Why not a Second Referendum?

I suggest something like the following, bearing in mind:

[a]. The question is “What is the best for the country?”,  not “What do I want?”. There is only one “best for the country”.

[b]. This whole exercise needs more spirit of compromise. Think before you cast your vote “What if one option is clearly unpopular? Then why vote for it?"

*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&

We suggest the following as a way forward that might appeal to a majority of MPs and be ‘fair’. Voters are to be encouraged to a spirit of compromise, and to reflect on what is best for the country and fellow citizens rather than the outcome that suits them personally.

[1]   It is widely understood and accepted that Westminster Parliament is sovereign in the United Kingdom, as established in 1649. The Queen and her ministers play an executive role that must ultimately be reversible by Parliament. Parliamentary (i.e. representative) democracy must trump plebiscites or referendums. Referendums are useful as ‘straw-polls to test the weather'.

[2]   It has been argued that the 2016 referendum did not specify sufficiently the terms of exit that would emerge if the country sought to leave the EU. Further, it was not made sufficiently clear to the public that the 2016 referendum was advisory not definitive. Further, there were electoral rules broken. There can be delay and expense but no affront to democracy in asking for another referendum. (The Swiss have frequent advisory referendums; 3 were held in the first 5 months of 2019.) 

[3]   We therefore suggest asking the EU for a 6 month extension (or an indefinite revoking of Article 50), in order to run the following referendum:

[a] UK voters to vote for one only of the following three options:

[i]  Remain in the EU with full existing rights, exemptions, rebates and duties. 

[ii] Leave the EU on Theresa May terms (*One-off divorce bill of 39B£, respect EU-citizen rights reciprocally, transition period, UK leaves Single Market, and Customs Union, and EU institutions, but Northern Ireland stays in the Customs Union if Britain diverges.)

[iii] Great Britain leaves the EU without a deal in place, without a transition period, but presumably with the ability to make deals in the future without prejudice. A hard border is created in Ireland with immediate effect. 

[b] In the event that no single one of the three options exceeds any other by at least 1% of the votes cast the default position is that we retain our present EU membership with full existing rights, exemptions, rebates and duties, as there being insufficient justification for massive upheaval.

. 

[4]   Parliament will be expected, but is not bound, to endorse and enact the result of this referendum.

(*I have not found it easy to find a clear statement of Theresa May’s deal. Something like this would need to be on the ballot-paper)

---

Ian West
9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,

Should Parliament decide, or "the people"?

Dear  Member of Parliament,

     It is not my position — “that it should be the people, not the politicians, who decide on Brexit.”  After the fateful referendum of June 2016 it did seem, for a while, that the only way to overturn a plebiscite, might be another plebiscite; that the only way to stop Brexit might be to ask "the people” again, in the hope that some had changed their minds. It is a shallow piece of nonsense to pretend that it would be “disrespectful" to ask a second time; flattering rather. But (I think) it was a mistake  in the first place, and it would be a risky gamble to ask the people to vote again on the same question – 'in' or 'out'. But there are other questions.

    If there were to be another referendum, I am beginning to think that my favoured question would be something like: “Should the question of Britain remaining in (or leaving) the European Union be decided by Parliament, or by Referendum?”  I would hope that some voters might have concluded that there is necessary information that they lack; and a responsibility that they are unprepared for. 

    I do believe in (representative) democracy —  as the least bad form of government, and on matters of morality; but not on matters of fact.  I would not try to determine the population of France or the GDP of Germany by asking the electorate.  The butler Stevens, in Ishiguro’s “Remains of the Day”, was asked by a sneering house guest if it was his opinion that Britain should raise or lower bank rate; he wisely answered that it was not his place to have an opinion on that matter. Nor would it be my place to decide that; the best we can do is to elect an honest banker.

    I thought John Major spoke well this morning (19th Jan) on BBC radio 4, advocating a series of ‘free’ votes in the House of Commons.

   Yours sincerely, Ian West

(Middleton Cheney, South Northamptonshire)

Petition to Rescind Article 50

Over 188,000 people have now signed a petition asking the Government to “Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum”. The Government replied to signatories as follows:

“The British people voted to leave the EU and the Government respects that decision. We have always been clear that as a matter of policy our notification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempt to stay in the EU.  The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act…....”

It is true that the referendum gave a small majority to the Leave campaign (a margin of 1.27 million in an electorate of 46.5 million), and it is understandable that the Government regards it as its duty to deliver Brexit. However, it seems to me that the person who framed the Government’s answer did not understand the complaint being made in the petition. It is being claimed that the 2016 referendum is flawed because the electoral law was broken.  There is no virtue in adhering rigorously to a flawed referendum. 

If it is proved that electoral law was broken, I would not (myself) ask for immediately reversal of the leaving process, but a pause; and a rethink of the possibility of a second referendum. A second referendum would be enormously expensive and unsettling. But it would in no way disregard or disparage the will of "the people”. The Government maintains that "the people" still want to leave the EU, as was the case in June 2016. Confirming that opinion would enormously strengthen the Government’s position. But reversing the result in a second referendum would suggest that the public had not been adequately informed in the lead up to the 2016 referendum. To suggest that this would lead to a succession of referenda is silly; a clash between the 2016 referendum and a 2018 referendum would only lead to a further referendum if it could be shown that the 2018 result was also flawed, like the 2016.

Yours sincerely, Ian West

---

Ian West

9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,

BANBURY, OX17 2NB,