Opinions can honourably differ about whether a second referendum is a good way forward. But the idea should be accepted or rejected for good reasons, not bad ones. Nicholas Barr (LSE) explains why the argument that a second referendum would be undemocratic is a bad reason.
Writing about the People’s Uprising in East Germany in 1953, Bertolt Brecht mischievously suggested that if the government had lost confidence in the people, it should dissolve the people and elect another.
A less draconian approach is to keep the people, and to hold repeated referendums till they get the ‘right’ result. European examples include:
1992: Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty;
1993: In a second referendum they voted in favour.
2001: Ireland voted against the Nice treaty;
2002: Ireland approved the Nice treaty by an overwhelming margin.
2008: Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty;
2009: Ireland approved the Lisbon treaty.
Many people regard this approach as questionable. But the idea of a second referendum over Brexit is different in at least four ways.
Gridlock
After two and a half years, the Cabinet remains split, and Parliament has not yet come up with an agreed proposal. There appears to be a strong majority in Parliament against leaving with no deal. The Prime Minister’s deal was voted down by the largest Parliamentary majority in history, but there may turn out to be no majority for another form of Brexit.
If Parliament cannot reach an agreement which the government then legislates, there are three potential options:
• No deal (the default): the overwhelming weight of expert opinion is that that outcome would be very damaging to living standards. Martin Wolf wrote in the Financial Times that “the UK and the EU are sleepwalking towards a no-deal Brexit… This outcome would be a disaster …”
• Extend (i.e. pause) Article 50, which specifies a leaving date of 29 March 2019, in order to give time to take the question back to the electorate.
• Revoke (i.e. cancel) Article 50, as suggested by Phil Syrpis on this blog and in a comment under an article in the FT: ‘There is a better solution to a divisive second referendum… Accept that as parliament could not deliver on the referendum vote the status quo prevails and the Brexit decision is left for the next generation’.
The last option should be rejected. It is common practice and entirely democratic to specify in advance that in the absence of agreement the status quo should remain. But changing the rule ex post would rightly be regarded as undemocratic. If the no deal option is also rejected because of the damage it would cause, then if gridlock persists, pausing Article 50 so as to allow the electorate to express a view is all that is left standing.
On its own, the gridlock argument is a negative one, based on the failure of political institutions to determine a way forward. I now turn to other, more positive arguments.
The will of the people – or the settled will of the people?
I am not an expert on constitutional design, but have colleagues who are. Constitutional experts argue that major changes (i.e. changes that are both large and difficult or impossible to reverse) should represent the ‘settled will’ of the electorate. Thus the rules for changing a country’s constitution often stipulate either a higher hurdle than a simple majority vote or include a second referendum as part of the rules.
However, determining settled will is difficult, first, if the initial result was close. Some people regard the 2016 52-48 result as decisive. Others point out that one of the fundamental principles of democracy is the protection of minority rights. On any reckoning, 48% is a chunky minority.
A second complication is how to interpret ‘settled will’ when things change over time. There have been at least two significant changes since June 2016.
More information (‘informed consent’)
After nearly 3 years the electorate has much more information. It has been a steep learning curve for large numbers of voters. ‘A new public vote would be different from the referendum in 2016 because we now know more about what Brexit means …’ (Margaret Beckett, FT).
Demographic change
The facts are straightforward. In the three years or so since the electoral register for the 2016 referendum was compiled, nearly two million young people have become eligible to vote. Peter Kellner, the founder of YouGov, points out that insisting on adhering to the snapshot taken in 2016:
” … depends not only on the proposition that voters cannot change their minds, but on a specific definition of “the people”. It includes those who have died since the referendum – and excludes almost two million new voters who were too young in 2016 but will be old enough to vote by next March” (Independent).
Polly Toynbee reinforces the point:
‘The true “will of the people” looks considerably more questionable if it turns out to be the will of dead people – not the will of those who have the most life ahead of them to face the consequences’ (Guardian).
The presence of new voters at a minimum raises the question of whether it is democratic to proceed without giving them a chance to express a view in the face of a moment with potential lifelong effects.
None of these arguments – gridlock, settled will, more information and demographic change – on its own is necessarily conclusive. But they all point in the same direction. My conclusion is that a second referendum – whether or not that is the best way forward – would not be undemocratic.
What does this line of argument imply for policy?
It implies that the order of play should be as follows:
1) Parliament to seek a majority for a Brexit deal: if such a majority exists and the government puts in place legislation accordingly, things can move forward.
2) If no such majority can be found but Parliament wishes to avoid no deal, the last option standing is a second referendum.
Either of these options can be the end point of a citizens’ assembly, and both may now imply an extension of Article 50 to allow time for the process to be concluded.
In sum, a second referendum has the role of backstop (to coin a phrase) – to come into play only if all other options for delivering the 2016 referendum have failed to secure Parliamentary approval.
Whatever view one takes, a 2019 second referendum is very different from the Bertolt Brecht proposal.
