What now for Brexit? Time for a rethink?

In the original post, immediately after the referendum vote, I gave my arguments for why it is democratic to have a second referendum and a second think about our social institutions. It remains below. It gathered much support but also some critical comments: "undemocratic, sour grapes" and so forth. I am am heartened to note an increasing weight of opinion amongst serious thinkers that the position I took was and is right. I also came across a fascinating set of remarks by MoneyWeek just before the poll: the editor did not expect Exit to win, and thought: "...there is a very good chance that voting Brexit will not actually mean Brexit...  Or will they send Mr Cameron off to Europe to have a go at forcing genuine reform, then offer us another referendum?  I suspect they will do the latter  – As they are legally entitled to.  I will disapprove.  But it might not be all bad."

I also include below a few remarks my Anatole Kaletsky, a well-regarded political and economic thinker, from the recent Prospect magazine. I am also heartened to see a wider recognition of the need to address the social institutions, for example inequality. Teresa May is just one of the many to take this line. I address these in the final and important part of the post.

I think the petition is now over having reached several million more than at the time of posting and was/is here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

___

Anatole Kaletsky: some quotations

"...it is... dogma that ...referendums are sacrosanct...  This  dogma is a travesty of true democracy.  Insisting that a referendum vote can never be reversed or even challenged conflicts with history, with law, and, most importantly, with democratic principles.  In genuine democracy nothing is ever irreversible, since every decision, regardless of the majority that supports it, is always open to debate.  

"This principle of continuous challenge must be restored  — and quickly — if Britain is to avoid an economic and political catastrophe: a deep recession that will cause greatest hardship among the very groups that have been more most aroused by the campaign for Brexit and thereby magnify the public anger and political chaos already unleashed by the referendum...

"The essence of democracy is the right to challenge and reverse majority votes.  It is exactly what happens after every election. The defeated party picks itself up off the floor and becomes the official opposition... to brand such opposition as illegitimate is to flirt with tyranny, not respect democracy...

   "...public opinion is fluid — and ought to be... A referendum expresses public opinion on a specific question, in specific conditions and at a specific time.

Karetsky confirms, in some detail, my argument on the significance of representative government and the merely consultative nature of the referendum. By contrast he emphasises, as I do, the tyranny implied by the claim that this single consultative (pre-legislative) vote based on protest and fantasy arguments should hold true for generations to come. In a society that is already divided and changing its mind, with radically changing Parliamentary leadership, true democracy requires confirmation before article 50 is triggered. He further confirms the impracticality of Brexit, for which no legitimate planning was done by the Leave campaign. READ ON...

*** MY POST *** 

The result of the EU Referendum, surprising for some, shocking for many, is now known worldwide, at least in the cataclysmic effects in the world's financial markets. World stock markets fell and those of London and Europe fell by much more than the margin of difference.  The LEAVE vote got 51.9% of the votes, 1,269,501 more votes than the REMAIN vote, while global stock markets fell about $2 trillion in value. Sterling suffered a record one-day plunge to a 31-year low, falling twice the margin of difference.

There will be some corrections, as they are called, evening out of the wildness you may say, but some of those corrections may be towards even worse results.  Time will tell.  As I have said consistently, no one is certain of the results, but the balance of probability is bad news.

The emotional fallout is also huge.  Millions are grieving, indeed feeling lost and shocked, uncertain about their futures.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs (at least) are in jeopardy in the relatively short term, this from international business leaders speaking of their businesses.  Ironically, UK employment was at a high before the referendum.  On the other side, millions appear to be ecstatic.  So we have a chasm opening up.  People calling for London, Scotland and Northern Ireland to leave Britain. The young feeling shafted by the old.

So what happens now?

Turns out the poll is not binding

I have looked into the statutory instrument and also found a commentary in the Financial Times by a legal expert (https://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/), who says: “From a legal perspective, the immediate consequence is simple: nothing will happen.”  There is nothing built into the referendum act that automatically triggers an exit.  It is down to Parliament.  That is why we hear talk about Article 50, which actually triggers the exit.  So in theory, Parliament could overrule.

That might seem rather undemocratic.

Well yes, it might.  On the other hand:

