The Leaver case for a second referendum

The Leaver case for a second referendum

A guest slot by Dots

Once upon a time a grand and determined queen wanted to build a bold new home on the hilltop. Everyday her men would work hard to build the palace only to find on following day their work undone in piles of rubble. The queen was advised to seek help of a local boy born to a virgin mother. The boy advised why the palace could not be built, in a pool beneath the hill two dragons were entwined in combat. He told the queen to dig looking for the lake and the dragons, only once their conflict is resolved can the palace stand and the lands be at peace.

Here in present day is an argument giving UK the best opportunity to come together and move on results from a second referendum endorsing a form of brexit. I will now explain this argument from the point of view of voting leave and wishing to see the 2016 result respected.

A few hours after 2016 result Cameron was in EU asking for a form of leave as close as possible to his deal, still today in the minds of some who could torpedo MV3 this week, Common Market 2.0 was that leave on the ballot paper. Norwegians walk around in their form of vassalage boasting they are not in EU, some claim this also is the leave Britain voted for. Others say Canada+ is leave voters wanted, and others say its May’s deal voters endorsed.

The option was leave, the campaign didn’t paint a picture of leaving with no deal nor May’s controversial deal anymore than it defined Common Market 2.0, Canada FTA+ or Norwegian vassalage. Some of these leave outcomes are contradictory and completely different end points.

Now let’s be honest, if polls showed leave with 20 point lead if there was second referendum, would many be very hostile to a new public vote on the deal, because it’s is so clearly undemocratic and brexit betrayal, actually be in favour?

This is how I answer the question. It does not surprise me brexiteers are hostile to second referendum. They have convinced themselves that the perfect storm that won them 2016 would not be repeated. They would lose brexit. But if they are correct or not in that certainty of defeat, (side stepping if they should be allowed to reshape Britain if they are convinced they couldn’t win again tomorrow) their opinion doesn’t matter in terms of democratic steps that can tie up this conflict between direct and representative democracy.

Giving people a vague open ended option and no say in how political lords and masters interpret and impose it, is recipe for impasse and unhappy outcome rather than strong democracy. It’s actually easy for leavers to advocate a 2nd referendum on the basis that the 2016 vote told politicians to go off and make a good plan for it. A second vote is endorsing or rejecting that plan/stitch up MPs come up with, because if you genuinely support direct democracy over representative, this sequencing completes good model of direct democracy. It’s identical to democracy government insists underpins industrial relations.

The reality of the impasse today is Leavers arguing the best democratic outcome is let the executive or representative interpret and decide the 2016 leave vote. I argue let the people have a say in how MPs ultimately interpret 2016 result, I argue this not to bury brexit, but to save brexit from becoming a bad deal or vassalage. I argue it as our best opportunity to unearth and separate those warring dragons and restore peace to these lands.


Comments are closed.