I'm not a big fan of referendums. There are lots of reasons, but even in an ideal situation, most issues are too complicated and contingent to be reasonably turned into a ballot measure. Only really simple, clear-cut and most crucially, revocable topics seem remotely suitable. Examples:
Once a referendum is held, there is a general feeling that the people have spoken, so there is no opportunity to reconsider. That is the case with Brexit. However, given the inability of the ruling party to pass its proposal, I think there is a solid case for a do-over.
Promises were made by the Brexit supporters that there would be little harm, and many benefits, to leaving. They are utterly unable to deliver on that. The current agreement is hated most by the pro-Brexit crowd, because for various complicated reasons, many of the constraints (real or symbolic) of EU membership remain, while major benefits are lost. So it can't pass Parliament. But if the UK "crashes out" with no treaty, then all but the most denialist agree that major harm will occur. So given the current impasse, the promises underlying the Brexit referendum have been broken, and the referendum should be considered null and void.
Adding to the case is the fact that the pro-Brexit crowd didn't have the fortitude to put forth one of their own to lead the government in executing Brexit. That task fell to Theresa May, who was anti-Brexit. (You wouldn't know it by her rhetoric since then, and I think that is a failing, but that's another story.)
And if there is a new referendum, be smarter about the wording. The original question was phrased "Remain a member of the European Union / Leave the European Union". As this article points out, wording matters a lot. In hindsight, better wording for the original would have been: "Remain a member of the European Union / Negotiate and ratify a treaty for leaving the European Union".
Should we pass a bond to fund the new high school?
Should the drinking age be lowered to 19?So Brexit was a poor proposition for a referendum. Certainly because it is complicated, but most of all because it is highly contingent, and not readily revocable, if conditions or sentiments change in the future.
Once a referendum is held, there is a general feeling that the people have spoken, so there is no opportunity to reconsider. That is the case with Brexit. However, given the inability of the ruling party to pass its proposal, I think there is a solid case for a do-over.
Promises were made by the Brexit supporters that there would be little harm, and many benefits, to leaving. They are utterly unable to deliver on that. The current agreement is hated most by the pro-Brexit crowd, because for various complicated reasons, many of the constraints (real or symbolic) of EU membership remain, while major benefits are lost. So it can't pass Parliament. But if the UK "crashes out" with no treaty, then all but the most denialist agree that major harm will occur. So given the current impasse, the promises underlying the Brexit referendum have been broken, and the referendum should be considered null and void.
Adding to the case is the fact that the pro-Brexit crowd didn't have the fortitude to put forth one of their own to lead the government in executing Brexit. That task fell to Theresa May, who was anti-Brexit. (You wouldn't know it by her rhetoric since then, and I think that is a failing, but that's another story.)
And if there is a new referendum, be smarter about the wording. The original question was phrased "Remain a member of the European Union / Leave the European Union". As this article points out, wording matters a lot. In hindsight, better wording for the original would have been: "Remain a member of the European Union / Negotiate and ratify a treaty for leaving the European Union".
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment