Skip to main content

The muddled message of a people's vote

The People's Vote campaign needs to decide whether it is campaigning to Remain or for a people's vote.  The two are not the same, and the arguments sometimes conflict.  It sends a confusing message.  To get a people's vote, they will need to win support across the spectrum.

Simply telling Leave voters that they have made a "mistake" isn't going to win them over.  They need convincing that a people's vote is not merely a trick to stop Brexit; it is for them also.

But, listening to some Remain campaigners, a people's vote appears to be a ploy to stop Brexit.  Their argument is primarily based on the idea that voters were "tricked" or "misled" in the last election.

Their argument is another way of saying Leave voters were stupid, or gullible.  When they are challenged on this point, they will say "no, of course, we are not saying that", and then it is followed by a "but" - "but the Leave campaign lied!"

This is hardly the best argument for another referendum.  The test of gullibility isn't one-sided.  If voters are gullible, they are gullible across the piste.

If "being lied to" was a reason for not accepting a decision by voters, then the result of almost every General Election would be nullified.   Democracy is about taking the outcome of free and fair elections.

Being lied to is not a sufficient justification for another vote.  Another vote must be predicated on something substantial, such as a withdrawal agreement.  It is to give voters the chance to cast their judgement on whether it is what they really want, and not merely another in/out preference.

We are told, "If people knew the consequences" of Brexit, then they would vote to remain.  Yet, there have been several studies demonstrating the harmful economic consequences of Brexit, yet voters have barely shifted their position, or at least the polls are unconvincing.   There has been no groundswell of opinion changing the mood from 2016.  Of course, some people have changed their minds, but many voters simply want "to get Brexit done" because the uncertainty is also harmful.

Martialling a million people in the streets of London doesn't tell us what voters want.  It tells us that many people are passionate about their cause - to remain in the EU.

Remainers often say their position is a matter of principle - as if those who want to leave are devoid of principles.  They stake out the moral high ground as if their case is self-evident.  People who disagree with them just "don't get it" or "can't see it".  They don't really address the valid reasons why people want to leave the EU.   They idealise the EU.

Indeed it is an ideal.  But as with all ideals, not everyone wishes to adopt them, or they believe there are better ways to achieve them than through the "ever closer union'.

To those who want to leave the EU,  those waiving the EU flag with pride appear to scorn those who wave an English one.   The EU is presented in romantic terms; pride in being English is treated with scorn.  This is also duplicity within UK politics.  Scottish Nationalism and Welsh Nationalism are treated as heroic, but English nationalism is regarded as racist or worse.   Unless we understand this, we are never going to heal the wounds of Brexit.

Many who campaigned to leave the EU have done so on principle for decades.  They believe passionately that the "ever closer union" is a march to a super-state - a United States of Europe - that challenges the sovereignty of parliament.   They are also concerned about the economic direction of the EU.

Of course, it can be argued that it is better to stay and seek to change the EU.  But "ever closer union" is built-in by treaty.

Yes, we need a people's vote, but not merely as a ploy to remain.   We need it because it is the right thing to do to be sure we make a considered decision about a future outside or in the EU.

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