Taking back control of the will of the people
We have been led to believe that Brexit is an inevitability following the June 2016 plebiscite…it is not, and should never have been painted so
Common acceptance of the immutability of the Brexit vote has been the most vexing aspect of the immediate post-Brexit-vote era. The principle of opposition is a fundamental component of any functioning democracy, in fact the obligation of those who uphold it. Yet it seems we have been led to accept that a single vote, held in isolation of deeper understanding of the facts at a single point in time, is suddenly for all time immutable.
Ken Clarke highlighted this anomaly over a year ago when he addressed the House of Commons in an impassioned speech following the Article 50 debate. He questioned whether in a General Election the defeated opposition must retire their manifesto and instead accept as a point of principal all proposals put forward by the government without further question. Despite the rhetorical absurdity of the suggestion, it appears that Brexit has managed even this constitutional aberrance…
“We believe the Conservatives are damaging the interests of our country by turning their backs on Europe, and isolating us abroad….Labour believes that our membership of the European Union is central to our prosperity and security”
Labour Party 2015 election manifesto
A key driver of this attitude has been the highly effective use of mantra, deployed as a devastatingly effective tool in silencing debate around complex and nuanced topics. “Taking back control” became the raison d’etre (not without irony) for voting Leave, a statement of authority and superficial simplicity. Similarly, the rapid post-vote adoption of the “will of the people” as a motif of the Brexit camp and right-wing media has served to strangle any debate around a topic which quite obviously divided the country in two. Those who continue to question must obviously be “anti-democratic” under the ferocious examination of such rhetoric?…
Of course, real democracy never deals in such absolutes. The real answer is that the only immutable facet of any democratic process applies to the right to change our mind — after all it is a right we all expect in our everyday lives. When we buy a house our obligation to buy is accepted only after the outcome of a survey, we reserve the right to change our minds dependent on the revelation of new facts right up to the point of no return. In the case of Brexit, the survey has so far revealed a litany of devastation — divisive (and insoluble) internal border questions; a €40bn bill (and growing); and rapid deterioration in economic growth from the fastest growing economy to the slowest in the EU in less than 18 months, being perhaps the prominent 3. The metaphorical house of Brexit it appears has dry rot, requires under-pinning, has severe structural problems, a garden full of Japanese knot weed, and is sited near the path of a planned major motorway, and yet we are compelled to believe that we still must progress to exchange.
So it is that 2017 has been lost to useful debate, but there are growing signs that public attitude is now shifting significantly. Recent polls suggest that those supporting an abandonment of the exit process now enjoy a 10 point lead, and others suggest that those supporting a second referendum have a massive 16 point lead. EU leaders sensing a change in temperature have been at pains to highlight the reversibility of the process that we in Britain have foolishly embarked upon. The mantra it seems is wearing a little thin as the reality of the situation grows, and the “will of the people” appears to be reflecting a different outcome.
“No one disputes the 2016 vote. And no one disputes that if it stands as the expression of British opinion, we will leave.
The issue is whether as facts emerge, as the negotiation proceeds and we have clarity over the alternative to present membership of the EU, we have the right to change our mind; whether the ‘will of the people’ — this much abused phrase — is deemed immutable or is permitted to mutate as our perception of reality becomes better informed.”
Tony Blair, What we know now, January 2018
There are many reasons why Brexit cannot happen. There is an obligation on all of us to ask why our democratic right to question has so far been removed on this topic, and an even deeper obligation to ensure that we have examined the implications of its outcome. We cannot allow genuine and necessary debate to be silenced by hypocritical mantra. We cannot allow our country to be blind-marched into a degraded future.
