4m nationally and rising ... (Debate)

Tue 26 Mar 2019, 18:37 (last edited on Tue 26 Mar 2019, 18:43)

It's interesting to see the arguments for and against Brexit played out on this site (not to mention the minor miracle that it has not be consigned to the grease pit). The to and fro here reflects the divisions in the country at large, albeit with a more pro-EU bias. People on both sides have given deep thought to the issues, and many have expressed their honest views without spin, despite the emotion the topic throws up.

However, I've yet to see proper recognition for one key fact: setting aside what people think they have discovered or understood since, the 2016 referendum was observed in good faith by a record turnout, and the majority rejected remaining in the EU. 

This is the fundamental democratic truth behind this issue, and no amount of post-hoc rationalisation can change it. It follows that, if we end up remaining, it will be in defiance of millions who turned out in 2016. If this sounds puritanical to you, look at it from the point of view of those on the other side. If you believe, as many did and do, that leaving the EU sets Britain up for a brighter future and restores self-determination to its citizens, then being told your voice doesn't count because you're wrong would be infuriating to say the least. 

Seeing a transparent democratic process overturned by the losing side would shatter your faith in your compatriots and your politicians, and understandably so.

If we go ahead and engineer a reversal, no matter the post-hoc arguments we rally in our cause, there will be a cost. Despite the worst threats of some leavers, it probably won't be a tide of blood on the streets, although scuffles, abuse and damage to public property do seem likely. Instead, we'll see this country's commitment to democratic principles diluted. 

In practical terms this would mean a rise in populism, a rise in xenophobic acts and xenophobic politics, a rise in apathy and a general sense of disorientation as the country tries to figure out what it stands for if not for majority rule. Who would win a subsequent election? How different would the political landscape look from what we're familiar with, and what parties, old or new, would find a place in that landscape? It's impossible to say, but there would be many on the extremes keen to give voice to national frustration.

It's fine to campaign for a people's vote and/or revocation of article 50. We could do this and still respect the 2016 referendum by removing the option to remain. If we want to campaign to stay in the EU, that's fine too, but we shouldn't pretend we're not tearing up all the votes cast on the leave side in 2016, under the noses of the people who cast them. We should be honest about that. 

The truly democratic option is to embrace the 2016 vote and fight for the least damaging Brexit possible, then to campaign for re-entry to the EU at the earliest opportunity. If the wave of leavers who've changed their minds materialises, that shouldn't be too challenging a fight. I realise this is simply unacceptable to many remainers, but it's what principle demands in my view.