I am so bored with hearing that all issues relating to the EU were decided in the June referendum. I am even more bored with being told that pointing this obvious fact out is, somehow, undemocratic. And that is the point of this blog because the reality is that democracy, firstly, never resolves an issue finally and, secondly, always permits those who disagree with the outcome of an election to seek an alternative result in the future.
Let me explore those two issues a little more. First, the whole point of democracy is that alternative opinions are offered and decided upon. And the fundamental point is that the decision is not forever. Debate is always allowed to continue. Indeed, it is an essential part of our democracy that one parliament cannot bind the next. In other words when, as is required by democratic process, a new parliament is elected that new parliament can reverse all the work of the previous one if it so wishes and that is considered a fundamental characteristic of democracy at work. Implicit in democracy then is the fact that nothing is binding forever.
Second, it is an absolutely essential feature of democracy that we do not accept that democratic decisions once made are right. In fact, democracy is dependent upon the fact that we do not do that. To understand that fact consider the alternative. This would be that once a party had been elected we would never then be able to challenge the decision of the electorate on that issue ever again. And yet, of course, the whole point of democracy is that from the moment a government is elected all other political parties then go out of their way to tell the electorate that they got their decision wrong and next time they vote they should change their minds and vote for other parties. In other words, there is not only nothing wrong in saying the referendum result is wrong, or in demanding a second vote, but it's actually indication of a belief in democracy to do so. Those who say otherwise are the anti-democrats.
In that case can we now dismiss all those offering spurious arguments that the democratic will of the people has decided this issue once and for all as either wrong or as being anti-democratic in country where democracy defines our system of government?
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 still think that EU insistance on free movement of labour is now the achillies heel of progressive thinking in Europe. I have not seen anything coming out of the EU in response to the real concerns about people being displaced by immigrants being used as cheap labour to bring down local wages.
All that are needed are immigration mitigation strategies that for example encourage the formation of unions, wage bargaining , mimimum wages and citizens’ incomes, selective immigration concerning skills that are needed but is anything like this discussed or proposed?
The EU cannot ignore this issue for much longer anymore because if it does, these real concerns will be used to undermine democracy or give seemingly democratic creedence to other unsavoury solutions that emerge.
To me democracy is (should be) a dialectic process anyway always attempting to balance what sometimes seem like irreconcilable differences. Once that dialectic balance falls into disuse someone is going to be really unhappy. Too many people see politics as winning – beating someone else – and then using this fact to negate the needs of another constituency. It has to stop.
I can’t remember where I read this recently but free movement of Labour (NB not ‘people’) was almost an afterthought to the original plans for what became the Common Market. It was a suggestion by the Italians – something that would help their impoverished people in the South and of course German factories across the border. Nothing to object to there…what could possibly go wrong?!
If our political masters were a little more mature they could and would sit down with everything on the table for discussion. I suspect this was behind Corbyn’s position on Remain, as indeed it was with the likes of Varoufakis. The current mess that is the EU is a gross (and deliberate) corruption of what the founding fathers of that organisation had in mind, as a five minute read of Wiki will show the interested reader. Someone should say so…but say so from a position of ‘Let’s Remain but les all admit we need to sort this out’.
I think Richard is right, and in his analysis lies the answer, and more than hope for the future. Given that, apparently, overwhelmingly the young want to be part of the EU then even if we do end up ‘Out’, the next generation will vote to be ‘In’! Democracy, as so valued and vaunted by the Brexiteers will win in the end…Brexit will simply grow old and die with the generation who support it. But unless those political masters recognise the risks and dangers and respond to them…by adaptation (Darwin and all that!)…then they and their institution will be in the queue behind the dodo and the dinosaur.
PSR, There has been plenty of research demonstrating that immigrants do NOT “drive down” wages. It’s unscrupulous employers that do that. The reduction in union power, coupled with the introduction of “zero-hour” and similar contracts promoting uncertainty are what is driving down wages.
In fact, immigrants provide a boost to the economy with (sometimes) essential skills, by contributing tax income, and even generating jobs. They use fewer resources because there are restrictions on their access to social benefits.
But you will never see those arguments being made in the right wing press.
The issue is not “why isn’t the EU addressing this?”, it’s “how do we break the information stranglehold?”
PS…we have also benefited greatly from the free movement of labour, with many UK citizens working abroad across the EU, or retiring abroad.
Thank you. About time someone said this. it is self evident in the way the Tory party machine has been going about destroying the welfare state which was fought for by our parents and grandparents.
I have written much on your various blogs and it will not surprise you that I am in near total agreement.
I am reminded of the Anna Karenina principle: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” IN was a singular decision OUT was an ill defined decision with multiple end points. Who are the people who voted Brexit?
Apologies not well thought through but I think such a list is useful and can be much improved upon but this is a first stab. I have not put percentages on and there may be other significant groups.
1) Fanatical anti EU people who detest the EU are emboldened by Brexit and Trump and are fervently hoping for a Le Pen victory in France next year and a domino total disintegration of the EU. Damn the financial consequences 50% drop in GDP is worth it. Some of the more extreme UKIP are in this camp.
