Almost every MP and politician from Tim Farron to Nigel Farrage has been saying that we must respect the result of the EU referendum last Thursday but there is no agreement on what the result means.
The act setting up the referendum deliberately made the result advisory, leaving parliament and the government to take the final decision (unlike the AV referendum, which was binding). But what is the final decision? To articulate a vision of the UK outside the EU, something not articulated by the leave campaign during the referendum? To prepare an initial negotiating position? To allow Scotland a second independence referendum? To notify the European Council under article 50 of the EU treaties?
We should respect the result of the referendum. But I believe this only means that the new prime minister, whoever they may be, has the obligation to clarify what our new relationship with the EU should look like (recognising our weak negotiating position). No more, no less! They should then go back to the electorate, through either a general election or second referendum, to gain a mandate for their proposed approach. This second plebiscite would then give a clear choice to the electorate and happen under very different conditions.
Only after this vote should the new prime minister formally notify the remaining EU member states under article 50. If the proposals are rejected by the electorate, then the result should be explicitly treated as a vote to remain in the EU and treated as that in the election/referendum.
The country is split. Almost half of people supported the status quo. Those who voted to leave did so for a wide variety of reasons. So the most likely negotiating position to command majority support of the electorate is close to our current EU membership. This could be remaining in the EEA, allowing free movement of people and continuing to contribute to the EU budget. In practice, something that looks similar to the EU’s relationship with Norway at a similar price.
However, two fundamental disadvantages remain with this position. Firstly, the UK will have little influence to affect EU legislation to which we would be bound (‘government by fax’). Secondly, many voters who voted to leave the EU would feel betrayed by the government. Now is the time for us to redouble (or more) our efforts to communicate with those who feel alienated by the political process and get them to engage a second time.
* Richard Robinson was the PPC in East Hampshire in May 2015 and currently divides his time between there and Vienna.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
14 Comments
I’m reminded of Bill Clinton’s quote on the confusing election to elect his successor:
“The people have spoken, but it will take a while to determine exactly what they said.”
Richard Robinson
I’m afraid the confusion is yours. The question on the ballot paper could not be more clear,..
Do you want to REMAIN,.. Do you want to LEAVE,… the European Union.?
What bit of that confuses you? And why do mischievous liberals still bang on about the EEA, when it has been shown to not meet the will of the LEAVE result. What might be an acceptable half way house deal for Norwegian interests, is definitely not any kind of solution for a country the size and stature of Britain.
I pointed that out here :
https://www.libdemvoice.org/only-time-will-tell-51098.html#comment-407210
I’ll debate with anyone who can show me how EEA solves the problems that brought about the EU referendum in the first place. So, why promote a ‘solution’ that is not a solution.?
“how EEA solves the problems that brought about the EU referendum in the first place.”
That was the split in the Tory party between the eurosceptics and the rest. It was purely a party management device, not in any sense addressed at the issues many leavers voted on.
J Dunn,
The EEA was not mentioned on the ballot – how can you possibly know what voters think about it?? There was no option on the ballot to say “I am voting Leave and by the way it is because of freedom of movement”
Meanwhile we can be fairly confident that all 48% of Remain voters at least accept freedom of movement, even if some may not be very enthusiastic. The position of Remain was basically “keep the status quo”
Leave campaigners tried to convince people of all sorts of things, from the £350 million on the NHS to 70 million Turks coming to Britain next year to “wipe the smile off Cameron’s face” to “ending freedom of movement but keeping the free market” and finally to “severing all ties with the EU and going for the WTO”
Leave was a Rainbow coalition and with such a close vote there is every reason to suppose there is actually a plurality in favour of Leaving the EU but keeping the free market through EEA membership. And the latest poll from Yougov suggests voters support free movement in one form or another by 46% to 42%
Basically, in my view EEA is worse than what we have now (much less democratic, for example), but nothing like as bad as full exit (much less damaging to UK prosperity, and much cheaper to implement)… In that sense yes, it is a half-way house…
I think we must regard the referendum as tainted with the same problems as FPTP – ie it is ‘winner-takes-all’ democracy. Yes/no referenda are for clear, binary choices. Either that, or they must be sequential – now you’ve ruled that option out, what about these further choices? And who has the money for that?
Our lame-duck PM was deluded when he bought the argument of the Leavers that this was a binary choice.
And yes, this is a retrospective criticism of past LibDem support for an in/out referendum for the same reason.
@J Dunn – “The question on the ballot paper could not be more clear,..
Do you want to REMAIN,.. Do you want to LEAVE,… the European Union.?”
Don’t know about you, but my ballot paper looked like the one shown in this article https://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/uk-voters, note the use of the word ‘should’ and the total absence of either the words ‘do you want’ or any form of words that implied any action would be taken as a result of the way in which you caste your vote.
