In Britain, the decision to leave the EU has been taken in what until now would normally be regarded as an unconstitutional way, namely by referendum. A slight majority of the population has over-rules the majority of MPs. This, in effect, means that the British constitution has changed. For the past three hundred years parliament has been sovereign and supreme. It could not be over-ruled. However, it now seems to be the case that a referendum can over-rule parliament which has not been true heretofore. It means that in future a degree pf 'direct democracy' has been introduced. This presumably means that a precedent has been set which which can lead to demands for referenda to overturn parliamentary decisions. Ironically, the campaign that was in part said to be about restoring the sovereignty of the British parliament has, in fact, undermined it in a different way.
The referendum seems to have been used because there was an insoluble problem within the ruling party. Its leader decided to hand over responsibility for settling the matter to the public. Nobody seems to have given much thought to the constitutional implications of doing so. A direct democracy is a very different animal from a representative one. Many people will see this as a wonderful step in the direction of greater democracy as if democracy were a virtue in and of itself. However, there have been other opinions in the history of political science. Aristotle would have seen this as a step in the direction of dictatorship and what we would now call fascism. Let us pray that he was wrong. However, it is surely alomst certainly the case that direct democracy introduces much more uncertainly and inconsistency into the political process.
Many people currently think, for instance, that if you held the recent referendum again, now, one week later, the result might go the other way as a result of people beginning to see some of the implications of what was decided a week ago. One cannot run a country on the basis of frequent switches of policy every time a drawback shows up. In representative democracy it is generally the case that virtually all governments are unpopular at mid-term. Imagine that in future whatever a government did in its first two years could be reversed in the third. What sort of a situation would result! In ancient Athens, many people, including some who had been the staunchest defenders of democracy eventually became disenchanted with it for exactly the same reason and, when Alexander arrived and imposed a more dictatorial order, breathed a sigh of relief. I hope Britain does not go the same way.
Replies
Certainly better than weeks of indecision. The government can now take on the job of Brexit and try to make something of it. Hopefully, this will also stimulate the EU leaders to push forward with their ideals too. The negotiation is bound to be definitional for both sides.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/cameron-announces-h...May will be PM by Wednesday evening, according to Cameron - phew
Well, politics, in UK at least, certainly isn't boring at the moment. Angela Eagle announces she is to challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the opposition and hardly anybody notices because there are bigger things happening. Andrea Leadsom steps down making Teresa May into the only option for PM. Opposition parties cry out for a general election, though if there were one they would probably be decimated (those that weren't so last time, anyway). There is a definite sense of energy and confidence about the government at the moment. whether that will sink into the sands of difficult negotiations remains to be seen, but right now the ball is certainly in the Conservative court.
From the Financial Times: "Sterling does not yet reflect the biggest source of uncertainty, which is the political and constitutional vacuum into which the UK has sunk, a situation that is likely to obtain even after a new prime minister and government take office in a few months. The basic strands of government policy since 2010 are already being undone, notably the 2020 budget surplus target. Legal, policy and regulatory uncertainties related to the precise path of the Brexit process are unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future. This is already leading to a pause or decline in investment. Large financial services institutions are considering which businesses and jobs they may relocate. Many companies have announced a halt to or a review of future investment plans. If significantly lower immigration occurred, this would further damage the economy’s potential." https://next.ft.com/content/5100ffd6-439d-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1#ax...
It is well worth noting here that given our general agreement that we live in a time of ecological collapse brought about by institutionalised greed that discussions seem limited to the reform of those very institutions. There is a social control aspect to the economic rule of greed that I believe people are frightened to even consider letting go of; a power vacuum. We are led by the wealthy, the greedy and the ignorant. How on earth do these institutions of greed become something we wish well, we wish to endure and prosper? I certainly do not. They have led us to the abyss and while most of us were led willingly, we were led. We need to nurture and encourage organisations not driven by greed and power while undermining such aspects of what currently exists. Such view needs to be far more prominently in the forefront when viewing areas of major change.
It is interesting that in the 1975 referendum - the first ever in the UK - almost every region of the country supported membership of the EU but the areas that were most luke warm were more or less the same ones that were most in favour of staying in this time.
More relevant to the original theme of this thread. There were no more referenda until 2011. Now we have just had the third. Three is not enough to be sure that this is a growing trend, but my hunch is that they will get more frequent because it is a way that the government can be challenged and their decisions over turned. At the time this will seem attractive to those so partisan, but the long term effect of more referenda will, I believe, be corrosive upon the process of good government.
So far, referenda have always been called by the ruling party, generally in order to get themselves out of a jam and pass responsibility to the populus. It is this shift of responsibility which is dangerous. It is true that it is the populus that benefits or suffers, but they are not the people who have to implement the decision and it is difficult for them to be as well informed as the parliamentary representatives that they may be over-ruling. The MP's so over-ruled are then put in a very difficult position. Right now there is considerable uncertainty. There seems to be considerable reluctance to actually pull the plug, which is quite understandable. There is still a majority in parliament who favour Remain, but they are the people who must implement Exit. My guess is that they will do so, but reluctantly with many abstentions. It is not healthy to have a parliament in which a significant proportion of members abstain, thereby over-riding their better judgement.
An important factor in all this is the decision of the first Cameron administration to press for fixed term parliaments. This gives greater job security to MPs but it takes away the old way that the population resolved these crisies. Thus referenda have become the new method of doing so. This, however, leaves us with a parliament that is barely sovereign which is likely in the medium term to bring politics even more into contempt. On the one hand, referenda do engage the ordinary person and increase participation levels, but they tend to play into the hands of slick talkers who are willing to deceive. The demonstrations for Remain that are taking place this weekend are substantially motivated by a revulsion at the untruths put out by the Exit campaign. This kind of deception will not, I fear, be limited to this particular campaign and issue.
Excellent - however I feel that whomever will be the next leader of the Conservative Party, and therefore Prime Minister, will be more likely to continue on the Brexit course, for better or, more probably, for worse.
Tam said:
Thank you Tam - I agree.
Thanks for sharing Tam, very insightful paper.
Yes, I completely agree. The EU is one of - perhaps even THE greatest peace project that has been attempted. To bring together in co-operation and unity so many countries that had so recently been intent on destroying each other has been an incredible feat. If it is lost and all degenerates into rivalry and antogonism again, that will indeed be tragic.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next