I hate to say it, but this country, as it now stands, does not need one referendum. It needs at least two. And quite possibly three.
The first is obvious. It is a new Brexit referendum. The choice to be made is also obvious. Little agonising is required. Since No Deal is ruled out the options are what the EU has offered (once termed the ‘May Deal') and Remain. All we actually now need is a vote, but this time knowing what it's about. And yes, it should be binding.
But that's only the first referendum we need. Scotland needs one on independence too. This cannot be avoided. At the very least Scotland needs to be given the power to hold one at a time of the Scottish government's choosing.
And dare I say it, but a third, on electoral reform, is also necessary. Our parliamentary democracy is dying because it lacks any credibility now, precisely because it is so obviously unrepresentative. The House of Lords needs reform. So too does the status of the monarch (who has to become, at most, a titular head of state). And we need proper proportional representation. Now first past the post is incapable of delivering a stable majority government that is now imperative, and no longer a mere choice.
Labour has got to a People's Vote now. So too have most Remain parties.
The Scottish question has much less common ground, but it would surely suit all parties to resolve this again, at least for the time being.
And electoral reform? Surely that is common ground now? And if not, why not?
Offer these, plus support for the Lucas / Lewis Green New Deal Bill and hasn't a unity government got a programme for short term government? In which case shouldn't they happen before a general election?
I would think so. I know many will disagree.
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:
You could add a fourth referendum – it will not be too long before there is an Ireland border poll. Within a decade, I should think. Given the demographics, and the relative economic and political positions of Eire and of the UK in general and NI in particular, I’d expect the north to vote to join the south of the island.
On “No Deal is ruled out” that may be the position in this Parliament, but I am not entirely convinced there is no possibility of “no deal” being approved if it is an option in a second referendum , as I suspect quite a lot of Leaver support will have hardened toward “just get on with it”. You might need a two-stage Brexit referendum 2.0 – “three+ years later, do you still want to leave, yes/no?”; “if the majority votes to leave, do you want to leave with this deal [i.e. whatever deal has been negotiated, May or otherwise], or with no deal?”. Or indeed “do you want to leave with no deal, yes/no?”; “if the majority votes against no deal, do you want to leave with the negotiated deal, or remain?”.
IU wondered whether to include an NI poll and thought it further out….
“The choice to be made is also obvious. […] Little agonising is required. Since No Deal is ruled out the options are what the EU has offered (once termed the ‘May Deal’) and Remain.”
I think that is a false choice, Richard.
Put those alternatives on a ballot paper and there will be riotous assemblies across the nation.
The ‘May’ deal is dead. Isn’t it? It’s been rejected three(?) times. But then that was a one party cock-up deal. If we’re going to appease the appetite for the ‘will of the people’ to be respected we have to have some sort of withdrawal agreement hatched across party lines to offer against the alternative of ‘remain’. Or we have to win the ‘Parliament is Sovereign’ case.
Boris Cummings is squaring-up for an election on the basis of ‘People vs Parliament’. If opinions are polarised now where will such a contest leave us ? Our constitution doesn’t accommodate the ‘will of the people’ except through a democratically elected representative government within Parliament.
“The Scottish question has much less common ground, but it would surely suit all parties to resolve this again, at least for the time being.”
Why ? So we can flip flop aboot (sic) for another decade or two ? There’s no for the time being about it. One way or another it has to be decisive.
You have said repeatedly in recent months that we are on the verge of (or even into) a constitutional crisis and we have to sort that out.
Proportional representation…? Yes. It would be sensible, but Tories won’t support it and I don’t think there is even majority support on the Labour side (of House or country) and I’m not convinced the electorate as a whole cares one way or the other, enough to be swayed to vote in favour.
I think you must have got out of bed this morning and put on your rose tinted spectacles by mistake.
I’m putting ideas out there
And what else is the 2nd referendum question?
Note too how I worded the Scottish proposal
And on reform – the process could start – a consultation is where it begins
I am not sure any are that wild, especially as the May deal is the EU offer on the table, and there is no other deal available bar that
“I’m putting ideas out there”
I know you are, I’m just saying I don’t like these 🙂 but I’m not knocking the opportunity to discuss them.
“And what else is the 2nd referendum question?”
I don’t think a second referendum is a good idea at all. The first one was a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it again. In fact we should never have another referendum unless it is about a matter which people can express an informed opinion on. (Tony Blair wanted a referendum on joining the Euro which even economists couldn’t agree on the wisdom of, and held a vote in parliament about fox hunting. Wrong way round.)
“Note too how I worded the Scottish proposal”
I thought I had. I take the initial point, that it is for the Scottish government to decide on timing without reference to what Westminster thinks is appropriate. It was the supporting “it would surely suit all parties to resolve this again, at least for the time being.” that I baulked at. At the present time I think it of very much secondary importance to sorting the Brexit question. On a point of ‘principle’ if Westminster can say the EU referendum was a UK vote and Scotland was outvoted they will just have to put up with the SNP sticking their oar into English politics. (I think we are broadly in agreement that Brexit is very much an independent England project) Westminster had a choice and deliberately scuppered it in 2014 …. the ‘Vow’ was a three party charm offensive to influence (pervert) the result. People really should know to be more careful what they wish for.
“And on reform — the process could start — a consultation is where it begins”
Reform of the UK ? House of Lords ? PR? Monarchy? The discussion has gone on endlessly for decades.
“I am not sure any are that wild, especially as the May deal is the EU offer on the table, and there is no other deal available bar that”
But parliament wouldn’t pass the May deal. So it may well be on the EU table but it isn’t on the UK table. It is dead. It may have some bits capable of resuscitation but it needs to be a whole new presentation.
