Thoughts on a Second Referendum
Since I’ve been seeing a lot of discussion about the notion of a Second Brexit Referendum (or ‘first referendum on the facts’, if you’re into your #FBPE), it’s worth writing down what I actually think about it.
First off, as far as I can tell, Brexit Ref 2 is the most feasible way of stopping Brexit that I can see.
The first referendum’s precedent, plus pretty much everything that the Labour and Tory leaderships have done since June 2016, means that the government basically can’t not-Brexit and also survive past the moment the inability to Brexit became apparent. Meanwhile, Labour would need a regime change before they could (or would) shift their position substantially. The Tories are never going to threaten their own position of power in defence of the national interest, and Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t seem likely to leave any time soon.
It’s also not like the Tories are going to call a general election before March 2019. It’s hard to see the Labour/Tory tie in the polls swinging to be decisive either way, especially since their respective leaders have no intention of stepping down, so it wouldn’t be worth the risk. Maybe Boris, specifically, will mount a coup and then use his honeymoon period to secure an extra year or so, but this both isn’t likely and would result in us having Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. I’m not going to bank on it, and, frankly, I don’t want to.
Hence, it is sensible for Remainers to support such a referendum, since there is no way the mandate to leave would be changed without one.
That said, the Liberal Democrats should not have “we’ll do another referendum” in our manifesto for the long-shot possible-maybe election.
We’re the Lib Dems. No one will trust us to not be all disingenuous about said referendum, and, at any rate, the shift in votes needed to make a Liberal Democrat government happen would be more than enough mandate to just stop the leaving process and be done with it. Plus, we need to be more straightforward generally, and this specifically would give us an actual unique selling point. We’re really squandering this opportunity, to be honest.
Moving back to the big picture, there’s also an argument there that even people who voted Leave should support a second referendum.
As much as there was misinformation going around (such as that infamous bus), it was impossible to predict the impact of the vote at the time anyway. There were also several different visions of Brexit being sold on June 2016, and inevitably there will be some people for whom the real Brexit is so far from their own vision for Leave that they’d rather Remain. So, while the first referendum was a mandate to look into leaving, it wasn’t one for the government to do whatever it wants as far as the final deal is concerned. This goes doubly since Theresa May was not only not Prime Minister at the time, she lost her majority when calling an election specifically to get a mandate for whatever deal she could get.
In other words, it’s only fair that we (as a country) have the chance to decide if we really want Brexit once it’s clear what Brexit actually means. Or once it becomes clear that we’ll be entering the transition period with still no real idea, if that ends up being the case. Sure, it’s likely some Remain voters will switch to Leave if the deal is a not-worst-case-scenario, but, like I said, there will be Leave voters who’d rather Remain than take it, and the vote was narrow enough that it’s impossible to say whether the result will shake out the same way. Again, the deal itself needs a mandate of its own.
On a practical note, the EU won’t appreciate being given a run-around either. Having to sell the deal to the general public might give Theresa May some actual leverage for the negotiations. I regret saying that now, since the Prime Minister does seem determined to throw away every advantage she can get, but it’s worth stating anyway*.
Plus, Nigel Farage himself said from the start that 52/48 wouldn’t be decisive, and he isn’t wrong to say that the deal being ratified by referendum will at least ‘settle the issue’ and reduce the focus on the EU, when there are actually other issues facing the country**. I’d go further and say this applies equally to whichever way it would swing. I don’t want a decisive Leave for a few decades, but there are things that need doing that will be hard to get done if everyone is still living in early 2016.
As a final note, I should say that I’m not opposed to referendums in principle; the first referendum was terrible more due to how it was designed (a topic I could easily rant myself hoarse over) rather than because it was a referendum, and I don’t think including some direct democracy within our representative one is inherently a bad thing. Plus, I just really like voting, I’m not going to lie. I’m also not going to pretend this is exactly a liberal position (it’s this sort of view that makes me identify more with ‘libertarian’), but it’s mine regardless.
TL;DR: barring the clear mandate of a surprise Liberal Democrat (or, for that matter, UKIP) government, there really should be a referendum on the final Brexit deal, with at least the option to Remain. This applies regardless of whether you want to leave no matter what, or whether you want a last chance to stay in the EU.
\* Then again, I’m not sure I’d want what May would use her leverage for, so maybe it’s for the best.
\** I would vote for a Brexit party over Remainer!Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party, and if the Liberal Democrats were identical except for being pro-Leave, but Centrist Remain Parties still existed I’d likely still need to hold my nose to vote for the latter.