2) People who want a hard Brexit; understand it will be a financial catastrophe but believe that a phoenix will rise from the ashes and Britain will once again be the great trading power it once was with very strong links with the commonwealth.
3) Diehard neoliberals who dream of a transatlantic alliance and are also emboldened by Trump. A glorious Anglo-sphere is their dazzling future.
4) The Cake (sex with the ex) lobby who believe they can get full membership of the single market, full control of borders and zero contribution to the EU.
5) People who are terrified by immigration. I saw a disgusting and totally misleading campaign on Facebook on countries such as Turkey imminently joining the EU.
6) People who are left behind after Thatchers neoliberal gutting of Britain. They have no hope and when you are at the bottom any change offers at least some hope
7) People who just wanted to give the government/establishment a bloody nose and scare them by a narrow IN vote in Brexit. This was supposed to act as a wake up call.
It’s a good start
And too many focus just on 4 onwards
Can I add 8) People who think the EU is undemocratic and unaccountable but have no problem with free movement of people or the single market I.e. who want a soft brexit.
Only 52% of people voted to leave, even if 95% of them want a hard brexit, that still leaves a majority of all voters in favour of remaining in the single market (and the freedom of movement that necessarily entails)
Sean
I’d be fascinated to learn into which of your categories you would place the late Tony Benn. As framed by you (pun intended) he – and anyone like him across the political spectrum – doesn’t fit into any of your tendentiously-formulated categories because none of them allows for the existence of anybody who on grounds of principle as well as cogent argument opposed Britain joining the then European Community.
It’s one thing to disagree with the arguments, but it’s entirely another to falsify and denigrate them. Personally I happened to disagree with most of Benn’s opinions but I never kidded myself that I could hold a candle to him intellectually nor did I ever doubt his integrity. How about you?
Your point is proven by the simple fact (yes, fact) that the UK having voted in a referendum to join the EU (or common market as it then was) all those decades ago, those who disagreed with this outcome – mostly but not exclusively Tories and those on the right – never stopped arguing and agitating for us to leave. Clearly then they never accepted the result of that referendum so why should the situation be any different for those who voted remain this time around.
If anything can be said to be anti-democratic it is the role being played by the right wing press in seeking to suppress debate on possible interpretations, options and outcomes of Brexit, and alternatives, should the costs (economic, social, cultural, etc) and negative impacts of that course of action on the majority of the citizens of the UK be shown to be, or become, too great.
Furthermore, in pandering to their own biased views and self interest and the closed minds of many of their readers/supporters, they are recklessly gambling with the future of millions of young people and future generations of this country. In short, the right wing, Brexit supporting media have significant power and influence but without any responsibility attached to it. That’s a threat to democracy if ever there was one.
Get to work on Brussels then to make it accountable to European citizens and not a totalitarian organisation!
Let’s have some proper financial records. First steps to transparency and accountablity – I’m not interested in excuses – I’m sick and tired of corruprion amongst the world’s elites, which the rest of us have to endure!
It has proper finial records – vastly better than most companies
What you don’t understand is public sector audit
I would like a European Parliament and I’m not opposed to a World Government – but both must be accountable to their citizens and stop stripping us of our hard fought for rights and freedoms.
But the EU is accountable to its Member states Governments.
How would it work if you had a more powerful EU Parliament overriding domestic Parliaments? Which one should have primacy?
“… can we now dismiss all those offering spurious arguments that the democratic will of the people has decided this issue once and for all as either wrong or as being anti-democratic in country where democracy defines our system of government?”
Define “democracy”. Literally it means “rule by the people”; perhaps (tho’ one doubts it) that was just about feasible in 5th-century BC Athens but with a population of 60 million? or even “only” 6 million? Hardly.
So democracy becomes in practice “representative democracy”, which in turn becomes “rule by majority-will” until the next election whereupon a new, differently-constituted, majority-will takes over the reins. In the meantime a parliamentary opposition stands always ready to take up the reins if they fall from the governing party’s hands but unless and until that happens they remain able only to criticise not to act.
What you are casuistically arguing is that even for the (relatively) brief tenure of power by any given government it should be denied the means to deliver on its democratic mandate. A recipe for anarchy, not for democracy. (Of course you only advocate this when a government – such as the present one – doesn’t enjoy your approval).
Then there’s the question: What is a referendum for, if not for *deciding* BY MAJORITY VOTE between two mutually exclusive courses of action? That decision having been made *in that way* what is “democratic” about working to overturn it? Again, a recipe for anarchy not democracy.
One could mount an argument that referenda are inherently undemocratic but that’s an entirely different debate. The fact is that for good or ill the decision was taken, by an overwhelming majority in Paliament, that the issue was to be decided through a referendum. All that remains is for the decision thus made to be carried out. You are simply emitting a smoke-screen of bogus logic to try to confer moral justification on partisan tactical manoeuvring.
Please don’t be ridiculous
I argued no such thing: I said democracy as we have it does not decide once and for all
You agree with that in what you say
And as for the referndum – it was not binding and so not a decision at all
Why no try using logic and fact because right now you are just spouting untruths.