The Scotsman

Please – a rest from referendum­s

A national vote is a popular choice but the results have failed to live up to expectatio­ns says Bill Jamieson

- JOIN THE DEBATE www.scotsman.com

Few developmen­ts in modern politics have been as seductive – and their outcomes more problemati­c – than the cry for referendum­s. Their appeal is popular and their outcomes surely compelling. Who would not wish for some divisive issue to be resolved by giving the people a vote through a national referendum?

But results have failed to live up to expectatio­n. Scotland’s independen­ce referendum in September 2014; the UK Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the Catalan independen­ce referendum this month: all three promised a definitive resolution of highly divisive and contentiou­s issues. But all three are wreathed in controvers­y and their outcomes challenged. This is despite the fact that the turn-out for both votes were the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the UK since the introducti­on of universal suffrage.

The provenance of the Brexit vote in particular has been challenged by “Remainers” on the grounds that those who voted for Brexit did not understand the issues, or were deluded or misled by populists.

Are we chastened by these experience­s? Are we more circumspec­t in calling for more? Or are we condemned to repeat the experience to the point of a sovereign selfdestru­ction?

At the SNP party conference this week, First Minister and party leader Nicola Sturgeon held the door open for not one but two more referendum­s: another rerun of the Scottish independen­ce vote; and a referendum on the outcome of the Brexit negotiatio­ns. Other speakers, including former MP Angus Robertson and the young firebrand MP Mhairi Black, were loudly cheered when they urged a second indyref – and the minimum of delay.

Ms Sturgeon has made her preference clear on Brexit question: she is an ardent EU supporter and would like the UK to retain full membership of the EU single market and the customs union, no matter what the voters thought (or didn’t think) in last year’s referendum.

Why do we imagine more referendum­s might have more success in resolving political division than the ones we have held already? If a second vote is held to have greater validity than the first, would not a third be better? Or a fourth better still?

And where would a second vote on EU membership leave us? Indeed, a referendum on the terms of a Brexit “settlement” opens the fiery possibilit­y of a No vote that would not only render null and void last year’s referendum result but also leave the UK having to repeal the parliament­ary vote on Article 50 and to re-negotiate the terms of continuing EU membership.

That could see the UK losing its budget contributi­on rebate and having to give a solid commitment to the EU – in particular, to further European integratio­n: “Ever closer union.”

In such a circumstan­ce, should there not be a further referendum to agree this? Some may regard this as a reasonable price to pay for a lasting settlement of the EU issue after years of division and uncertaint­y. Others would view it as little short of a national humiliatio­n and an unacceptab­le loss of sovereignt­y.

Would this really settle an issue that has been a major source of contention in UK politics for the past 40 years? Would it bring us together – or further entrench division?

No-one wishes to see a repeat of the explosive circumstan­ces of the Catalan referendum: an event that has divided the SNP. Party members have strongly supported the Catalan cause and spoken out against the violent, truncheon-wielding interventi­ons of the Spanish police to prevent the vote taking place.

EU officials have long been fearful that Catalan independen­ce would feed a populist desire for separatist movements elsewhere in Europe, as if the wayward behaviour of the populist Hungarian and Polish government­s were not enough for Brussels to contend with.

Catalonia’s drive to secede from Spain is fuelling calls for independen­ce in ethnic pockets across the Balkans – an explosive ambition in a region where nationalis­t violence claimed tens of thousands of lives in the 1990s. Ethnic nationalis­ts are drawing inspiratio­n from the events in Catalonia: Why, they argue, don’t we do the same?

Little wonder there is unease within the SNP – a party whose raison d’etre is political independen­ce but which is also avowedly pro-eu. Its members now look far from keen on the realities of “ever closer union” and highly critical of the failure of the EU to condemn the Madrid government for the repressive activities of the Spanish police.

All this poses a dilemma for the party leadership and one from which insistence on yet more referendum­s offers little escape. Party members may be highly sympatheti­c to the Catalan cause. But senior officials are anxious to avoid compromisi­ng the party’s relationsh­ip with EU leaders or falling foul of Madrid for fear that Spain might oppose a future Scottish applicatio­n for EU membership.

Catalan independen­ce sympathise­rs also have to reckon with the late but massive show of support for the Spanish government on the streets of Barcelona – reminiscen­t of the huge rally for General de Gaulle after the Paris student riots of 1968 threatened to topple the Fifth Republic. When it comes to “the voice of the people”, are they not also the people?

Here in the UK we have drifted dangerousl­y towards a blanket acceptance of resort to plebiscite – justified on the argument that certain issues can only be resolved by referendum­s but without being at all clear on what the criteria are and what the qualificat­ions might be.

There may in certain circumstan­ces be an argument for referendum­s – held under the rule of law and with safeguards in place to ensure that a clear majority – say, 60 per cent – are in favour of constituti­onal change.

Do referendum­s enhance democracy? Germany, where they were deployed to catastroph­ic effect by the Nazis, now disavows them. Venezuela lived and breathed them – as the economy collapsed. They do not necessaril­y enhance trust and unity in a democracy. And no democracy worthy of the name can survive without clear and firm constraint­s to protect the vulnerable, be they ethnic minorities, religious groups, gay people and those deemed to be “the rich”: That is why democratic societies have imposed protection­s such as individual rights, freedom of the press, property rights and restrictio­ns on confiscato­ry, retrospect­ive legislatio­n. There is more – much more – to a people’s democracy than crude majoritari­anism. A representa­tive parliament, obliged to debate, compromise and seek resolution by accommodat­ion remains the better if slow and imperfect way to go.

“Let’s have another referendum”? Or maybe two? Or even three? Be careful what you wish for. Public forbearanc­e with constant agitation and attempts to re-write the constituti­onal settlement by which we live may well break under the constant stress and strain placed on everyday life.

We need a break from this. Carry on as we are – with ever deeper division, families and communitie­s split, civil disturbanc­e and fighting in the streets – and we may end with the worst of all worlds: a bleak and divided polity of endless referendum­s while the key concerns of government sought by the public – health, well-being and economic growth – are pushed to second place.

 ??  ?? 0 Vote Leave campaigner­s put across their message in the lead up to the EU referendum
0 Vote Leave campaigner­s put across their message in the lead up to the EU referendum
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom