Does Republic Demand Implementing The Plebiscite Result?

We all know the European Union plebiscite was non legally binding on parliament. That is non truthful of all UK referendums: the plebiscite on using AV did require parliament to enact whatever voters decided. Despite the lack of a legal requirement, at that topographic point remains a powerful political declaration that parliament was yet duty jump to implement the plebiscite result. It is an declaration that is frequently invoked past times both authorities as well as opposition MPs. Now I receive got no uncertainty that inwards reality other motives are important, perchance decisive, but because political arguments tin hold upwards persuasive, it is of import to debate this one.

The clearest declaration along these lines comes from a post from Richard Ekins, who is a Professor of Law at Oxford University. He writes

“Parliament made clear that the determination close whether to leave of absence the European Union was to hold upwards settled past times the referendum. There were practiced reasons, outlined above, why Parliament should non permit Brexit otherwise than past times agency of a referendum. Even if ane denies all this, ane should silent convey that a plebiscite in ane lawsuit held settles what should hold upwards done. For the determination to continue thus is itself an of import public determination that fairly governs how nosotros jointly are to decide. That is, Parliament having decided to concur the referendum, as well as the public having participated fully inwards it, the outcome should hold upwards respected as well as non undone.

Political fairness as well as democratic regulation involve ane to abide by the outcome of the plebiscite fifty-fifty if ane is persuaded that Brexit would hold upwards a really bad idea. One powerfulness recollect it incorrect to concur the referendum, but it was held – as well as Parliament invited the people to create upwards one's hear this question. ... In short, the of import constitutional enquiry of whether Great Britain should stay inwards the European Union was fairly settled past times public vote.

The proposal to ignore or undo the vote is unjust. It bears noting that the relatively powerless inwards our polity – the pitiable – overwhelmingly supported exit. Ignoring the plebiscite would hold upwards especially unfair to them.”

Note that this does non tell that people similar me should unopen upwards close the damage that this activeness volition cause. Instead it says that parliament, having invited people to decide, should abide by that verdict. To create otherwise would hold upwards highly undemocratic, as well as would hold upwards especially unjust to those who, for good known reasons, powerfulness justifiably claim that they are non good represented past times the sovereignty of parliament. Arguing that the Leave movement told lies, or that voters were deceived, does non seem to hold upwards a compelling declaration against this, every bit just these charges tin as well as are made after full general elections

To assist run across why Ekins is wrong, it is useful to aspect at his give-and-take of the claim past times Ken Rogoff that the “real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave of absence the European Union was non that British leaders dared to inquire their public to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly depression bar for exit, requiring exclusively a elementary majority.” But Ekins’ reply strikes me every bit especially weak. He essentially says parliament could create this because it has done it before. He goes on to tell that at that topographic point is “nothing at all perverse inwards Parliament choosing to brand provision for a clear determination on dot past times agency of a unmarried referendum, inviting as well as encouraging public deliberation that culminates inwards a instant of clear as well as authoritative decision.”

This strikes me every bit completely ignoring Rogoff’s point. How tin a 51.9% vote on ane detail twenty-four hours stand upwards for a “clear as well as authoritative decision”. If a full general election is unopen inwards price of seats, that is reflected inwards the residuum of parliament, as well as governments amongst small-scale majorities as well as independently minded MPs human face upwards constraints on what they tin do. What Rogoff is proverb is that a plebiscite which exclusively requires inwards theory a bulk of exclusively a unmarried voter tin never hold upwards clear as well as authoritative. Those who lost tin justifiably claim that if the vote had been taken a twenty-four hours subsequently or before the outcome could receive got been different, as well as nosotros know they could hold upwards correct. The fact that UK governments receive got made this error inwards the past times does non enter right. Remember nosotros are talking close what is right politically, non what is right inwards law, so precedent is far less compelling.

Much the same dot applies to the number of a 2nd referendum. He says: “Parliament having chosen already the decision-making procedure, it is non legitimate instantly to tell that this should hold upwards laid aside. The fourth dimension for arguing for a 2 referenda requirement, or bulk back upwards inwards each purpose of the UK, was before this plebiscite was held.” He is sure enough right that those who had won would recollect it is unfair to plainly alter the rules of the game after the event, much every bit those who receive got lost recollect the whole physical care for is deeply unfair as well as unjust. I also recollect that Ekins’ appeal to those who are otherwise unrepresented resonates amongst many Labour supporters, who experience that such a displace would aspect just similar the elite overriding the wishes of the people. (See Owen Jones, who questions Corbyn’s leadership but non his Brexit line.)

