To ask or not to ask the people
By now, I have written quite a bit about the Brexit vote and its consequences on this blog. But when I read Alessa Günther’s post (see link below) a few days ago, it got me thinking again and gave me some new insights. Thus, I thought I’d write another few words on the referendum.
In her post, Alessa correspondingly posed a very interesing question: Are far-reaching, globally relevant political decisions like the Brexit too complex to be debated and determined by the public? Of course, referenda are, as she points out, a meaningful element of a (direct) democracy: people have a chance to decide on their own fate instead of just watching politicians do what they think is right for their country (or themselves). But are there things that shouldn’t be decided in a public vote?
Some argue that the Brexit is such a decision. In your post, you explain very well a specific problem of this issue: The people most affected by the outcome of the vote are the people that are less likely to participate in the vote, namely younger people who either aren’t yet that interested in political developments or lack the experience and confidence to dare to decide on such a matter. Knowing that the elderly population is not only more likely to participate in a vote, but also was more likely to vote in favour of the Brexit, this is of course highly problematic.
In this respect, it is also difficult that the camapaigns of the two camps in the Brexit debate were so different in their approach: While the “leave” side focused on charismatic leaders, concrete (financial) promises (that of course are, as it turned out by now, not accomplishable) and short, catchy slogans, the “remain” side spent too much time advocating “project fear”, pointing to the insecure consequences of a Brexit. In that, they lacked concrete arguments for remaining in the EU as well as, probably, the militancy of the “leave” campaign.
Taking these two arguments together, I think maybe the “remain” camp and David Cameron in particular should have focused more on young people, on convincing them that is is their future to be decided in the referendum and on stressing the advantages they have through membership in the EU. Something around the lines of “Fight for your future!” would have been both a catchy slogan and an appeal to the younger generation to take their fate into their own hands and fight for their right to free movement in Europe and multiculturalism.
Of course nobody knows in retrospect what effect a different strategy would have had on the actual outcome, but on the whole I had the feeling that the “remain” campaign was not really convincing in their arguments. While the unforeseeable event of the murder on Jo Cox gave them a slight upturn, on the long term they were simply not capable of convincing all these percentages of people who were unsure about what they would vote up to the day of the referendum.
The question remains: Was the decision itself too complex, especially for young people? Was it the government’s fault to issue a referendum in the first place or was the “remain” campaign simply not good enough, as suggested above, or are the “youngsters” themselves to blame because they by majority didn’t even participate in the vote?
In my opinion, a referendum on the important question of membership in the EU was at least problematic.
It was problematic right from the beginning because of the government itself taking a side. Probably there were at least some people who voted “leave” just because they don’t like David Cameron or the government of the day. On the other hand, there were certainly people who wanted to see Boris Johnson as future Prime Minister (well, that did work out well…) and therefore voted “leave”. And in general, to issue a referendum opening the possibility for such a big change and then advocate staying with the status quo seems kind of inconsistent in the first place.
It was also problematic because of the partly mentioned demographic structure underlying the vote…it is more or less generally known that the elderly are more likely to vote. However, the Brexit will have a huge impact on the future of Britain and the people who will have to live with the decision for the longest period of time will be the younger generation.
And it was problematic if you take into account the scale of the decision for Britain’s international relations and economy. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for the “normal” little citizen to see the big picture here, let alone the possible consequences for the economy and therefore jobs, aid payments, even the health system. Everything is internationalised and conneted these days, and as a citizen you usually only see your personal situation and what directly affects your life, e.g. strict regulations for farming or production. But the indirect effects of a Brexit on you personal economic situation can simply not be assessed.
All in all, it is at least debatable whether a referendum on the Brexit was really wise. On the one hand, it is very complex decision (probably too complex for the “normal” citizen), but on the other hand: How could leaving such an important organisation as the EU be better accounted for, authorised and justified than by asking the population it concerns directly what they want? The people have decided, and they can, at the most, blame the politicians for misguiding them and afterwards resigning one after another in reaction to the outcome, but they cannot blame them for having taken the decision over their heads.
