Third Time's a Charm

[steepholm]

People have missed a trick by not calling for a "third referendum." After all, that's what it would be - after the one in 1975 and the one in 2016.

It's not only a more accurate description, but it reminds us that, if another referendum now would be an affront to democracy, why so was the one three years ago. Why couldn't we respect the will of the people, as expressed - by an emphatic 67:33 margin - in June 1975?

It's true that many now of age were not in a position to vote at that time, and that many who could are now dead - but the same is true of the 2016 vote.

It's true too that the organisation we voted to stay in in 1975 was different from what the EU has since become, so one might argue that the vote has lost its legitimacy to that extent. But again, the Brexit described in 2016 was very different from the Brexit now on offer.

At any rate, let's please not call it a "People's Vote" - as if there were any other kind. The redundancy of the phrase is annoying, but I also associate the "People's X" meme with the maudlin nonsense that flared up around the death of Diana. It was then that someone (was it Tony Blair?) came up with the truly oxymoronic phrase, "the People's Princess." Ever since, it's had a sickly flavour, a bit like (but even worse than) "the Great British X."

A bas with them both!

Comments

[ex_inklessej388]

I stumbled across your journal via my Network. But I found your post to be very insightful. I am in Canada, so far removed from the street level politic, but in light of reading about the so-called Glorious Revolution (which was really a revolution, counter-revolution and then quasi-revolution/reversion it is interesting how history repeats itself in giant cycles.

[steepholm]

Thank you for the kind words!

The Glorious Revolution is fascinating, and equally fascinating is the fact that, outside Northern Ireland (where of course they have a very particular take), people in the UK seem to know very little about it. No one leaves school without being taught the names of Henry VIII's six wives, but the events that established the constitutional foundations of the modern British state? Not so much.

Agreed of course about the cycles.

[calimac]

I have occasionally been thinking about the 1975 referendum. When, I wonder, did its result cease to be controlling? And what would have happened if it had lost? I don't suppose withdrawing from Europe after only some 3 years in would have been as difficult as after some 45. That was, I believe, the first UK referendum. Some warned at the time against the precedent, and, well ...

I get the feeling that the phrase "The Great British X" has an import and flavor quite different from that of "The Great American X".

[steepholm]

I think those suspicious of referenda will be feeling vindicated now, certainly! Although it's not so much a problem of direct democracy as what happens when you have two systems running simultaneously - when there's an overlap between the authority of "the people" and that of Parliament. Constitutionally, of course, it's perfectly clear (to use Mrs May's favourite word): Parliament is sovereign. Even had the referendum not been advisory, Parliament could have passed another law to anull it. Politically, it's another matter.

It amazes me, by the way, what intimate knowledge hardline Brexiteers feel they have of the intentions of the 2016 voters. Even though the ballot only mentioned leaving the EU or staying in, they do not blush to say that people voted against a customs union, the single market, immigration, and various other personal bêtes noire. While I'm sure some people did vote against those things, I think it's highly unlikely that they are a majority of those who voted. Had I voted to Leave, it would have been on the grounds of the EU's democratic deficit, its baked-in capitalism, its treatment of Greece and Italy. No doubt that would have put me in the minority of Leave voters, but you wouldn't need that many such people to make up the 4% difference between Leave and Remain.

[shewhomust]

Good point. In fact, many good points. I particularly like the idea of a third referendum (well, no, I don't: I don't think another referendum would help. But I like your suggestion that we should now refer to it as the third referendum).

To reply only to the one which is currently irritating me, have you noticed a shift from the claim the the referendum expresses the will of the majority, to the claim that in the subsequent General Election, 80% voted for parties committed to leave...?

[steepholm]

Yes, I have noticed that one - and in fact I was having it out with the radio on that point this morning! It's a very clumsy sleight of hand, but no doubt persuasive to those who want to be persuaded.

[cmcmck]

I think it all depends on who you consider 'the people' to be.

While I don't like the 2016 result, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I have a right to tell people they are doing it wrong for not thinking the same way I do.

But then, I wan't born into the metrosexual 'liberal intellectual' middle class.......

A bas indeed and les politiciens a la lanterne!

[steepholm]

I think it all depends on who you consider 'the people' to be.

Indeed. There are some 15,000,000 people living in the UK (the majority of them citizens) who would have no vote in such an exercise.

I can see good arguments for and against a third referendum, but this post isn't about that - just what I think was a tactical error on the part of its proponents.

[ashkitty]

But it's a "People's Vote" on the final arrangement, to distinguish it from a Parliamentary vote on the final arrangement. While in effect there is definitely a lot of "this went horribly wrong the first time", the principle is just that now, knowing what offer is actually on the table, there ought to be some manner of vote on it. It is a third referendum, sure, but it's also an accurate description.

[steepholm]

But there's no sense I can see in which it's more of a "people's vote" than any other referendum: they are all distinguished (in the UK at least) from Parliamentary votes, which are the default form of political decision-making at national level.

I don't dispute it's an accurate description, almost to the point of tautology (a Voters' Vote would be even more accurate and tautologous, since not all people would be eligible to take part), but I suspect the name was chosen to a) give the rather dishonest impression that it would somehow not be "another referendum", and b) to resonate with all the other "the People's Blah" gubbins that's been rife since 1997. I've outlined what I think it a better approach in the main body of the post