On responding to the referendum result (1/3)

In a fortnight of strange happenings, one trend has left me particularly perplexed. It was evident in the hugely popular petition for a second referendum (which, out of frustration, I signed), in last weekend’s 50,000-strong March for Europe (which, out of curiosity, I attended), and in the flyer that came through my door proclaiming the Liberal Democrats’ support for staying in the EU (which I laughed at, then threw in the recycling bin). It’s a trend towards people thinking that the referendum result can be ignored, and that we can stay in the EU in spite of it.

This belief isn’t without foundation. Debate currently rages over whether Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty can be invoked under the Royal Prerogative, or whether the whole process still needs parliamentary approval. There have been calls from the likes of Nick Clegg for an early general election, which could return a pro-EU government — hence the Lib Dems’ flyer — with a mandate to remain. And, of course, there has been the question of whether a second referendum might not be justified, as Leave voters’ eyes are opened to the consequences of “Brexit”.

As things stand, the second referendum and early general election options both look unlikely, but it was the prospect of a vote in Parliament that most animated the speakers at last weekend’s March for Europe anyway. There was no doubt in their minds that the referendum was merely “advisory”, that MPs could yet vote against invoking Article 50, and that they were bound to do so if they felt it was in the country’s best interests. They encouraged the crowds in Parliament Square to lobby their MPs and speak to their neighbours, reminding them that much of the Leave campaign had been, at best, unsavoury and dishonest. They pointed out that the economy already looked to be collapsing in the wake of the result, with big falls in the stock market and the value of the pound sterling. The result, moreover, had sparked a dramatic upsurge in racist hate crime, and appeared to be precipitating the collapse of the United Kingdom as a whole. “We have two years,” Bob Geldof reassured us. “We will fight this!”

To stay in the EU now, though, seems no less ludicrous or dangerous an idea than holding the referendum was in the first place — the sort of idea that only a party as desperate for traction as the Lib Dems would throw their meagre weight behind. If you take a moment to consider why the result went the way it did, this quickly becomes self-evident.

People, of course, voted to Leave for all sorts of reasons (see here for a brief selection), and anything I say in these two short paragraphs will necessarily be a horrendous oversimplification. But a recurring theme in almost all of the articles and Facebook posts I’ve seen on the subject, in all the vox pops on television, seems to have been a frustration with being governed by distant and disinterested elites. This applies both to the unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, seen to be taking regular bites out of our national sovereignty, and the self-satisfied, self-interested political and business elites in London.

“Take Back Control” became the Leave campaign’s rallying cry. Control of borders, laws, it almost didn’t matter. It was soon apparent that millions of people around the country didn’t, don’t feel that they have any control over what’s happening in their country, or in their lives more broadly. Many see no evidence that their voices are being heard, and little indication that decision makers even know they exist. This was an opportunity to take matters into their own hands and make those oblivious elites — whose utter cluelessness was evinced by Cameron’s confidence of an easy win — take notice.

To treat the referendum as merely advisory and have politicians vote to remain in the EU would only serve as another slap in the face. And this one would be particularly painful. The referendum was never presented as advisory by either side of the debate, after all (and I doubt we’d be having the discussion now if the result had been 52–48 the other way). It would further widen the fissures in British society that this whole debacle has brought to the surface, leading to more disaffection, more frustration, and the likelihood of yet more hate and violence in turn.

The March for Europe was already sailing close to the wind. The highfalutin speeches in Parliament Square a couple of Saturdays ago urged unity, but they were patronising and divisive. They exempted Leave voters from responsibility for the result, welcoming those that had now realised their awful mistake to the side of the right and good. They had been “duped”, the speakers cried, and it was not their fault. But this was underpinned by an easy confidence that the enlightened in Parliament Square had seen through the lies. When Bob Geldof recommended we visit our Leave-voting neighbours to explain to them why they had been wrong, and how they had been lied to, it was with the thinly veiled condescension of a missionary. To say that Leave voters were not to blame implied, instead, that they were just stupid. And that, surely, is not the way forward.

The referendum was, in almost every way, a colossal waste of time and energy. It was a project driven by Westminster in the interests of healing divisions in the Conservative party rather than by any popular desire for it, and a project that has instead only deepened divisions in society as a whole. But it has happened. It’s done, and — not that anyone in Parliament Square last weekend would necessarily have believed it — it’s possible that it might yet have a positive impact. The short term consequences were always going to be disruptive — I don’t doubt that most Leave voters knew that. But no one really knows how things will pan out in 5, 10, or 50 years time. Which is part of what made the referendum such a ridiculous idea in the first place.

What’s more, rather than wasting even more time contesting the result, there are lessons we can learn from it. I’ll write about those lessons at some point in the coming week, and then about how we can respond positively, to build a better country — and even, perhaps, a better world — off the back of the referendum, the week after that. By which point, everything will probably have changed anyway.