Except that is nonsense. If those who voted to Leave cannot larn a elementary bulk inwards a 2nd plebiscite when nosotros receive got a lot to a greater extent than data close what leaving entails so that indicates something really incorrect amongst the initial vote, as well as non some plot past times the elite to cheat them. It is hardly undemocratic to concur a 2nd plebiscite because the province of affairs has drib dead much clearer. As I receive got said before, when politicians debate that allowing a 2nd vote is going against ‘the volition of the people’ you lot know that you lot are inwards existent trouble.

Is that unfair to ane side? Of course of written report not, because it is how politics works. Take the Scottish referendum, where Remain won past times 55.4%. Just a few years later, as well as nosotros could good run across some other referendum. To tell that is different because something crucial has changed genuinely plays into the arguments for a 2nd European Union referendum. Unless voters perfectly anticipated the nature of the larn out bargain amongst the EU, that bargain inwards itself is a huge as well as crucial change.

It seems to hold upwards neither politics nor fairness dictates that something poorly done inwards the past times should dictate what politicians create inwards the future, when at that topographic point is no legal constraint on them changing their minds. Holding farther votes when the province of affairs has changed cannot hold upwards undemocratic or unfair to anyone. [1]

I recollect all this is a useful perspective when nosotros drib dead dorsum to the master enquiry of whether parliament is obliged inwards some agency to enact the outcome of the plebiscite nosotros receive got had. Recall that Ekins says: “Parliament made clear that the determination close whether to leave of absence the European Union was to hold upwards settled past times the referendum.” Now I receive got said inwards the past times that I tin empathise why an private MP, who has pledged to allow the plebiscite create upwards one's hear their vote, should experience duty jump to maintain their word. But I create enquiry how just ‘parliament’ made such a pledge. An obvious agency for a parliament to brand such a pledge is to embed it into the price of the plebiscite itself, every bit was done amongst the AV referendum. This was non done on this occasion.

It seems to me, therefore, good within the rights of whatever MP or Party to tell that they create non regard a vote this unopen every bit binding on how they should vote. Indeed I would drib dead further. Any MP or Party who thinks, based on the noesis they have, that those voting Leave volition over fourth dimension regret their decision, has a duty to vote based on his or her judgement, rather than hold upwards tied past times some vague notion around parliamentary commitment. 

But all this assumes that the Article 50 vote was just close implementing the referendum. It clearly was non just close that. Any sane give-and-take of the plebiscite has to recognise that voting Leave gave no guidance to politicians close how to leave. The plebiscite was non close the Single Market, the customs matrimony etc. What the Prime Minister should receive got done was to allow parliament to debate the number of how to leave, which is critical for the hereafter of the UK. No uncertainty they would receive got given parliament a lead, but triggering Article 50 could receive got waited until that give-and-take had taken place. [2] Theresa May decided non to allow parliament that discussion.

As a result, the vote on Article 50 was non just close deciding to commencement the leaving process, but it also effectively became the terminal peril for MPs to limited whatever sentiment on how nosotros should leave. That inwards number made the vote a determination to leave of absence the agency May had decided, or powerfulness create upwards one's hear without recourse to parliament. The instant the Prime Minister did that, whatever obligation an MP powerfulness receive got felt regarding the plebiscite became zero as well as void.

This is the crucial divergence betwixt 1975 as well as 2016, as well as some other argue why arguments that appeal to precedent are wrong. In 1975, voters had a clear thought close what both In as well as Out involved. In 2016 what Leave meant was completely unclear, non to the lowest degree to those campaigning for it. That meant inwards exercise that voters decided on the dry ground of the shape of Leave they expected to happen, or perchance were promised would happen, rather than the shape of Leave the authorities would eventually choose.

It is for this argue that nosotros seem to receive got a decidedly undemocratic result. If the plebiscite had laid remaining against leaving for the type of difficult Brexit that nosotros are almost sure to have, it seems extremely unlikely that a bulk would receive got voted for that. Yet those who debate that the plebiscite obliged MPs to vote for triggering Article 50 are inwards number arguing for just that result. That is neither democratic, fair or indeed wise.

[1] I am sure many would debate that a plebiscite which came amongst the hope of a subsequently plebiscite where you lot could alter your hear would hold upwards likewise slap-up an invitation to those who just wanted to exercise a protestation vote. I volition leave of absence that as well as similar arguments for others.

[2] The to a greater extent than people debate that such an scheme would non receive got been practical, the to a greater extent than they illustrate how badly designed the master plebiscite was. Instead of debating as well as voting on a specific agency of leaving (which could receive got been chosen jointly past times those who wanted to leave) relative to remaining, nosotros got a determination which was far likewise opened upwards ended. As a result, Leave campaigners said during the movement that voting Leave did non imply leaving the Single Market. Once again, it seems strange to debate that parliament should non seek as well as rectify past times mistakes similar this for the sake of some imagined commitment.