Brexit and democracy
Apainfully long time ago – in 2016 – I wrote an opinion piece defending Brexit. I did not vote in the Brexit referendum for the simple reason that my home is now New Zealand and I felt I no longer had the right. But now I am changing my view. The very democratic principles that led me not to vote are now under threat and I feel obliged to help restore democracy in my home country, given the opportunity. The Brexit referendum was the single largest vote in the history of the United Kingdom, with a far higher rate of participation than any recent general election.
The ballot was clear: stay in, or leave, the European Union. At the time of the election, there was wall-to-wall media coverage of both sides of the debate. It would have been nearly impossible for any person, who was at least vaguely interested, not to understand the meaning of the referendum or the potential risks and rewards that could result from the vote. Then 52 per cent voted ‘‘leave’’ in a victory for those in favour of Brexit.
It was during the post-referendum period that new terms appeared in political circles – ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ Brexit. Note here the referendum only had two options – leave or stay in the EU. The new terms were the first indications that the ‘‘establishment’’ was seeking to undermine the referendum result.
Soft Brexit meant remaining subject to the dictates of EU institutions while having even less influence on the policy of those institutions.
A ‘‘soft’’ Brexit was therefore not Brexit but an attempt to undermine Brexit.
The only real Brexit was always a ‘‘hard’’ Brexit. This is not to say there could be no negotiated trade deal but rather that any deal could not continue to tie the UK to EU institutions and their directives. Britain’s former prime minister, Theresa May, returned from negotiations with a ‘‘deal’’ that was not, in any reasonable interpretation of the referendum result, ‘‘Brexit’’.
I will cut short the long and painful process that ended with the rejection of May’s deal and Boris Johnson replacing her as prime minister.
Unlike May, Johnson is willing to leave the EU with no deal and it appears the EU is also extremely unfavourable to further negotiation.
At the same time, it seems the majority of MPS are now increasingly willing to openly thwart Brexit and the result of the referendum. In the past week, fears of Johnson’s commitment to leave the EU with or without a deal have seen a defeat of the government in crucial Brexit votes. As a result, Johnson called for a new election but this motion was also defeated, thus leaving the UK in limbo.
The excuses being given by MPS who oppose Brexit are weak:
1. It is a defence of democracy. This is argued by MPS who have just rejected an election unless legislation is passed that favours their position. An election would allow the UK electorate to determine the government position on Brexit, which is the essence of democracy. Of course, the democracy argument also ignores the referendum result.
2. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. This is only true if no referendum had taken place. As soon as a referendum is called, with a promise the outcome is binding, direct democracy is being enacted. That is the point of a binding referendum.
3. At issue is parliamentary sovereignty – this is argued by MPS who support the loss of parliamentary sovereignty to the EU, and oppose the return of sovereignty to parliament. The idea that those working against parliamentary sovereignty are working for parliamentary sovereignty can only be described as comedic.
Against such a backdrop of ‘‘doublespeak’’, something quite extraordinary is taking place in the UK. A majority of MPS are choosing to reject a democratic and binding referendum vote, placing themselves above the people they are supposed to serve. The whole purpose of the notion of a ‘‘soft’’ Brexit was to obfuscate their opposition to the results of the referendum.
Unfortunately, although it is no laughing matter, there will be many in the UK whose faith in democracy is being shattered. The consequences of this loss of faith are hard to predict but it is a certainty they will not be positive, instead, it is likely they will be dire.
So, if my vote can help save the ideals of democracy in my home country, I will vote again. Dr Mark Avis is a senior lecturer at Massey University’s school of communication, journalism and marketing, and an expat Brit who has lived in New Zealand since 2009.
The Brexit referendum was the single largest vote in the history of the United Kingdom, with a far higher rate of participation than any recent general election.