A number of things were wrong with the 2016 referendum, including the disenfranchisement of key stakeholders and the extent of misinformation by both sides. Given that referendums should be informed exercises in democratic decision-making, Bruce Ackerman and Sir Julian Le Grand explain how a referendum on the deal should look like.
We are moving to a world where the decisions of elected representatives are increasingly supplemented, or actually displaced, by referenda. Many deplore this trend and try to fight it. It would be better to welcome referenda, but to make sure they are done properly.
What was wrong with the 2016 EU referendum
There were three things wrong with the Brexit vote. The first was an absence of genuine information, creating a gap for actual misinformation by both sides. The notorious message promising a bonanza for the NHS on the Leave bus; the Remainers predicting economic catastrophe the day after a Leave vote; the benefits of immigration exaggerated by Remainers, the costs by Leavers.
The second was the over-simple choice: in or out. We now know that there are a number of alternatives to a hard Brexit at one end and Remain at the other. Not only is there the Norway (European Economic Area) option, but some form of softer deal may yet emerge from the negotiations between Teresa May and Michel Barnier.
The third was the exclusion from voting of key groups, such as Britons living for more than fifteen years in other EU countries, and the 1.5 million citizens who will be most affected by the long-run consequences of the decision: 16 and 17 year-olds.
What a referendum on second referendum should look like
So what would a serious Brexit referendum look like? First, the electorate would include 16- and 17 year-olds, and all Britons living in the EU. Second, it would offer people a manageable set of real choices. Practically speaking, three options will emerge: remain; the government’s negotiated deal; or no-deal. The referendum should ask people to select the one that makes the most sense. If none attain a majority, then the third-place choice would be eliminated and a second round would be held between the top two.
Third, the government should take affirmative steps to fill the information gap. The best way forward is suggested by social science experiments, including an early one held in Britain. In 1994, Channel Four organised an intensive discussion amongst ordinary citizens on whether the UK should become more or less engaged with Europe. The scientifically selected sample of 238 participants went to Manchester for a weekend to engage in a series of small group exchanges with competing experts for Yes and No, as well as representatives from the three major parties. At the end of the weekend, support for Britain’s increased integration into the EU rose from 45% to 60%. In contrast, support for the Euro did not rise above 35%. Before-and-after questionnaires established that participants became more knowledgeable.
Twenty years onward, majority opinion might well move in a very different direction. But there can be no doubt that the British people are thoroughly capable of a sophisticated discussion of the crucial issues. The only serious question is whether the government would be willing to take the steps required to organise a nation-wide conversation on the key issues defining the nation’s future.
Credit: Public Domain
On this approach, it would declare a new national holiday, Deliberation Day, that will take place two weeks before a referendum is put to the vote. D-day would begin with a televised debate between leading politicians representing the three Brexit options. After the national television show, local citizens could engage the main issues in small discussion groups at neighbourhood schools or community centres to hear their questions answered by local spokespeople for the three choices. By the end of the day, they will achieve a bottom-up understanding of the choices. D-day discussion will continue during the run-up to referendum day, drawing millions of non-attenders into the escalating national dialogue.
A Brexit referendum conducted along these lines would not be a rerun of the original. It would be quite different: a deliberative, informed exercise in democratic decision-making, one involving all those who will benefit from or suffer the consequences of the outcome. This is what twenty-first century democracy should be all about.
_______
Bruce Ackerman is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale.
Sir Julian Le Grand is Professor of Social Policy at the Marshall Institute, LSE.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
What is missing from the whole EU debate is rational thinking, firstly where is the evidence that staying in would be better than leaving?
How do we predict the future? Will our current trade imbalance change if we leave or stay? We were told that by staying in Europe in 1975 that our future prospects would improve, there would be no more wars, How has all that mapped out?
The given that the story told in the neo-liberal mass media is a genuine attempt to get at the truth is total fallacy.
Every aspect of the debate is controlled very tightly in the mass media; the BBC has been stuffed to gunnels by people who support the Tory party; by people working against the interests of ordinary people.
Democracy as we have seen has been eroded to the extent that it is questionable as to whether we can call it democracy anymore.
The European institutions have since its early progressive days changed totally, and now only serve the interests of the corporate sector, every thing else is subsidiary to that. Government for the people changed with the introduction of the maastricht treaty.
This whole debate is in itself a charade pretending to find solutions, where pro neo-liberal politicians are also pro EU. Because the EU has been transformed to the neo-liberal agenda that is strangling the world economy. The only real difference is between the extreme right that are seeking to break the talks down, so that they can walk away and rapidly do a trade deal with Trump that enables US companies to walk into our country cherry picking all the profit that is left to make. Namely organisation such as our NHS. The other so called moderate right wingers would do the same thing but stealthier by taking things at a pace where an unsuspecting general public would not know it was actually taking place.
There is a real alternative, which could happen as we see In Italy and Spain and the whole pack of cards disintegrates, which it should and a radical progressive movement actually scraps everything that has been put in place over the last thirty to forty years, and we create a new institution that reflects what people think the EU actually is. But of course is not.
Other than that we withdraw completely, and use our sovereign power and currency to rebuild what the neo-liberals have been dismantling since the 1970s.
A three option referendum should be advisory rather than mandatory. That would make it clearly different, and avoid the need for a second round vote. Also it would restore authority to our parliamentary democracy.
The Government should listen to the people, but take responsibility for the decision.
Binary choice referenda on complex issues deciding matters by tiny majorities is not the way forward.
This makes the same mistake as many others confusing a wild prediction with deliberate misinformation. If I say I am going to win the lottery this Saturday it is a wild prediction, very unlikely to be true, and yet I could buy a ticket for the first time in a decade and it could win. If I say I spent £2000 on something last week when I didn’t it is demonstrably false since all evidence shows I did not do it.
We did the first one was decided on pro common market information spread by the mass media, the second one was much more rational, at least the leave voters knew what the EU is all about and rejected it unlike the remain voters who once again were fooled by mass media propaganda.
It will never happen .. Why ? Because a campaign and referendum based on all the points you make means remain would win . The powers that be would never allow it .
Whilst it might be a good idea to have a national holiday for Deliberation Day, the priority should be to ensure that people actually vote on the day, so that we can minimise the ‘only x percent voted for most popular option’ argument. This could entail a holiday for referendum day, holding the referendum on a Sunday or, as in some countries, making voting mandatory.