1. The margin of difference was actually less than the margin that Nigel Farage said was too small to be conclusive. If, he said, on May 17 2016, the margin was only 48-52, there would be “unfinished business” https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-referendum_uk_576e6585e4b08d2c56393f12. So we have unfinished business.
2. This was taken so seriously by LEAVE that one of its activists, William Oliver Healey, created a statutory government petition during the following week.  It asked the UK Parliament to review the rules and “if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based [sic] a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum” (my emphasis). These conditions have been met.
3. Just before the time of posting, 2,287,378 had signed this petition, the most successful petition in British history.  The number is "just before the time of posting" because it is adding thousands of extra signatures every minute. 
4. In any case, the LEAVE camp are in favour of transferring our sovereignty to Parliament and about 75% of Parliament is not in favour of leaving.  Therefore, since the poll is not mandatory but rather advisory and since it was taken without actual empirical evidence, only forecasts, of what would happen in the aftermath, the MPs could take account of this evidence.  Since the evidence is now also available to people who previously voted some of them might want the opportunity to review their vote.  Perhaps it is therefore more democratic to allow them to do so?  Do not people change their mind sometimes?
5. Furthermore, weather conditions in London, including a complete trainload of stranded voters, reduce their vote.  Perhaps more significantly, the analysis of what happened during the election shows that many people – it is hard to say how many but it would appear that in some parts of the Labour heartlands, it was a very large number – voted less to exit from the EU than to register a massive protest vote against the economic systems that worked against them.  Paradoxically, many of them voted against “London", "the establishment".  It seems – and who can blame them – watching smart people in suits in front of computers with statistical models talking about the effects on abstract subjects like stock exchanges (when these people own no shares) and currency exchanges (when many of them need payday loans to be able to pay this week’s bills)… Well this was not too impressive to them.  And they had been promised billions more for the NHS, and more jobs.  If the referendum poll had asked two questions, the first being whether you were satisfied with the current state of government and only secondly whether you want to leave the EU, there might have been a different result.  But only one question was asked and the answers to both questions were loaded into it.
   
   And I fully agree, the system is not working for vast numbers of people. The terrible fragmentation in our social and economic systems is what this wake-up call is really about.  Radical social revolution in equity is required.  But is this the way to do it?  There is a reasonable democratic argument saying that Parliament needs to listen to the real message of this vote and not the distorted version of it.  And it is not just Parliament, it's governments and business around the world that need to pay attention to citizens and customers.  When Microsoft agrees a deal to pay ￡100 million less tax each year, that is the equivalent of about 5000 jobs.  The 50 largest US companies, according to a 2016 report, have between $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion of profits in offshore accounts.  The next 500 probably add another trillion dollars. British and European companies are doing this too.  And the superrich appear to be holding in excess of $20 trillion in offshore accounts.  This is what is really undemocratic.
6. The drift of leaving will be to push Scotland, and possibly Northern Ireland, and London if it can find a way to do so, out of Britain. That should give Parliament pause.
7. Finally, in considering the "sovereignty of the people", it might be useful to look at the kinds of conditions that are used in courts of law when juries as peers of the accused are asked to form a judgement.  Those juries are expected to have an open mind and to take account of the evidence and facts. There is a responsibility on those who present the facts to make sure that they are the facts so that the people who make the judgement have a decent chance of getting it right. Because it affects lives. But here we were judging on unknowns in many ways and on lies, or at least highly misleading rhetoric (neither side being excused), to the extent that any kind of case was actually built. On this everyone sensible agrees.

I do not see the effect of this election however just in terms of the next 2 to 3 years.  I am of an age where I have grandchildren, some of whom might just be alive at the end of the century.  That is the span I am thinking of.  This will once again divert attention from environmental issues.  This will shift the future for the young, who appear to have voted at around 80% in favour of remain.  So it is a group of arguably disgruntled over 50s, from traditional working environments in many cases, who have undoubtedly had tough deal over the last 20 to 30 years and legitimately want better who are taking away what they want for themselves from their children and children's children. Socially as well as money and economics. 

The question for Parliament 

On the question for Parliament I think is this: Exercising your legitimate responsibility to consider the future of this country not just for the life of this Parliament but down the span of years, taking into account the real factors at work, is it safe to rely on this referendum as binding?  Is it really the will of the people, in sound mind and in possession of the facts?

That is why I think it is right and democratic to hold a second referendum.  In this time to have a more sober debate with better explanation of the outcomes.  This is not a party political issue (although it was called because of a party political issue) and it is serious enough to deserve such debate, one we have not yet had.

If you agree, the place to sign the petition is here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 

Howver, in closing I would make one more point.  Across the whole of Europe there are vast numbers of people who want to see reform in the EU and social reform more broadly. This result could help them.

 ///

A vital postscript

There is however an even deeper and more worrying widespread deep concern, often unspoken, or only quietly in private. In conversations I have been having with intelligent and informed people, there is a consensus that the social and economic systems of the moment are unsound and brittle and that a revolution/disaster is coming if this is not fixed.  Here I am not talking about young radicals.  I am not talking about socialist extremists, fundamentalists and the like.  I am talking about sober people in responsible positions.  There is a sense that if we do not move for positive change soon we will get negative change thrust upon us.  I think that the Brexit vote is such a negative revolution. Trump looks like another. The far right in Germany/Austria is a third.

But parliament has the opportunity to listen and do something more positive about it. And not just in Britain: Britain can be a signal to the world of politicians and business leaders: it is time to act with justice, but also with good sense.  We did not properly respond to the financial crash of 2008.  There is unfinished business, to quote Farage. For once he is right.