I am troubled by something written on Political Betting Forum by a guy called Pagan. He made a very good point, though he didn't make it tremendously well. He pointed out that if people who want change can't get it by the ballot box then they will feel justified in turning to violence to get it. He managed to make it sound like a threat, though I don't think that was what he actually intended.
It is of course not currently the case that anyone is trying to overthrow the result of the EU referendum. It is true that referenda only have advisory capacity, but David Cameron made it clear that he would respect the outcome of this particular one. As such, it has the mandate of his undoubted election victory behind it and simply must be respected. In fact it deserves more respect than it has had so far. My understanding was that Article 50 was to be triggered the day after the vote. I haven't gone back and checked so I may be wrong on this but I thought that was something that Cameron explicitly promised. Even if he didn't, there is no no obvious reason why it should be delayed by five months. What exactly is going to happen in that time? Admittedly 2 years probably isn't long enough to unpick our relationship with the EU, but neither is 2 years and five months. We are inevitably going to need longer, so why not start now?
So I really don't think that there is any wriggle room here.
But Pagan's words did make me wonder. I think that Brexit could still be scuppered if the situation changes. The game changer for me would be a large number of Brexiters who have publicly called for Brexit equally publicly changing their minds. If accompanied by a significant fall of support in the polls, this seemed to me to be reasonable grounds for a change of mind. After all the voters still have the option of voting for an anti EU party at the next election and getting out that way. So I don't think that abandoning the Brexit project altogether is totally impossible - though I do think it is in the hands of its advocates. If they stick to it and the level of support for Brexit remains in the forties or above then we are stuck with it. At time of writing there is no sign of this changing. But events have a habit of surprising us so there is still a slim possibility that it won't go ahead.
But what would it look like if Brexit was reversed? In particular, if the government simply announced that the plan had been abandoned without any further referendum and without an electoral mandate? If so, why shouldn't people argue that if voting changes nothing then they need to find other ways of getting what they want.
I wonder if there actually are enough diehard anti-Europeans around who would take overturning the referendum result as a call to arms? We've already seen an MP killed after all.
The habit of some anti-EU campaigners of claiming to be patriotic and accusing their opponents of being traitors is the sort of thing that can wind some people up. If they can somehow convince themselves that they are not only supporting their country but also defending democracy, maybe they would regard themselves as justified in taking up arms.
It is a worrying thought. As I write the prospects of staying in Europe seem pretty poor. The thought that even if we could it might lead to a violent reaction from some Brexiters is even more depressing.
No comments:
Post a Comment