The only quick solution is a (nominal) No Deal exit on Oct 31st and that is going to be a disaster. So we need to accept (the ‘people’ need to accept) that there is no quick fix except chaos….and that is not a fix at all.
The only glimmer of hope at present is the SNP (sticking their bloody noses in again) suggestion to vote Boris out with a confidence vote, have an alternative government; extension on A50 withdrawal and a genuine cross-party negotiated agreement on EU withdrawal without the brinkmanship and histrionics we’ve become accustomed to.
Get that and we can have a referendum to ‘ratify’ it. (Against the alternative of Remain. As you were) If we absolutely must. I think we probably must.
I still think May should have followed through on her veiled threat to revoke, but that’s water under the bridge and 12 months too late for the Lib Dems to get onto that ship. It sailed.
The problem is that we spell the word wrongly. It is ‘referendumb’ not ‘referendum’.
If we spelt it the right way as I suggest, hopefully people would get that it isn’t a very good thing to use in what is supposedly a representative democracy. Nor would it be abused by new right insurgents (or even left wing ones).
Referenda are now in my opinion as toxic as the rest of our polity = in other words they are finished. We must dispense with them and find another way to have a proper ‘big conversation’ an big, national issues.
I honestly believe we have to start again Richard – new ways, new methods – we need authenticity in politics going forward if we are to save it – and us!
We either have direct democracy or representative democracy – it’s difficult to have both as the two are inconsistent as Brexit has proved. I’d echo @Andy Crow’s Our constitution doesn’t accommodate the ‘will of the people’ except through a democratically elected representative government within Parliament.
We elected a Parliament in 2017 who were largely in favour of remain and didn’t wish to leave on any old terms but we had voted ‘democratically’ that we wanted to leave on unknown terms, just the previous year!
Probably the only way out of it now is a referendum on May’s deal, which is literally the only show in town unless Ireland is united first. Unless we are going to wait for that?
And I’ve already considered the referendum question: it needs to be something like do you want to never mention Brexit again? — or be droning on about it for the next decade?
As for Scottish Independence – proper independence is all we need. We have enough trouble trying to get out of the EU after 46 years. Good luck with trying to get out of the UK after more than 300 – it will consume lives and basically be more Brexit for ever, and ever.
Make the UK properly federal and with local currencies and be done with it!
I am all for the UK being properly federal but I’m not sure about local currencies.
I am sure that they are not a good idea within a state
I know there is opposition to the idea of a parallel currency!
But issuing it gives more power to the locality than it would have without it. http://www.progressivepulse.org/society/using-local-currency-for-reform-radical-or-reckless.
As long as the locality accepts local currency in payment of local taxes it is able to create money locally and have some measure of independence from central control – more than does any federal state in Australia or the US currently for example.
Of course it is not a complete solution.
But it is a help – as is the current and ongoing creation of local banks -such as the South West Mutual.
https://southwestmutual.co.uk/
The Bank of England does not seem to know if the Bristol Pound creates money (I’ve asked) and the Bristol Pound (http://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/bernard-lietaer-rip) will not tell me, which leads me to think they do. It hasn’t frightened the horses – or even the BoE…
If the Bristol Pound creates money then that’s devolution of power – isn’t money all about power?
Peter
This would a macro disaster
No way I will ever buy this bar one for one exchange rates: that I can buy to create local circulation alone
Richard
Richard
“No way I will ever buy this bar one for one exchange rates: that I can buy to create local circulation alone”
For the avoidance of doubt it is exactly this that I had in mind – not a fully fledged internationally tradeable currency but one which creates money locally by spending it and accepting it for local taxes as a one to one equivalent for Sterling, much as the Bristol pound now does.
Peter
Phew….
I despise referenda. They are an instrument of mob rule. I hope never to see one again. We live in a representative democracy, i.e. the people at large are not asked to put the time, effort and wisdom necessary to pass laws or run the country but they elect appropriate individuals from amongst them to do this on their behalf and if they are not happy with how they do this they elect someone else instead. Didn’t Edmund Burke say something like “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” And he was a Tory!
If we absolutely have to have referenda then they should be between clearly defined alternatives, not between the status quo and an undefined aspiration.
For example:
If the people want to leave the EU, they should elect a government that has this as a stated policy. That government should then agree withdrawal terms with the EU, pass these through parliament and only then put it to a referendum – stay as we are or leave on this clearly defined basis.
If the people of Scotland want independence, they should elect a government and Westminster MPs that have this as a stated policy. That government and those MPs should then agree terms with Westminster and only then put it to a referendum – stay as we are or go independent on this clearly defined basis.
PS: People talk of Scotland “leaving” the UK. I do not accept that this concept exists. The UK exists by virtue of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. Without Scotland, there is no UK. It would not be a case of one newly independent state ceseeding from a continuing state. It would be the splitting of an existing state into two new ones. A bit like when Czechoslovakia split at the end of 1992, there was no continuing Czechoslovakia, there were two new countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
Agreed re Scotland
But will WM think that way?
Richard asks: Agreed re Scotland But will WM think that way?
Not a chance I reckon: the prevailing mindset of successive governments at WM towards Scotland, Wales and NI has typically been closer to that of a colonial master than viewing them as equal partners in a political union.
Too true Ken
Richard, why is No Deal ruled out? Do we know for a fact that the British people wouldn’t accept a No Deal exit in a referendum? If neither the Brexiteers nor the Remainers were happy with May’s deal shouldn’t the first referenda be: No Deal or Remain? It doesn’t appear that the EU will give a better deal. Why would they? To encourage other states to leave? I wouldn’t think so.
Parliament has ruled it out