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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As