As the Brexit debate deteriorates in quality at an alarming rate, it appears that any hope of Britain returning to its democratic senses is receding fast.
The most recent cases include Ian Duncan Smith dismissing Kier Starmer, shadow Brexit minister (and former director of public prosecutions) as a “second-rate lawyer” for daring to request parliamentary scrutiny on the Brexit negotiations, and Brexit minister David Davis saying that disagreeing with Brexit is akin to thinking “17.5m people do not have the right to hold an opinion”.
The decline in decorum among Brexiteers is disquieting. But just as concerning is the loss of focus on display among the pro-remain members of parliament. Harried and hectored by the language of the Brexiteers – labelled as “Bremoaners” by the Daily Mail, and dismissed as the liberal elite elsewhere – it seems Remainers are losing sight of some key procedures and practices of democratic governance.
This is displayed most vividly in the insistence of most, if not all, pro-remain MPs to stress at every point that they “respect” the result of the June 23 vote and accept that Britain will leave the European Union. This position is potentially as damaging to this debate as the hyperbole of the Brexiteers.
Of course, it is beyond question that any genuine democrat worthy of the name respects the vote – just as every four or five years, they respect the outcome of general elections. If I vote in a general election for party X, but party Y gets in, I respect the right of the latter to form a government, and to bring forward their policy programme.
However, if I view any area of the policy as potentially damaging, unfair, or maliciously conceived or motivated, then I have at my disposal all of the usual democratic means to oppose it. I can write to my MP, start a campaign, start a protest group, write a blog or join a political party. I can expect that my representative in parliament will respond accordingly. None of this is ever seen as disrespectful for the people who voted for the party of government. In fact, quite the opposite is true – it is to be expected in a healthy democracy.
Worryingly, in the heightened drama of the post-Brexit world, the role of dissent in parliamentary politics seems to have been forgotten. It’s true that the losing parties retreat to the opposition benches after an election but they are expected to be active once they get there. The whole system is designed to create dissent about the approach being taken by the winning side. The entire structure of both houses of parliament is defined by this relationship: between the party that has the democratic mandate to implement its policy and the party that has the democratic mandate to oppose and critique it. It is even expected to vote down that policy whenever possible.
Indeed, British parliamentary history is littered with examples of legislation being successfully resisted. In 2005, parliament blocked Tony Blair’s attempt to allow terrorism suspects to be detained for 90 days without charge. In 2013, it voted against intervention in Syria.
Having a mandate to implement a policy does not prevent a vocal and determined opposition from reversing decisions. At no stage in either of these cases did the British people deem opposition to the policies under discussion as somehow subverting the democratic will.
So we could ask: why the need to constantly stress that those on the remain side do not want to reverse the decision of June 23? Why should the full role of dissent and opposition be abandoned in the case of the referendum?
We should also remember another key element of the role of the minority in a democracy – to hold the majority to account not just in terms of policy, but in practice too. That is, if there is any suspicion of wrongdoing, of any underhand dealing, the minority has a responsibility to flag it up.
A second referendum
In this sense, no matter which side British voters were on during the referendum, they were all badly let down. On the one hand were – and, please, let’s identify things correctly at this crucial political moment – the lies of the Leave campaign; so egregious and widely known are they that we need not repeat them here. But just as bad was the total misfiring of the Remain camp, from “project fear” to the Labour Party’s abandonment of any meaningful engagement whatsoever. Everyone, Leavers and Remainers, deserve better.
So yes, let us all respect the referendum result on the June 23. But let us also note that it is precisely because of that respect that the case for a second referendum can be made, a referendum this time that might produce a campaign to deal more precisely and exactly with the issues at hand.
The argument for a second referendum can be seen to be an entirely reasonable product of a minority that passionately believes that the Brexit course is not just damaging to Britain’s economic future, but to its political future as a progressive and open nation.
In stating this position, the minority does not deny the opinion of the majority, but simply disagrees with it, and it is their democratic right to say so publicly. Indeed, more than this, with the stakes so high, a genuine respect for both sides in the referendum means that beyond their right, it is also their responsibility.
Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
- Samantha Bee takes down US media faux objectivity and Trump campaign lies (video)
- Trump watch 7: an unhealthy dose of the deplorables (Maher, Colbert, Bee and Noah) (video)
- Trump watch 6: “I have a secret plan for ISIS, believe me” (video)
- President Trump: can he really win? (Dispatches documentary video)
- Trump watch: surrogates, extreme vetting, and John Oliver has some advice for Donald Trump (video)
- John Oliver signs-up to be a Trump “election observer” (video)
- Trump watch: tax cuts for the rich, gerrymandering, death threats and morons with Trevor Noah and Larry Wilmore (video)
- Trump watch: veterans, draft dodging, nukes, and babygate (Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher video)
- North Carolina voter ID laws, RNC and DNC review with John Oliver (video)
- DNC in Philly day four: Hillary bites back with Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah & Bill Maher (video)
- DNC in Philly day three: Obama, Biden and Trump invites Russian hacking with Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah (video)
- John Oliver on the RNC: bringing feelings to a fact fight (video)
- Republicans hit Cleveland final day: Trumpageddon (video)
- Republicans hit Cleveland: Day two with Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah (video)
- Republicans hit Cleveland: Day one with Samantha Bee (video)
- Trump’s Angry America meets Brexit’s Racist Britain (video)
- Bill Maher battles Frank Luntz and why are Trump’s kids running his campaign? (video)
- Trump tells world “I’m my own adviser” as he retweets racist tweets (video)
- Trump too busy to take advantage of Hillary’s email farrago (video)
- John Oliver vents his spleen over UK’s Brexit vote (video)
- Stephen Colbert decodes the riddle of Trump and the words “radical Islam” (video)
- John Oliver on racist Trump and his fake university (video)
- Seth Myers on Trump’s racism and attacks on press freedom (video)
- Donald Trump the conspiracy theoretician (video)
- James O’Brien and satire v Donald Trump’s vile and violent voters (video)
- Meet Ted Cruz: religion, hookers, voter fraud and hated by his own party, what’s not to like? (video)
- Meet John Kasich the ‘moderate’ Republican candidate (video)
- John Oliver explores Donald Trump’s big, dumb, crazy wall (video)
- John Oliver destroys Syrian “terrorists posing as refugees” hypocrisy (video)
- Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn: Parallel lines (full length video)
- The Beeb, the bias and the bashing (The Conversation)
- James O’Brien’s only making plans for Nigel (or when is toast not toast?) (video)
- Breitbart News: craven political hatchet men…..(corrected) (video)
- Iain Duncan Smith’s explosive row with LBC’s James O’Brien
- The sheer scale of child sexual abuse in Britain – reblog of Nick Davies article
- Emily Maitlis’ surgical strikes blow Mark Regev’s defence of Israel’s attack on a UN school out of the water (video)
- An Israeli soldier’s story – Eran Efrati (video)
- Lynton Crosby’s Tory spin machine is a cancer at the heart of the British government (video)
- If you have done nothing wrong you have EVERYTHING to fear: secrecy, surveillance, the IPT and RIPA (video)
- J K Rowling knows that fair tax is the price we pay for civilisation (video)
- Iain Duncan Smith’s Tinker Bell statistics (video)
- ‘Matt’ from York is Ill-Informed and Angry but I Don’t Blame Him I Blame the BBC (And The Daily Mail)
- Eurosceptics & UKIP grateful for baby talk distraction as Tory review into EU powers comes up with ‘wrong’ answer (imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- Audio Clip from BBC Radio 4 ‘More or Less’ confirming UKIP ‘lies about the EU being responsible for 75% of UK legislation
- The Facts, the Myths and the Framing of Immigration (imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- Migration Myths (imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- Are You Stupid? What Has Happened To Rational Debate Over Immigration? (imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- Are You Stupid? What Has Happened To Rational Debate Over Immigration? (Part Two)(imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- Faisal Islam’s (not) looking for answers (imincorrigible.wordpress.com)
- David Cameron let’s the cat out of the bag about Maria Miller
- Royal Mail privatisation – Vince Cable’s epic fail
- David Cameron and Theresa May have been hiding inconvenient ‘crimes’ and immigration statistics
- Evidence not ideology: The signal and the noise or lies, more lies, even more lies and government statistics
- Piers Morgan get it the f*ck together on transgender politics
- UKIP Fruit Loops (An Occasional Series): No.2 David Silvester