Acknowledgments
Full disclosure: this blog follows my Letter to friends before the 2016 referendum explaining why I would vote remain, and Letter to friends (2), posted shortly after the referendum, attempting to point to a way ahead. I am grateful to Richard Bronk, Kevin Featherstone, Sara Hagemann, Bob Hancke and Abby Innes for helpful comments. Remaining errors and the views expressed are my responsibility.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE.
Nicholas Barr is Professor of Public Economics at the European Institute, London School of Economics.
Democracies need to be consistent and that means when people vote for somebody (such as an MP) or something (such as leaving the EU), that is carried out. The fundamental question is, how absolute do you make this principle. I think most of us would want it to be pretty absolute.
For example, it would in my opinion be a disaster if racist extremist candidates were to be elected to the House of Commons, but I think most of us would say that if they were, they should be admitted and allowed to participate in divisions and debates like any other members. This would remain true even if they won in their constituencies only by a narrow majority, or if their constituents thought better of it one year later, or if they lied during their campaign. I believe it to be possible for the House of Commons to expel members by a majority vote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/e-g/82139.stm ) but I do not think this should happen to racist extremist MPs.
Apply this to the case in hand, I think it would be indeed be undemocratic to hold a second referendum now. To be honest, there is no such thing as the “will of the people”, rather 30 million wills of 30 million people. Nobody knows how a second referendum would turn out We can estimate the odds from the betting market. According to oddschecker, Ladbrokes currently offers 7/4 against a referendum in 2019 and 3/1 against a remain vote in a referendum in 2019, meaning that their analysts think Remain would have about a 66% chance of winning in a 2019 referendum. These odds are somewhat skewed because if Parliament were to vote for a new referendum, they would probably do so because of increasing public support for Remain. But in any case, 66% is not high enough for me and I think that to me, and to many other people, like a second roll of the dice. And since nobody said before the first referendum that Remain would get another chance, it would be undemocratic.
Disagree completely
Whilst we acknowledge that a referendum is advisory and presumably a second would be equally advisory.
It will without doubt create more division amongst friends and family.
A close result will achieve nothing, but nothing.
Will it sort the divisions in parliament out? Absolutely not, even if it were decisive the system in parliament is designed to be obstructive rather than constructive.
The tactics of blockading can be employed by both factions and most likely will be if the second one referendum goes a different way,
It won’t stop those who think The plebs got it wrong!
And will it stop the claims that e should have best of three? I think not!!!!
So to questions?
No deal?
Deal?
What deal?
How many deals?
Half in half out?
Irish border?
Customs union?
Norway?
Canada?
Do you really think that this useless parliament, who couldn’t organise a p Up in a brewery could agree on the list of questions, this side of the next millennium?
It is just crazy to imagin the idea that just because parliament cannot sort this out because of personal political gain/greed,
That the electorate can!
The consequences for this madness will ring on for generations and worst of all I believe that there will be civil unrest.
Carry out the will of the people for the good of the country.
If those who are unhappy wish to we can reapply later.
Get it done!!!!
– if the 1st referendum result was not respected, why should the 2nd, or 3rd?
The reason why it has been a deadlock is that the majority of people voted to leave, and mp’s and parliament wanted to remain (toynbee et al) and are trying to subvert the referendum result because they believe the choice was ‘ wrong’ and didnt correspond to their view because they believe that the people who voted them in and pay their wages should also serve them, and they the politicians should not serve the people or be accountable to them, or respect their voting choices, but serve themselves and their own agendas at the taxpayers expense. Its really that simple, no wheel reinventing, or theses writing needed.
[Well said Dennis.]
One point –
“But changing the rule ex post would rightly be regarded as undemocratic.”
What, I wonder, is so ‘Democratic’ about spending seven months debating a bill, and having amendment after amendment fail, on the basis that the referendum was to be nothing but ‘advisory’ – only for a Prime Ministerial Edict to alter all of that?
– I suspect that the answer to the above is: All Partys agreed to support the terms of the edict.
For, as a Representative Democracy; things are decided ONLY by our Representatives.
In short – we have the wrong Representatives. NO mere referendum can alter that.
Democracy now means what the government, Parliament, the EU and the mainstream commentariat deems it to be, which is something different every day, because it depends on which way the Establishment wants to set the sails of politicking in relation to public opinion. First off, again, I am in favour of another referendum, even though it is anti-democratic. The last referendum has not been implemented as promised and voted on. The entire column above rests on the premise that the vote in another referendum would favour Remain. Of almost all the arguments in favour of another referendum before Brexit as voted on, which was Leave, none would be made if the expectation was that Brexit would be available as a choice, or, if it were, that a majority would vote for Brexit, not for a fudge. The notion that another referendum ought to be called because more young people have reached voting age is surely an indication that any referendum can be declared null and void because, after a few years, yet more people have reached voting age. Again and again, the same futile arguments are trotted out to spike Brexit. It so happens that few politicians are in favour of Brexit. Very few commentators in the mainstream media are weiting in favour of Brexit, whatever their personal views may be.
