AS A REMAINER, I’M CONVINCED A ‘PEOPLE’S VOTE’ WOULD BE A TERRIBLE IDEA
Nobody likes a spoilsport, but somebody has to say it. Those who joined the crowds at the People’s Vote march at the weekend needn’t have bothered, because it will turn out to have been a complete waste of everybody’s time.
If recent history teaches us anything, it is that marching through London, waving flags and blowing whistles, is a cast-iron sign of a lost cause. Just ask the Aldermaston marchers of the 1960s, the anti-Cruise missile protesters of the 1980s or even the millions who marched against the war in Iraq in 2003.
In this case, the chances of success seem even more minuscule than usual. Not only has Theresa May explicitly ruled out a second referendum on our deal with the EU, but Jeremy Corbyn has shown no interest in having one either. Even in the event that our negotiations with the EU collapse, the chances of the Commons voting for a second referendum seem vanishingly small. but even if there were a chance of another referendum, I think it would be absolutely wrong to seize it.
A second referendum would be a disgraceful betrayal of democracy and an insult to the 17.4 million people who voted in 2016 – and I write that as somebody who voted Remain.
Almost everything about the so-called People’s Vote effort is bogus. It claims to be a ‘grassroots campaign’, yet its headquarters are in Millbank Tower, the architectural embodiment of the Westminster establishment.
Far from being organised from the bottom up, it is actually a front for the lobby group open britain, a direct successor of the Remain campaign. It is backed by such ‘grassroots’ britons as Lord Mandelson, Sir Vince Cable and Sir Nick Clegg, while its online adverts rely heavily on millionaire celebrities such as Gary Lineker, Patrick Stewart and Steve Coogan.
The very name People’s Vote is, of course, pure spin. We already had a people’s vote in 2016 – the biggest in history. yes, it was close. but that’s democracy for you. In any case, what do the People’s Vote campaigners actually want? They claim they want a ‘vote on the deal’, but this is blatantly not true.
If they were honest, which they are not, they would admit that they really want to re-run the 2016 referendum. None of their major backers or celebrity supporters just wants to adjust the deal; they want to reverse the entire process.
GIVEN that I voted Remain the first time, you might expect me to agree with them. yet I believe a second referendum would be the worst thing that could possibly happen to british democracy. And in supporting one, however disingenuously, the People’s Vote campaigners are exposing their own arrogance, snobbery and intolerance. Ever since the polls closed on June 23 two years ago, the ultra-Remainers have acted as if voting to leave the EU was an act of pathological insanity, ignorance and bigotry.
but the plain fact is that people have been arguing about our place in Europe since well before we joined the Common Market way back in 1973. Among those who argued that we should either stay out or leave were the likes of Clement Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell, barbara Castle, Enoch Powell, Michael Foot, Tony benn, denis Healey, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont and david owen. Were they all ignorant bigots? I don’t think so.
yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard supposedly intelligent people, among them plenty of oxford and Cambridge academics, insisting that the british people
were too stupid or too prejudiced to decide correctly, and should be compelled to vote again until they get it right. Just imagine if Parliament agreed with them and passed a bill to require a second referendum. What message would that send to the millions who voted the first time?
Wouldn’t it suggest that the politicians see themselves not as the servants of the people, but as their masters, whose wishes must be obeyed at all costs? The People’s Vote website claims that ‘new facts have come to light about the costs and complexity of Brexit that no one could have known at the time’. But this is a barefaced lie. Back in 2016, the Remain campaign insisted, again and again, that leaving the EU would be immensely expensive and difficult. And while it has shown a wobble or two, the economy has conspicuously failed to collapse in ruins, contrary to George Osborne’s hysterical predictions. Despite apocalyptic warnings, 17.4 million people decided that it was worth doing anyway, because they considered it a price worth paying for separation from the EU.
At the time, official leaflets about the referendum explicitly promised that ‘the Government will implement what you decide’. Was that sentence worth nothing? Should it have ended ‘as long as it isn’t too difficult’?
Ultra-Remainers often argue that Brexit is a special case, a unique act of national selfharm that simply must be reversed at all costs, no matter what the cost to democracy. But this argument is almost comically self-serving. By definition, losers always think the people have chosen badly.
If Britain elected Jeremy Corbyn, I might well think it a disastrous mistake that could blight our prospects for generations. But I would look like a fool if I painted my face and marched down Whitehall demanding that the voters be forced to choose again.
Of course Brexit is different. Referendums come once in a generation; elections happen every five years. But everybody knew the rules before the campaign began. If the Remainers had won, they would have proclaimed the issue settled for ever.
In a typical example of their disingenuousness, the People’s Vote campaigners claim that another referendum would heal the divisions of the first campaign. But they surely know this is not true. In fact, dismissing the result of 2016’s heated referendum would likely sow only more division.
ThE least they could expect would be an explosion of anger from the 17.4 million who voted Leave – as well as millions of Remainers who, like me, think democracy demands that you accept defeat with good grace instead of whining like a spoiled brat.
And if they did get a referendum and the result went their way – what then? Wouldn’t that plunge us into greater chaos and uncertainty than ever? Do they seriously think the prospect of ever-closer union under Jean-Claude Juncker such a prize that it is worth alienating great swathes of the country and sacrificing the principle of democracy?
The truth is that another referendum would be a disaster. Nothing would be more likely to drive a deep wedge between the governors and the governed; nothing would be more certain to poison our politics for generations.