700,000+ marched Saturday in London to ask for a second vote concerning Brexit. They marched for many more who could not come. How many is a guess but probably several million. The nation is hence divided and it is the duty of the government, if not most likely Her Majesty’s wish, for the UK to recover national unity. Every learned politician knows of its importance and what history shows to happen sooner or later when there is a lack of it.
Independently of its prospects, positive or negative, a consensus for Brexit is required before proceeding, as the project now shows itself offering dangers greater than the economic arguments at its origin. A programme not only putting civic peace at risk but now even threatening the very unity of the Kingdom.
The problem is that Mrs May’s cabinet is more interested in implementing a divisive Brexit than preserving national unity. It hence falls logically to Parliament to walk in and seek it.
Parliament is sovereign and could declare that it is in the supreme interest of national sovereignty and unity that Brexit be abandoned. With the position of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to consider Scottish independence if the UK would leave the European Union or the statement of some Irish politicians that Ireland would unite under the same circumstances, I have asked myself if Brexit could now be anticonstitutional as threatening territorial integrity and hence national security.
I leave this question to experts on the British constitution as I could not find readily reference material in this respect. The profound questions and possible effects of Brexit on the constitution incidentally have been noted by Prof. Bogdanor of the Constitution Society, particularly where Human Rights are concerned, where a gap will appear. Such a gap, he states, could well be filled by the judges. If that happens, Brexit will increase the danger of a clash between the judges and Parliament. Interestingly Prof. Bogdanor points out that it is rare if not unprecedented for a democracy to exit from a major international human rights regime; and that no country has hitherto moved from a protected to an unprotected system.
However, such unilateral Parliamentary ruling would not bring civic cohesion as it would leave pro-Brexit partisans with no say, and hence continue to divide the country – the opposite result sought.
This is why Parliament should implement a second referendum and, on the basis of the results obtained for the questions set, decide whether or not to go ahead with Brexit.
Whichever direction will be taken, undoubtedly some will be left unsatisfied. But national unity has never been a 100% consensus. It is the greater national unity which is sought, and which should be restored, before any other consideration.
* Christian de Vartavan is an eminent scholar and now CEO of a London blockchain consulting company and Associate, APPG AI, House of Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sparrows Can't Sing Q&A with Barbara Windsor and Murray Melvin
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Recipe for a real change of direction
Richard Flowers
George Thomas
Tristan Ward
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
21 Comments
I hope we do get a Peoples Vote and stay in but the very last thing that will give us is national unity. There will be an even more divided country with a bitter large number of brexiteers feeling they have been betrayed.
The economic argument is not at its origin. The origin is a parliamentary and sovereignty based one dating back to The John Major government signing up to a deep political change involving ceding power to a then new European project and to a fundamental changes to the notion of British citizenship. It’s about notions of nationhood v a sort of pan national ideal and the ramifications involved. I don’t think that the pro EU camp see it as mostly an economic argument either.
Dear Simon, when you have a national issue of that sort, it is bound to leave a portion of people unhappy. Lets hope that this portion will be as reduced as possible.
Dear Glenn, I think that economic motivations are the origin and main drive of the Brexit project.
Interesting that the article starts with the ‘700,000+’. I’ve finally got round to watching Vince Cable’s address, spoiled only by his having to rely on a very rudimentary PA system. It got me thinking about those Trump rallies and preaching to the converted.
The points about the Tories putting their party above national unity are well made. It reminds me of the speech Douglas Hogg, with a wry smile on his face as he addressed his supporters, made at the count after winning the newly created seat of Sleaford & North Hykeham in 1997 (I was the Lib Dem candidate, who finished a distant but respectable third); “Tories always win in the end”.
IF those who wish to stay in the EU, warts and all, of which I am still one, want to achieve their goal, they have got to find a way out of their comfort zone and appeal to some of those reluctant Leavers, who do not take their lead from the Mail or any of those anti EU newspapers and who are still out there and currently show few signs of turning. The first thing to do is to be honest about the EU’s many faults, which could result in a few surprises in next year’s EU Parliamentary Elections. We Brits are not alone in wishing to see a return to the kind of ‘Common Market’ those of us old enough voted to stay in back in 1975.
Christian’
I don’t think the origins are economic and I don’t think people were marching about economics either. There’s as much economic disagreement in the Brexit camp as there is in the EU camp. In all honesty I think the good proportion of the march involved people who think the EU is a noble endeavour. Fair enough, but some of us disagree. I also don’t think the Lib Dems attachment to the EU is about economics either, I think its about what some people dismiss as little England values v a sort of values of European interconnectedness.
Dear John you are right when you say that ‘. The first thing to do is to be honest about the EU’s many faults’. I am convinced that the EU needs reforming and should there be a second referendum, Remainers should integrate this in their campaign.
Dear Glenn, I definitely think like you that ‘he good proportion of the march involved people who think the EU is a noble endeavour’. I was one of them. And of course a portion of the Brexiteers have in mind a notion of sovereignty or national free will against what they see as an unreasonable if not autocratic supra national institution. But aside from the original NHS campaigning argument, economic arguments such as free trade prevail.
