This is an argument I have heard a lot, from mostly Leavers (of course) but also some Remainers and it always ends in me scratching my head in bemusement. Their claim implies their belief that the first referendum was democratic. With democracy literally meaning ‘rule by people,’ a referendum is clearly a democratic idea which quite literally takes the control away from politicians and hands it over to the people, so of course, I see where they are coming from. If we accept that it was democracy in action, regardless of whether or not the public was well informed or misinformed about the issues, then I still struggle to understand how the very same democratic tool can essentially ‘cancel out’ the democratically made decision in 2016. Does this not mean one could argue that the 2016 vote was undemocratic for reversing what was agreed about joining the EU decades ago? Surely handing control BACK to the people to revote is still, quite literally, ruling by the people?
Many Leavers would argue that Remainers want a People’s vote because they were unhappy with the vote the first time round and they want to stop Brexit. In all honesty, I was and I do…. But let’s put that issue aside for a second and focus on the question we began with. Do Leavers really believe that a second referendum would undermine democracy, or are they just worried that a second vote will shift the majority to the Remain side and their win would be a thing of the past? With a result as close as 52-48, the chances of a Leave win are pretty slim – not only are there are millions of young adults who were unable to vote in 2016 who are being denied the right to vote on their future, but so many people who voted Leave in 2016 have admitted they would now vote Remain now they have more of an idea of what a Brexit will look like in reality (less NHS staff, the loss of jobs, a weak pound, recession, the return of an Irish border, potential US-UK trade deal resulting in a reduction in our food standards and increased privatisation of the NHS, years or decades of work ahead to recover distracting from serious crises like climate change, the loss of healthcare benefits abroad, 27 less countries to live, travel and work freely in, increased queues, loss of free data roaming, tariffs on certain goods increasing prices and restricting our trade, the time and environmental repercussions of trying to make individual trade deals across the globe, the lack of medicine which we are unable to stockpile and less say in decisions that will undoubtedly affect us – just to name a few!) This leads to the question… why would so many people vote differently?
I always said from the beginning that something as complex at the EU should not be given to the public to vote on – especially not when it was raised by Remainers eager to win some votes to keep to Conservatives in power (which it did) and especially not by an elitist pig molester who would bugger off to Nice when shit hit the fan. Believe me, that is not because I have the most faith in politicians who are, sadly, more often than not corrupted by their own self-interests, but because the history, laws and UK’s relationship with the EU is complicated enough to leave undergraduates studying EU law for a year struggling to get their head around it. With our own leaders not even knowing the very basics (such as Raab grappling with the idea that we are an island and therefore dependent on overseas trade, or Corbyn making the common mistake that the European Court of Human Rights is an EU institution), and decades of mainstream news keeping the British public in the dark about EU decisions and rulings, how on earth are the rest of us supposed to have a strong understanding of the social, political, economic and legal concepts, and an accurate reflection of the benefits and drawbacks of the single market, EU legislation and immigration? Whilst the rest of the EU sees footage from inside the European Parliament on their mainstream news channels daily, out of all member states, the UK has ALWAYS been the country with the most leniency, and yet all the British money-grabbing unethical media outlets have spent decades instead publishing swathes of negative (and often false) stories about the EU. The EU are taking some of our fish, and god FORBID our bendy bananas! The Conservative government has encouraged this, as whilst blame is shifted onto the EU and onto immigrants, they continue to push austerity and make cut after cut to public services, from the NHS to the police force, from education to disability benefits, etc.
Regardless, it is difficult to frame this perspective in a way that makes the referendum seem undemocratic. However, once you throw in the big red double-liar bus (claiming that £350 million a week would go to the NHS instead of the EU) and the now certain illegal overspending of the Leave campaign, it is quite difficult to frame it in a way that makes it seem democratic to begin with. In a game involving power-hungry opportunist toddlers in which no one else knows the rules, is it realistic to expect a fair fight? It may not be realistic, but it sure as hell does not make it right. Take Boris, who had two speeches prepared (one Leave, one Remain) ready to take his pick on a whim. Take Farage, with his European wife, who campaigned for Leave before abandoning them on their march he was supposed to attend. Farage, who argued consistently that the EU was run by unelected bureaucrats, now trying to run in the EU elections himself now he realises he needs to plan for his long-term financial interests. Farage, who had private information from polling companies that leave would just about win and gave a speech before the result conceding that Remain would win only to cash in and fill up his pockets. Where were they when we needed a believer to lead us through the chaos they caused? They were not there, because they knew that leaving would not be as easy as they made out. Rees-Mogg has himself changed his mind, going from pushing for disastrous no deal to supporting May’s deal which would entail a softer Brexit still leaving us worse off than we are IN the EU.
So many Leave voters had genuinely good intentions to want to make our country a better place, to save our crippling NHS and improve the standard of living for ordinary people. With our nurses being forced to use food banks, getting onto the property ladder being near impossible for young adults, and 1 in 5 people living in poverty in the UK, it is no surprise that people would want to be heard and make a change. Were these innocent people not lied to whilst politicians, eager for another win, falsely presented it as an opportunity to ‘take back control’ and have an informed input on the biggest decision of our generation? I would argue that consent must be informed consent, but even if you don’t agree: if the people could speak in 2016, the people can speak again.
The Musings of an Unamused, Semi-Hopeful Law Student 