I suspect that like many, you are confusing the real status of the referendum and it’s result, with the version conjured up during the campaign by the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, many around the world are still under the illusion that the result actually has fired the starting gun on the UK’s exit from the EU. If David Cameron had been more forceful this week he would of attended the full session of the EU Summit as there was no reason for the UK to be excluded.
In answer to J Dunn the question was clear about remain – I interpret it as do nothing as a result of the referendum. The other possible answer about should we leave is not clear at all. Questions like when, under what circumstances, and so on. It is completely irresponsible if the government simply leave without having alternative arrangements in place. The government is responsible for the well being of the country. Because of a poorly constructed question we are in a position where our fellow members of the EU know precisely our position. We will need unanimous support from the rest to get it – and we are leaving anyway. Can we delay until we get meaningful negotiations – we can try but there would be continuing and growing instability. What will then replace our present arrangements. The people were not asked or even told about that. There is no way out of this because we have asked a question that is clear only in the sense that it is short. People believed there was some plan there – that is what they expect from the government. There is none, and I have seen none suggested.
And of course all the opt outs have gone. We may end up in a worse position than now. And if we ever want to get back in we will have to adopt the Euro.
All this over a trade treaty.
We must hope for a House of Commons unwilling to press the button on Article 50 and use the next few months discussing with our fellow European member states how we can further democratise the Union without the need for treaty change. We should also see what more can be done to use structural funds to aid areas experiencing the greatest demographic changes as a result of in-migration.
Norway? No vote, no thanks. But we might also explore how to democratise EFTA (currently coordinated at ministerial level). We might even begin to think how the EEA as a whole might be democratically structured.
Once again J S Mill sums it up. If presented with a person about to commit suicide do you let them get on with it, or prevent it because the person has lost his/her ability to make a rational decision? It’s also Edmund Burke on the responsibility of the elected Representative.
If we exit it will be WTO rules and our Service Industries will be trashed over a period of AT LEAST 7 years. Fancy a recovery from that?
In the meantime Arron Banks’ ‘marketing opportunity’ – yes he did describe UKIP as this while donating £5.6 million – will drive a coach and horses through our democracy as it tumbles, with all the fertile ground for right wing influence that economic disaster brings.
We need to see if there are ANY grounds to dispute the Referendum on legal grounds, then ensure that if Article 50 goes through it is subject to Parliamentary full scrutiny. But we haven’t politicians of sufficient stature it appears, to spell this out.
It was not clear to me (I suppose that I should have read the Referendum Act online) that the referendum was advisory. It has widely been seen as mandatory and decisive, so to act now in a way which is not explicitly OUT is asking for trouble. But if it was advisory and since the margin was pretty narrow, the government does have some wriggle room, doesn’t it?
It would help if the government were willing and able to address some of the grievances that stoked up an OUT vote. The multiplicity of cuts, national and local, fall heavily on certain areas and certain social groups. You cannot blame such people for taking every opportunity to kick the government responsible. Is it too much to hope that a new chancellor and a new DWP minister will see the point?
Paul King, Chesterfield
@Paul King – I fully understand where you and others are coming from on this.
The problem, looking back, is that it was in the interests of the winning side (yes Remain or Leave) to treat the result as decisive and thus the stage was set for the campaigns to ignore this aspect, just as Leave are doing now, but Remain would of done the same if it had won.
The government could have pulled things back, but David Cameron allowed the Cabinet and himself to get involved rather than stand aloof. Had he done so, he could of avoided the need to announce his resignation etc. which further confirmed in some people’s minds that the referendum result was binding. [Aside: I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn, knew the referendum was advisory and hence why he didn’t do much pro-active campaigning.]
The government has plenty of wiggle room, but on evidence very few people with guts and who are prepared to stand up and be unpopular among a (significant) minority of voters and members of their own party.
The government repeatedly stated that they would regard the results of the referendum as binding. Of course, it now seems as if their sincerity in this as in all other matters is not to be taken for granted.
A parliamentary vote would also be ‘advisory’ only; it could not supersede the referendum, could not block a government determined to leave the EU from submitting an Article 50 notice (except by bringing that government down), and could not force a government disinclined to leave the EU to submit Article 50.
Ultimately, the decision will be made by the government: the problem being that the present government has considered it advisable to leave the public completely in the dark as to its policy, and whose government it will be in the future remains unknown.
The one thing we can be sure of is the patent recklessness, fecklessness, incompetence, and cowardice of the Tory leaders and the complete inability of the disintegrating Labour Party to challenge them.
That leaves it up to us.
“…If the proposals are rejected by the electorate, then the result should be explicitly treated as a vote to remain in the EU and treated as that in the election/referendum…”
I understand and have sympathy with this argument, but it simply wouldn’t be the case. There would be a massive backlash from those who voted Leave; i dread to think of the social discontent that this would cause. Likewise, I very much doubt that the EU would welcome us back with open arms. They have made their position very clear: leave means leave.