Skip to main content

A people's vote is not so simple

Supporting Boris Johnson's Brexit Bill with a referendum attached is a risky option for those who believe it is a bad Bill.  Labour is right to agonise over the decision.  However, in the end, it might be the only option available.

Labour has argued consistently for a customs union with the EU as the best way forward short of remaining in the EU.  The May/Johnson withdrawal agreement is a long way from that objective.  So, should Labour now allow the Bill to pass through parliament on condition of a referendum?  Or should it hold out for a renegotiation and a better deal?  Short of Labour winning a general election, the latter option looks unlikely.

Would it be responsible for parliament to put what it considers to be a bad deal back to the people to decide? And if they do, would it produce a precise result.  What conditions, if any, should be attached to the vote?

One reason for putting a deal back to the people is that parliament is unable to agree on what is a 'good' deal.  However, the argument for a  people's vote goes further than that.  It isn't merely that a 'bad deal' should be put back to the people.  If parliament has failed to resolve the difficulties, then how would a people's vote do so?

It would be a lame campaign that argued merely that voters should support the deal because it is the only deal the government has negotiated.

 Some would argue that if voters want to leave with a deal, then they should have workable options to choose from, else voters might reject the deal for the same reasons parliament has done to the May/Johnson withdrawal agreement.   This does not tell us what the 'will of the people' really is.

Would parliament be saying to voters that this is a safe option to vote for?  The people might think so on the assumption that the deal has been rigorously examined by parliament.   But that is not so.  It would not have been.   They might assume that the government has considered the possible harmful effects, but decided that they have covered them.   You don't expect a surgeon to suggest an option unless they think it would produce a reasonable outcome.   But for the May/Johnson deal, parliament has consistently found that it would not do so.

Presenting a bad deal, the details of which are uncertain might leave us in the same position as now - a divided country with no clear path forward.   If voters say 'no' what does that mean?  Does it mean they want to remain? Or is it that they see the deal is a lousy arrangement?

A referendum appears as a simple option, but the result may be unclear and downright dangerous. It might further entrench opinion, and the campaign may be a bitter one, leaving the country more divided and broken and in an even worse constitutional crisis than it already has.

If the option is Deal or Ramain, then what genuine option would leavers who believe it to be a bad deal have?  If there are more than three options, then how can the majority option be decided?

A People's vote is not the simple solution it appears to be.

However, this does not mean it should be ruled out.  On the contrary, a people's vote is needed, not to resolve what parliament has failed to achieve - an agreed compromise.   A people's vote is necessary because it is the right thing to do.  To put a reasonable and workable deal back to the people to decide if it is really what they want.

Anyone thinking a people's vote is easy to formulate is fooling themselves.  A people's vote is right, but how is it to be done?




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they