waters, confident of finding the, as yet undiscovered, passage to the promised land where you can always have more cake even when you’ve eaten it.
How the nation will weep with pride when some future explorers discover its ghostly remains in the icy depths of reality.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-resurrects-the-english-cult-of-heroic-failure-1.2947706
Very good
It seems to me that we are defined as much by what we don’t do and say as by what we actually do and say?
Watching the exchanges at the despatch box yesterday, I was dismayed and disenchanted by Teresa’s evident delight at scoring points by pre-empting the agreement to release a white paper on Brexit.
When are we going to witness exchanges that consider the welfare of the people parliament is in place to protect and represent rather than vilifying the opposition at every opportunity?
You are right Richard, what you suggest is spot on, but how on earth will the present ping pong of banalities be transformed into purposeful debate?
I wish I knew
I can see why people think heads need banging together
I think you’re absolutely right here. The problem is less that the Tories don’t have a plan but that Labour opposition simply does not exist. The Labour Party is so demoralised that Theresa May and the Brexiteers can simply decide whatever they fancy largely unopposed. The party in opposition has an enormous responsibility to balance the eccentricities of the party in power and nothing is being done by Labour. The efforts of the tiny LibDem party have been much more impressive and coordinated.
All Labour MPs must realise that in the absence of any noticeable leadership they must realise that if they do not oppose Article 50 they will be remembered as having failed to resist a change that will be as damaging as any in living memory.
The key thing is an amendment to Article 50 that allows a vote on the final outcome which has the possibility of simply rescinding the declaration under Article 50. By then the claims of the Leave supporters will be visibly turning to dust as the economy slows, starting to hurt the very people who voted for it, the poor, the left behind, the just about managing.
There is no Labour, just as there is no Tory party either these days. Both were products of earlier eras, their time has been and gone. Long live the new parties, if ever we meet them 🙂 Or perhaps it will start to dawn on people that the answer to politics isn’t more politics, and from the coming maelstrom we’ll emerge with new and better ideas about the maintenance of order.
It’s politics, Richard. Most Labour (and Conservative) MPs will in private admit that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster. But the Labour Party is terrified of losing it’s working class supporters to UKIP. Hence Corbyn and co. continuing to spout this ‘will of the people’ nonsense that you have rightly shredded. As the judges pointed out, there is no such thing as the will of the people in the UK unless it is expressed through Parliament.
I’ve posted this paragraph on a previous thread but it is very relevant here
Part of the the problem lies with the way the EU have treated with contempt referendums in other countries, Ireland, Greece and Denmark where when the “wrong” results have occurred either the result is ignored (Greece) or the people have been told to vote again until the “correct” result is achieved. The EU is far from a paragon of democracy but merely a vehicle to protect big business and neo-liberalism.
Again and again this blatant falsehood about the Irish being forced to vote twice (until they came up with right answer) is trotted out.
The Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty for several reasons, the most important of which was that as things stood at the time of the first vote Ireland was due to lose its permanent EU commissioner — to streamline decision-making. The people insisted on less efficient and more inclusive decision-making. The Irish govt advised the EU that no 2nd referendum could or would be held on the same terms as the first. So much for the EU bullying Ireland.
When the Irish govt secured the concessions demanded by the people a second vote was held.
Watching the Brexit debate in the UK is like reading climate change deniers cherry-picking their “alternative facts”.
If the EU was guilty as charged there would be a lot of support for leaving it in Ireland. There is none. Furthermore, Ireland has 4 times the proportion of the population from the EU that the UK does. We respect, like, and get on well with our European neighbours and we find being part of the world’s largest market overwhelmingly to our advantage. Do spare us the drivel about the bullying EU, and best of luck sucking up to the orange buffoon.
Brexit means breakup and the English couldn’t give a stuff. Bye bye UK.
I have also posted this before and also relevant but worth repeating.
I can’t speak about other countries in detail and understand that the Danes got a fudge after their referendum but as a Dubliner I can give my take on Ireland.
1) Referenda in Ireland are common; some years there are more than one.
2) Referenda are often used as an anti-government protest. There is commonly 10% or so of the electorate who will vote against the government/establishment line and they are often hijacked by anti-government groups.
3) In most cases the NO result is used to get further concessions from the EU. Cynics might say these have been agreed beforehand.
4) I am very disturbed about Greece and the way the EU has treated it in terms of strict neoliberal economics. One theory is that the Weimar Republic’s experience of hyperinflation has been burnt into Germany’s DNA and has led to irrationality and over-caution. I think a very useful debate can be had here.