Presumably, what has been put on the internet will be up for scrutiny for ever after. Scholars will have a fine time teasing out the train of events and the arguments supporting them. If they who have the power are bent on destroying parliamentary democracy, maybe that is the way it must go. At least Brexiteers and democrats will not be responsible for what happens after.
The Remain/Leave decision process has two fatal flaws built into it. These render it so unfit for purpose that it is wrong to impose it on the UK electorate, and it may even be illegal.
Flaw 1. The industry standard process for making major decisions (the Due Diligence sandwich) has been flouted by reversing the order of its parts. This has had a catastrophic effect on the outcome, and is akin to reaching a final verdict before a criminal case has even been heard. This flaw on its own is enough to render the decision process broken.
Flaw 2. The referendum was constructed and used in a way that forced it outside the natural limits for any referendum to perform fairly and reliably. It still reached a “result”, of course, but this was unsafe, and thus undemocratic. This flaw, like the first one, is enough, in itself, to render the decision process broken.
However, we could even now get back onto an acceptable decision process path (the 3-part “sandwich”). We must accept we have done Part 1 (Choice: Gather Info, or Stop), and we have done Part 2 (Gather info and sort “Last Brexit Deal (LBD)” standing), and accept that we have NOT YET actually done Part 3 (Choice: Do LBD (then stop), or Stop). [Nb, there is no “best of three” as info does not change hereafter]. Thus getting back on track would now be easy, and would CONFIRM democracy, NOT threaten it.
Having a Constitution that is not written is no excuse for making constitutional change by using process that is flagrantly substandard. Our decision process so far is so bad that we are a laughing stock. Let’s correct that NOW.
Did you spot the Straw Man – well actually it was an “Iron Man”?
Logicians recognise a straw man fallacy as where a weaker version of an opponent’s argument is put up, attributed to the opponent, and then knocked down, making it appear that the opponent’s real argument has been destroyed.
The opposite fallacy to that is the Iron Man, where a stronger (easier to defend) version of one’s own argument is proposed, even though it is not available or not possible, in the hope that it will cause one’s own argument to be accepted (eg in a vote).
So, did you spot the Iron Man fallacy embedded in the 2016 referendum question? It was there, as a careful examination of the question shows.
The result of using the Iron Man fallacy in the referendum question was to pull a very smooth and impressive magician’s trick. At first glance the question looks simple, obvious and harmless, so why is it so fatally flawed? One of its “halves”, the Remain option, is solid enough, but what about the other “half”, the Leave option?
Well, what actually is “Leave”? The word alone means nothing. It can only have any actual meaning here when it is expanded into something that might actually exist, and thus might actually be fit to be voted on.
For instance, no “Leave” option can exist unless it is an actual deal agreed by the UK Government, by the UK Parliament, and by the EU, (though the “No Deal” option is the exception, and does not need EU agreement). So, the only one of the many conceivable Leave choices that could realistically be pitted against the Remain option in a fair referendum is whichever of the above ends up as the Last Brexit Deal standing.
However, the referendum ignored all these logical constraints and committed the Iron Man fallacy, and the result was a referendum that delivered a result (it was always going to do that), but one that is unfair, illogical and undemocratic. The referendum was totally unfit for purpose, and yet the magician’s clever trick went unseen by most people.
It was fatally flawed, though, and cannot serve as the basis for any justifiable action. For instance, its first effect was the immediate expulsion of the Remain option from the fight, which was unfair at that beginning stage. Also, it forced the UK down the narrow, dark and stony path of trying to find the last Brexit Deal (LBD) standing (with no escape possible), and then to declare this unopposed, and therefore the overall winner.
Nonsense! The only worthy and defensible winner would be the one that came out of a referendum that pitted the Remain option equally against the fully explained and finalised Last Brexit Deal standing. Of course, since the LBD can only emerge at the end of the info gathering and deal agreeing phase, then the only possible place for this fair and democratic referendum is at the very end of that phase, not at the very start of it.
Not convinced? Ask yourself a few questions, such as two years ago did we vote for (or had we even heard of) an Irish backstop, or a “No Deal” exit, etc.? How on earth could we have been an adequately informed electorate before any info gathering or deal agreeing had even started? So how could a flawed referendum, run before any info was gathered or distributed, be allowed to stand? It is a travesty of the democratic process. Holding this proper referendum now (ie when LBD emerges) would restore democracy, not threaten it.
Europe is heading the same way as the USSR, Yugoslavia and every other federation that ultimately takes control from member states into a centralised bureaucracy. News of this dissension is suppressed in the UK because most papers such as the Guardian and institutions such as the BBC are pro EU.
Brexit doesn’t mean we are anti Europe. We trade with the world already. It does mean we are anti Federal European control where the UK government would be relegated to a county council status.
Here’s a simple question. If Remain had won, would it have happened?