Parliament must restore national unity
This sounds a plausible enough sentiment. Except that for the EU to function properly requires that we all have to become much less nationalistic and be more European. Guy Verhofstadt is saying exactly this in his recent speeches.
I’m not sure just what this means for those who wish to Remain in the EU. Maybe you should be saying you want just a temporary restoration along Remainer lines?
Christian;
Your talking about the campaign. The origins of the dispute go back to the early 1990s.
Also would argue that there’s a split between the likes of me and thee, but that country as whole is not really much more split than it ever was. I think the split between the haves and the have nots is much more prevalent than Brexit. I don’t really see any wide scale tensions in day to day life . Things just trundle on pretty much the same. I also don’t think it is the job of parliament to bring people together and thank goodness it isn’t because it’s against the spirit of the adversarial politics at the heart of our parliamentary system. Plus, IMO, politicians sometimes see themselves as leaders of deep significance whilst out in the sticks they’re seen more as a cross between hall monitors and David Brent, so are probably not up to the task.
Dear Glenn, you are right the adversarial system is at the heart of Parliamentary functioning. But this is a special situation requiring urgent cross-party action.
Could we have a referendum on whether England should leave the UK?
While we’re throwing all these organisational things up in the air?
Can I just point out that it is and should be of absolutely zero importance or interest to any of us what “Her Majesty” wants. This is, thank fluff, a democratic age. The monarch’s job (since apparently we still have to have one) is to say brave, fluffily uncontroversial things, and sign whatever d*mn laws are put in front of her…
Jenny Barnes: “Could we have a referendum on whether England should leave the UK?”
“We are better together” as decided by the 2014 referendum, including 16 year olds, some of whom were too young to be allowed to vote in the 2015 general election. Blame David Cameron, but this is a precedent.
Parliamentary sovereignty is the best antidote to post-referendum acrimonious divisions.
When people have a body of elected politicians to blame (or even thank!) for the outcomes of decisions this is much better than electors blaming other electors. We pay MPs to run the risk of getting things wrong (ideally not too often because we pay them to think as well). The most valuable attribute of MPs is that we can get rid of them if we wish – which would be somewhat easier in any half-decent electoral system.
My idea on national unity is to involve more so even if votes are tight, the electorate feels empowered. Most people accept the principle of democracy as shown by the vigorous defence of Brexit when most statisticians would have called for more information. So more referenda, citizens’ juries and enabling petitions would improve national cohesion.
Lots of Brexiteers want to return to a quiter more stable time. A laudable objective if it was possible, but it isn’t, you can’t turn back time to when you left school with the certainty you’d join the local firm, work with your school mates and life would just roll on getting gradually better year by year. By voting for leave you are not voting for a return to this, you are voting for decades of uncertainty. When the results start to roll in no amount of “I don’t think the country is split” will wash, people will look for scape goats and if the young feel they have been betrayed by the old (and they are likely too) well it really will get nasty.
“When people have a body of elected politicians to blame (or even thank!) for the outcomes of decisions this is much better than electors blaming other electors. We pay MPs to run the risk of getting things wrong (ideally not too often because we pay them to think as well). ”
Agree. Albeit the level of apparent ignorance among some MPs about the Northern Ireland situation and how modern manufacturing businesses operate might make sone pause for thought… but the principle of a parliamentary democracy system where elected politicians take important decisions that affect all our lives is the right one.
but the principle of a parliamentary democracy system where elected politicians take important decisions that affect all our lives is the right one.
Yes, I agreed with Tony Blair when he characterised his Executive as being the board of UK PLC.
However, it is important that they are properly held to account. I therefore today applauded (Lord) Alan Sugar’s speech in the Lords, where he clearly articulated how standards in public life (ie. for politicians) are significantly lower than those these same politicians have set for our businesses and given the nature of decisions our politicians are making (particularly around Brexit), it is only right that they should be subject to the same standards; not just the largely empty threat of possibly not being re-elected at the next general election.
Dear all, thank you for your comments and for having kept the debate alive. I am sorry I could not participate but soon after the publication of the article I learned that I was elected as Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. This news and other current affairs have taken me away from joining the discussion. I see that the exchange has been rich and varied. Democracy can only thrive on debates, albeit on polite ones as is the case here. I wish to point out that the Times published yesterday, hence one day after mine, an article entitled ‘Brexit is a risk to the integrity of the UK (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-is-a-risk-to-the-integrity-of-the-uk-pc83dc2l2), hence sharing a similar reflection on the dangers which Brexit may cause to territorial unity and sovereignty.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Ingold Pernice of the A. Humboldt Institute for Internet (Berlin) allows me to publish his comment sent privately:
‘Dear Christian,
Excellent ! You are quite right. There is one more consideration: Europe. European Integration is, in my view, the most important achievement in political philosophy and practice of civilization of our times. It gave, and continues to give us peace for a period of more than 70 years, this never happened before in the last centuries. Peace also for Britain. And it gives us, the citizens of the EU including Britain, freedom, economical prosperity and a role to play in framing globalization along European values. Do the Brexiters understand this? Do they really want to stop this? Brexit is a risk to the integrity not only of the UK, but of the entire EU – We, the Europeans at the Continent, are deeply concerned.
Please continue fighting for unity: of Britain and of the EU,
many thanks
Ingolf’