5) The UK is not a paragon of democracy either. My two main gripes are the first past the post system; winner takes all and the dominance of England. The latter leads to policies which benefit England (well a subsection of the rich and powerful) and to hell with Scotland Wales and Ireland.
The Irish had enough of English dominance and left in 1922. There is no love in the Republic for Westminster which treated Ireland with genuine contempt – the recent Euro sanctions were like a common cold as compared to a blood sucking parasite.
No worries Ireland will be OK. It’s the English working and middle class I worry about. Without EU protection the nice Mrs May and Donald will of course make everything wonderful for them.
To summarise in the EU the Irish have felt valued and respected and treated as being equal
As Steve Richards, Owen Jones and others have commented in The Guardian, Labour is impossibly divided over their policy on the EU. So terrified are they of losing to UKIP in the Copeland and Stoke by elections they dare not oppose Article 50 or Theresa May’s mess of the Brexit proposals. They have shunned any thought of any effective opposition by forming a Progressive Alliance with the SNP, Plaid, LD, Irish and Green Parties.
I think Labour may be moving towards history
Richard, with regard to your statement that ‘52% of people were so disenchanted…’ I’d like to add a little granularity for the sake of accuracy, as follows:
‘Although both major parties seem wedded to the claim that “the British people have decided to leave”, the British people have done no such thing. At the referendum last June, 37% of those eligible to vote supported Brexit, 35% wanted to remain and 28% did not vote at all — many, in my view, misled by opinion polls indicating a pro-Europe result. Since 63% of the British public did not vote to leave, there would seem plenty for parliament to debate: whether a non-binding referendum should be allowed to produce a further fall in the currency, for example, or diminish human rights.’
See hear: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/parliament-brexit-supreme-court-article-50-europe
I agree with all that Ivan
If only I was in charge voting would be compulsory as in Asutralia
If only……
Agree entirely, Richard, and Brexit and Trump – and more fundamentally, the consequences of both (neither of which has the backing of anywhere near the majority of the electorate) – prove exactly why. It should not be possible for a minority of the electorate to push through such decisions. Having said that, that’s the system we have, which only goes to prove the necessity of the argument you put forward in a previous blog that the opposition has to be an opposition and vote against Article 50 for all the reasons you outlined so clearly. (and particularly now they know they have only five days to debate something that will trigger long term negative outcomes for their constituents, regardless of what those people may currently believe or be sold by the Brexit supporting press).
Agreed as ever Ivan
Richard, I have yet to be convinced by any argument I have heard in favour of compulsory voting.
As both a parent and former teacher, I have come to see how compulsion generally leads to resentment and rejection.
Not only will compulsory voting do nothing to improve the electorate’s willingness to make informed choices in the polling booth, but it also implies that non-voting is the fault of the voter rather than the system (which is clearly outmoded) or the quality of the candidates (which is often appallingly low).
I accep there are counter arguments and your points are valid
My hope is it would improve engagement
But it is a hope
No-one can force anyone to cast a vote for one of the candidates. It is perfectly legitimate to spoil your paper. All you are doing is forcing someone to make the effort to turn up at the polling station.
I agree with Ivan the opposition has to be an opposition, otherwise, in my view, Parliament fails to be of use to the broader community. It has however been knobbled by the Tories, a group who as we have said seem to care little if at all for Democracy, knobbled by the simple practice of parachuting closet Tories into it, many of whom are very much out of the closet these days. I’m sure the same thing would happen were the Greens, for example, to start to become a threat. Pointless to berate the opposition for not opposing then because the purpose of many of its members is to null genuine opposition. En passant, this doesn’t seem to be the fault of Corbyn, or McDonnell, who are probably rather more frustrated by this than we are. Since this has been done though, and it seems entirely likely it could be done again, arguably we must ask ourselves, now that central government has clearly had its day, what’s next? If people find that fantastical, may I remind them we were once ruled by monarchs, supposedly with an eternal divine right on their side. That all went, didn’t it? Change can come, nothing lasts forever.
I can’t excuse Corbyn et al
Sorry – an ineffective opposition is their fault
This is the non-voter fallacy – I am afraid that you just can’t attribute intentions to those who did not vote, whether for or against the proposition. They must simply be discounted. Otherwise nothing would ever command a majority. However, I fully agree with Richard that the best way around this would be compulsory voting, especially if combined with proper voter registration which does not disenfranchise large parts of the population!
So why apply the idea that no-voting counts in union ballots?
