- because the referendum did not make the decision. Constitutionally speaking, referendums in the UK are advisory. The actual decision to leave the EU was made by David Cameron's government, and proceeded with by Mrs May. If the majority on June 23rd 2016 had been in favour of Remain, Mr Cameron would have had just as much right to decide that the UK should leave the EU, provided that Parliament backed him. The UK is a representative democracy, not an ochlocracy.
In any case, a margin of less than seven percentage points did not, in my opinion, give a clear "instruction" to initiate exit proceedings. Contrast that with the two-thirds to one-third majority in favour of the status quo in the first Europe referendum in 1975. If that had been exactly reversed in 2016, then the government would have been justified in thinking that a change in policy might be required. (A two-thirds majority for a constitutional change is typical of clubs, societies and political parties.) First of all, though, given that they had gone into the referendum asking for a "Remain" vote, they should have asked for a dissolution of parliament so that a fresh Commons and a fresh government could look at the result.
On the other hand, if the margin had been narrow in the other direction that should not have meant business as usual for the government. Take out factors like racism (a minor factor, one trusts) and the probably illicit dog-whistle campaign by some Leave campaigns, and there would still have been a huge section of the electorate which was ignorant of the way the EU worked (thank you, BBC) or was not satisfied with its operations. The government would have needed to take action on all the issues raised in the referendum campaign. This will still be required if the Brexit process breaks down.
No comments:
Post a Comment