Brexit: “Taking Back Control”?

Why are people talking about a “second referendum” (sic)? To my way of thinking this simply implies a re-run of the first mistaken bollocks.

In June, 2016 Martin Kettle wrote in The Guardian:

The fact that populists like referendums is not necessarily an argument against them. But it is certainly a reason to reflect much more carefully about the place of referendums in our systems of representative government. Every referendum concedes the argument that parliament is not always sovereign. For a political system such as Britain’s, which is centred on a feudal concept of sovereignty, that is a slippery slope.

Over the past half-century, Britain has drifted into a system of referendums that has few common rules or strict criteria. We talk about referendums being reserved for major constitutional issues, but without defining what such issues are. Sometimes a referendum is binding, sometimes not. We say referendums are special, but we have few special rules to govern them. We are inconsistent about their use. In the UK devolution sometimes involves a referendum and sometimes not. European treaties can be subject to referendums but other treaties are not. The alternative vote was put to a referendum but proportional representation in European elections was not. We do not specify that a referendum cannot override fundamental rights.

There may, in certain circumstances, be an argument for referendums in our politics. But the argument has to be better than that we have had some referendums in the past or that a lot of the public would like one. People will always agree they want a say. Yet it is far from obvious that a system of referendums strengthens trust in democracy. Neither Ireland nor Switzerland, where referendums are more common, seem to vindicate that. Germany’s constitution is strongly rooted in the opposite view. And if an issue is major enough to require a referendum, why is it not major enough to require a high level of turnout or an enhanced majority of those voting, as should be the norm?

Food for thought here because I’ve questioned the purpose of Cameron’s EU Referendum. In my opinion it was a dirty trick played by an unprincipled coward which handsomely backfired and left everyone up to their necks in it, apart from Cameron himself. The awful reality is that the referendum was a sick gamble as I’ve stated before; a Remain majority was expected, therefore everything could’ve gone back to ‘business as usual’, however a Leave vote meant Pandora’s box was opened.

It is fairly obvious that in political terms, the centre pro-EU had not considered the possibility of defeat and therefore had no plan B. The spectrum of pro-Brexit political groupings ranges from Lexit which takes various forms, including Left nationalism, right across to the far Right. What we have is anti-Capitalists on both wings, but with vary different agendas, yet at the same time some common ground.

There is a small Left political grouping who voted Remain, not because of any love for the Neoliberal EU, but on the basis of recognising the harmful impact Brexit would have on the UK and its ramifications for Europe. Unlike the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP et al. both major parties were split and in my view have paid the price as a result. The rise of the Brexit Party is a direct result of there being no resolution to this political crisis.

In my opinion the growth of the BP reflects the dissatisfaction with the traditional parties, impact of austerity and lack of ‘solutions’ beyond blaming various ‘enemies within’ and, of course, the EU. I don’t want to overextend this historical connection, but…. In the 1920s, Germany faced social and economic problems. The Weimar Government was unpopular and faced opposition from both left and right. The Nazis were able to gain wide support and rise to power. Why make the connection at all? In my opinion, this fact is significant:

The Nazi party’s policies were deliberately vague so they might appeal to as many people as possible. People of both right and moderate-left wing politics joined because they agreed with at least one of their policies. Time will tell, but I view Farage’s tactics in a similar fashion.

Yesterday, I read a considerable volume of material defending the Labour’s policy on Brexit however most of it didn’t relate to what was actually passed at conference. Elsewhere I did a critique of this motion and called into question the internal logic within it. The motion acknowledged the majority voted to Leave, but then constructs for itself a distancing of intent – people didn’t ‘intentionally’ mean to vote for a threat to jobs, rights and the economy. In my opinion that hides the reality behind the decision to vote to Leave. The motion counter-poses ‘taking back control’ with the realities of a pro-Brexit decision – so what does ‘taking back control’ actually mean to Corbyn and the Labour Party; is it the conditions they took to May during the negotiations?

Sorry, we live in a global capitalist economy and so the idea of ‘taking back control’ needs to be viewed within this context. For the likes of Farage, Johnson and Rees-Mogg, a no-deal Brexit and having a bonfire of red tape, would be ‘little Britain’ seeking to restore Empire and power; they’d be “alright, Jack”, but for the rest of us it would be a disaster. At this moment in time, the polarisation within the UK means we are being held hostage to fortune – almost a political Stockholm syndrome!

This returns me to the nonsense talk about a “2nd referendum’. How we resolve this crisis is the central issue; talk of a 2nd referendum confuses, angers and causes increased damage. Any public vote should NOT be linked directly or indirectly with the 1st referendum; it should only come into play if Parliament can agree a way forward; either a single position or a choice of options. It has to be a ratification vote.

If Labour and Corbyn are to regain any credibility, they need to open up a dialogue with their members and voters in relation to what they believe ‘taking back control’ means and start disabusing them of the mythology and rhetoric by offering a clear vision of what is and what isn’t possible. This needs to include well defined red lines around tricky issues such as free movement and immigration controls. Labour needs to break the mould and be decisive; if they dither further, the Party, Corbyn and the rest of us will be screwed.