You just can’t make your claim
Richard, you can’t have it both ways! Just last week you were arguing, with regard to Theresa May’s legitimacy, that as, “an accountant I am always more interested in substance than form”, yet you now rely on the narrow legality of the referendum as purely advisory (which of course it is as Parliament cannot bind itself even if it so wishes), over its ‘meaning’. As much as I would like to, I cannot agree that the referendum result was not ‘meaningful’; to do so on your basis would be to suggest that no vote, even a general election, is meaningful – all are simply a poll on one day, and all involve a significant degree of lying. As a lawyer I am all for relying on narrow legality, but the ‘form’ of the referendum cannot be ignored.
I am not sure what you mean by your second point – I am not aware of any such concept as the Tories, “always having a plan.” Strikes me a something of a straw man. If you are referring to the lack of a plan following 23rd June, then that was a consequence of Cameron’s direction to the civil service not to plan or prepare for a leave vote, due to his concern that such preparation would provide ammunition for the Leave campaign. I am as dismayed at the result as many others, but this was a shocking act of negligence on the part of our former Prime Minister. There have been few clearer examples of the elevation of narrow political gain over the national interest in recent times.
There was no substance
There was no form
There was nothing and so no mandate
I am sorry Richard, I agree with you on much but to dismiss a national vote with relatively high turnout after significant debate (whether good or not) as of ‘no substance’ does not reflect reality. There are many good debates about the shortfalls of referendums, or what mandate may or may not be claimed from the referendum result, but you can’t just dismiss it. You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
You are not engaging with what I said
If there needs to be a consequential plan for any vote to be meaningful, then all votes we have ever had would fail that test.
I thought the question on 23rd June was pretty straightforward and as meaningful a vote that I recall: do the eligible voters want the UK to be a member of the EU (with all that entails, good and bad) or not.
I can recall at one time (well before the referendum) you were pretty lukewarm about the EU for the same reason as I am: its inherent undemocratic, centralised nature.
I’m not sure what convinced you to change your mind so vehemently.
I want to reform the EU
But economic suicide has never seemed like a good strategy to me
‘Economic suicide’ is a bit strong – there are countries outside the EU that do pretty well.
In any case, what price do you place on a people having proper democratic control over what happens to them? It would have seemed economic suicide when the US, Ireland, Israel etc. took independence, and perhaps in the early days it was hard. But they seem to have coped, and would look back on the decision as the right one.
With apologies, that’s not intended to be serious comment is it?
Yes, the democratic deficit with the EU is a serious comment. It was a main reason for a lot of people voting for Leave. I assume you understand this point of view as valid, even if you don’t feel strongly about it or even agree with it.
My reference to the US etc. was to merely point out there is historical precedent for countries choosing democracy over external domination/interference, even if was contrary to economic interests. With the US, there were warnings about the economic consequences of cutting ties with the UK – which did eventuate (until well into the 1790s), all long forgotten now.
I seriously doubt democratic deficit was a major reason for many people voting leave even if you and I think it important
But we can agree to differ
Surveys such as this one show that the democratic deficit was the main reason:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Even the issue of ‘taking control of borders’ is about democracy – for the decision on who can come is ultimately taken democratically. I am generally pro immigration but accept we can’t have open borders and decisions should be made democratically.
You say the democracy issue is important to you, but your recent writings barely mention it.
It matters
Other things matter more right now
So I have to prioritise
Fair enough, we all have our priorities.
But I find it a dangerous slippery slope to say ‘economics’ or ‘dire emergency’ trumps ‘democracy’. Maybe justified for short times during a genuine emergency such as an invasion.
But we’re not remotely in that territory now, and we were certainly not in that place on 23rd June when people were asked their opinion.
I’m dismayed at the response to the referendum result, and the general message from MPs that because “the people have spoken” we now need to get on with it, come what may. The majority of MPs don’t support leaving, but they’re going to do it anyway, or at least not try too hard to stop it.
If you’ll forgive the plug, I’ve set up a website http://www.citizen-nowhere.com to call on people to write to their MPs urging them to take an active role, to scrutinise any plans that emerge carefully, to retain control, and be prepared to halt the process if it’s clear that leaving would be harmful. It’s sad that we have to remind MPs to do this, but that’s the state of affairs at the moment.
Real demoracy is not comprised of a mono culture.
I am politically to Left so to speak and insist that the Left’s concerns are addressed and our ideas used (which all to often these days are not).
But I also expect my democracy to listen to the Right too and adress their concerns – but not at a cost to the Left.
A proper exit from Europe should result in a balanced plan. Even if we accept the 52% of the vote who voted to leave, those who voted to remain still have a say in the detail.
Any one who does not realise and respond to this is (1) thick or (2) a potential dictator or (3) both.
You’d be looking at a lot of spoiled ballot papers then. I didn’t vote. I considered it but felt too uninformed to be able to do so. I don’t know what the EU is these days, if I ever did, and had no idea of who I could trust to give me the straight poop on all the related issues. I couldn’t decide without being informed. I admit I was tempted to vote against Brexit purely through profound distrust in those who supported it (IDS, Farage, Boris etc.), but in the end I decided not to, and to concentrate instead on survival whatever the outcome might be.
I empathise with you Bill.
The neo-lib hegemony in ideas did make me feel that the EU had been captured by neo-liberalism in the same way that New Labour was.
In the end, people just get confused and then frustrated. A common refrain I hear is ‘They’re (politicians) are all the same’.
This confusion and distrust is perhaps neo-liberalism’s greatest triumph and explains why it can constantly reinvent itself and keep getting people voting for it without them actually realising it.
More people voted to leave the EU than have ever voted for anything else in this country’s history. For a government to ignore this would be tyrannical.
Ok
But they did not vote for anything else
Acting on it blindly in the knee-jerk manner proposed is equally tyrannical. Using it a basis for further discussion, well yes, maybe. But not what’s happening, that’s wildly unreasonable, entirely disproportionate.
True – to ignore the result would be tyrannical.
But to also ignore those who voted against it is also tyrannical.
Fact.
And it is the politicians job to solve this problem for all concerned. If only our current crop of ‘leaders’ were up to the task!
Richard
I have read through this blog again. Contributors don’t always just reply to you original post but also to responses. I’m not sure what strategy you use to respond to posts but it is non sequential. When I have time I can look a few times a day. Had I been able to read earlier responses, often appearing in the thread chronologically before mine; I could respond more clinically. There is no perfect format.
I was on a train by 6.30 yesterday morning and spent more than nine hours in meetings with few gaps – many of them on tubes or buses
At one point I had 26 comments to moderate
At that point it’s tempting to be rational but the urge is often to get out as many as possible – so short and relevant ones tend to get through the system first
It’s not rational but sometimes it’s the best I can do
Sorry
As the referendum recedes into the past, the view of younger voters who were denied participation in the event becomes more and more important. This is particularly true of 16 and 17 year olds who were denied a vote. Not to recognise that the decision to leave Europe has the major impact on young people and thus to seek their views on is a contempt.
My sons remain livid about this
And as far as I know so do all their friends
I do wish that statistics were presented ‘in full context’.
You adopt (and thereby endorse) the ‘conventional’ view:
– Remain 48.1%
– Leave 51.9%
– A Decisive Reflection of ‘The Will of the UK Electors’ ?
Please consider the statistics ‘in full context’:
– Remain 34.7%
– Not Known 27.9%
– Leave 37.4%
– A ‘Buggers Muddle’ ?
No-one knows (or even seems to care) how many of those who didn’t vote were appalled by the fact that the referendum was happening at all (after all, even the leavers insist that the Commons ought to be sovereign – unless of course they happen to be remainers!!!). How many of the appalled just hoped that remain would ‘obviously win’ (otherwise Cameron wouldn’t have called the referendum would he!!!), and even if leave won, it wouldn’t be binding, and the MPs would sack Cameron, reset, and tackle the issue properly.
Its all well and good but this should have been decided before there was even a vote to have a referendum. We cannot undo what has been done and it would be tantamount to what dictators do , or failed Gambian presidents do if we now ignore the people’s verdict, such as it is, flaws and all.
No; the correct process is to stop the evil, Tory, mismanaged, debacle through due process. Any shortcuts and so much political Capital will be made that the Filthn that rules at present will be in power for at least another twenty years. By then, if Trump is anything to go by exposing immigrants who break the law in a weekly list, denying free access to the Internet will seem like a Vicars tea party.
The Tories will not be able to produce a plan that Parliament, let alone the country can vote on and despite all efforts of the Atlantic Bridge Brigade to rush this divorce from the continent of 500 million people and rush on the rebound into the grasping hands of the American conglomerates before the next General election so it is in all our interests to delay through due process and follow convention and the law. The vote was a national one and the MP’s are selected to represent NAtional views. Local government is there for other non National business-were it able to function properly of course !!!
I think you forget why there was a referendum at all. It was to appease Cameron’s right wing and stop them going off to join UKIP, that’s all. May(hem) continues that effort. All else escapes her, I’d think.