Humphrys and Blair clash over democracy and disobedience
Tony Blair: “I am not disputing that we have had the referendum and I am not disputing the result. I am simply saying that the debate doesn’t stop at that point; that you are entitled to say as you see counter-claim and claim is replaced by fact and you see the actual terms of the new relationship, it is not undemocratic to say we are entitled to think again.”
John Humphrys: “What process should be enacted to enable us to think again? You can say yes or no if you like to these things. A second referendum?” Blair: “Whether it is a second referendum or an election, that is a second order problem, but it would be a fresh referendum which this time – as opposed to 2016 – would be a choice between two alternatives.” Humphrys: “And if we don’t like the result of that, might we have a third referendum?”
Blair: “You will in the end decide in that referendum whether the terms that the Government have secured are preferable to the existing European membership. That is not undemocratic.”
Humphrys: “You risk civil disobedience here, don’t you? This is serious stuff. You really do. If you say to people, ‘We are going to give you a referendum and the choice is in or out and we will respect’ – that was the absolute promise made when the Government sent out its booklet and nobody argued with it – we will accept your decision, you the people, you are now saying, ‘Actually, maybe not’.” Blair: “No, I am not saying that. I accept entirely the result of the 2016 referendum. I am simply saying one very, very simple thing, which is that in 2016 you knew you wanted to get out of the European Union, but you didn’t yet see the terms of the alternative relationship. If, when you, see those terms, you think that it is better to stick with Europe, you are entitled to have that say.”
‘You will decide whether the terms that the Government have secured are preferable. That is not undemocratic’