Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Why is a new Referendum on Brexit a Betrayal of Democracy?

Theresa May has repeatedly stated that there will be no referral of the Brexit question to the people. She has stated that a mandate was given two years ago, and it is her duty to perform exactly in accordance with that mandate, even though the ‘facts’ that were known then, or, more realistically, that were stated to the people at that time in the interests of achieving a relaxation of the controls imposed on the British government by the EU, a much larger and, presumably, more democratic democracy, were wildly wrong. The decision was made and we must jump off the cliff into a dark unknown that becomes more frightening with every step we take closer to the edge of the cliff.

Why is May so determined to lead her people to a mass suicide attempt, when it is abundantly clear, or it should be, even to her, that the agreement she has negotiated does not carry the support of her own Party, far less the support of the majority of MPs? Is the Prime Minister so pig-headed that she cannot see that there are alternatives to her agreement or a no-deal Brexit? Is she simply stupid, as the Labour Party leader has said? Is she so committed to remaining in power in the Conservative Party that she is willing to lead her Party to destruction, rather than face the real facts?

One is tempted to compare Mrs. May’s stance with that of Adolph Hitler in the dying days of the Third Reich, when he refused to accept that he had led his country to catastrophe, insisting on fighting to the last man to support an ideology that was abhorrent to the vast mass of Germans. One can only hope that she, or, more likely, some of the more democratically-inclined members of her Party will come to understand that the decision made two years ago to leave the European Union was a decision made on the basis of incomplete information and a world situation that was vastly different to the one that prevails today, and that the decision now needs to be reevaluated by those citizens in the light of the facts and projections by experts available today.

Even the best case scenario of a Brexit with an agreement shows no significant advantages to Britain, and it discloses risks that would make any thinking voter uneasy. It is unlikely that such a best case scenario will be realized, and much more likely that the worst case scenario will be closer to the truth. In this case, the economy of the United Kingdom will fall by around ten per cent, the jobs market for those who voted for Brexit in the first case will collapse, the cost of food, health care, travel and many other elements of the life of the average Briton will be adversely affected, possibly to a greater extent than was caused by the 2008 financial meltdown, and Britain will revert to the status of a struggling island nation, trying to find its place in the world. It is sure that Britain will be isolated in a hostile world, with Russia and China ascendant and the USA in decline under an equally pig-headed and economically illiterate President, with a damaged European Union standing by as it watches the illness develop in its near neighbor. The EU will then be disinclined to assist Britain to any greater extent than it sees necessary to protect its own interests, and it may, probably will, be more inclined to exacerbate Britain’s suffering, even at its own cost, in order to demonstrate the evil effects of such an EU exit attempt by its remaining members. Certain Brexiteers have claimed that the EU cannot afford to have Brexit fail. Of course, what they do not say is that Britain represents only one sixth of the European population, and that the suffering of the average Brit will be at least four times that of the average German or French citizen. That would be a small price to pay to make a point that will reach the minds of even the most obtuse EU citizens.

On the question of whether to ask the people to reconsider the question of whether they wish to leave the EU, one must ask what is the function of the government. Surely, at is basis is the imperative to give reasoned effect to the will of the people. In the case where the politicians, always willing to pursue their own agenda unless the threat of a withdrawal of the support of the voters is dominant in their minds, can come to no clear consensus on what to do, the democratic imperative, the only democratic imperative, is to refer the question to the people, this time with clear facts and reasoned arguments. No longer will it be possible to argue that a Brexit will save £28 billion – that amount and more has already been wasted in the period of futile negotiations with the EU. No longer will it be possible to argue that it will be possible to reserve British jobs for Britons – for every EU citizen who comes to Britain for work, there is a British employer who needs that employee and is unable to find a Briton who is willing to do that work. Those jobs will be filled by immigrants from other nations, not by the non-existent Brits who don’t really want those jobs. British industry is already complaining that it will be starved of workers when the EU supply dries up. And, most of all, those EU workers pay tax in Britain, add to the economic activity, and push the economy forward. No longer will it be possible to claim that the EU needs British industry. It does need those industries, but it can attract them just as easily by offering concessions to the industries to relocate to the EU. It will not need those industries in Britain.

One of the factors that seems to be ignored is the Russian interest in breaking up an economic and military power that has the capability to stand in the way of Russia’s dreams of regaining its empire. The extensive involvement of Russia in influencing the 2016 American elections has been well documented, as has its continuing interventions in American politics since then. Is there any reason to doubt that Russia was at least partly involved in spreading fake news and ‘false facts’ during the Brexit campaign? Listening to the views of some leading Brexiteers in recent months, one can hardly suppress a suspicion that the whole Brexit issue was instigated and directed from Moscow. Think of it. Russia does not need a single unified economic and military power on its borders. It would much rather have a disputatious and disparate group of countries to oppose its ambitions. It has already, to a large extent, achieved that by buying the American President and spreading extensive misinformation throughout the only remaining power capable of opposing it. Brexit and the rise of the extremist political Parties in several European countries are logical next steps in the plan.

The European Union was a glorious plan, a plan designed to uplift the frequently-warring countries of Europe together. It has gone wrong, as most democracies do, because the citizens left too much power in the hands of anonymous bureaucrats, whose interests lie strongly in the extension of that power. However, a democratic institution is subject to the will of its people, even though those standing between the people and the implementation of that will often use obstructive and divisive tactics to maintain and extend their power. Surely Britain’s efforts would be better applied to reforming those aspects of the EU that it does not like, than to walk away from it all at a possibly ruinous cost? Any responsible leader of the people should put in the effort to convince the people who voted for Brexit that their decision, based on incomplete and improperly presented propaganda needs to be reevaluated in the light of new and updated facts and responsible projections. It is surely time for the British Government to come to the understanding that a re-referral of a possibly wrong decision to the people is not a denial of democracy, but a reaffirmation of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment