The weekend politically has been dominated by the serialisation of David Cameron’s upcoming memoir ‘For the Record.’ In both Saturday’s Times and yesterday’s Sunday Times, extracts from the volume covering a whole host of topics have been printed. While there are sections on Cameron’s successes like gay marriage, foreign policy (in my view) disasters like Libya and his personal life, the section most covered by the media has been that EU referendum.
With regards to the topic, a whole host of Cameron’s views have finally be made publicly clear. While many, like myself, assumed he already held these opinions, they have been kept under wraps for three years while both Theresa May and Boris Johnson have tackled the Brexit hamster wheel (see previous Brexit blog!). But not anymore. Cameron has assertively expressed his opinions regarding the key players and events within the referendum. He accused Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove of serious disloyalty, suggested Prime Minister Boris Johnson only backed Brexit to further his own career and fundamentally expressed his regret at events since the UK voted to leave the EU. On one specific issue though, he remains resolute and assured. Within the extracts, Cameron stated that he still believed to hold a referendum was the right decision. Indeed, he regarded it as inevitable, what with the changing relationship of the Eurozone and rise of UKIP. For this he has been widely criticised. Liberal Democrat leader and former minister in the Cameron-led coalition Jo Swinson stated she would never be able to forgive David Cameron for holding the referendum. Ardent remainer and respected political commentator Steve Richards frequently made the case against referenda in his fantastic podcast, suggesting the binary choice leads to a simplified debate and inconclusive results. While there are many valid arguments for and against referenda on both sides, I imagine a key reason both Swinson and Richards argue against the 2016 EU referendum even taking place is because the outcome didn’t go their way. Had remaining in the EU won by 52%, I can just picture the glorious EU flag waving above Europhiles celebrating the result and process as a triumph of democracy. As it happens, they regard the referendum even being held as the very antithesis to this. But to alter your position on referenda depending on the outcome they deliver is disingenuous. I was a remainer. I believe the UK’s future was better shaped inside the EU, pooling sovereignty to influence events, bring countries together and rival Germany’s power. However, I still believe it was right the referendum was held. This is illogical, you may think, given the referendum didn’t go the right way for my side. If the referendum hadn’t happened, we would still be in the EU, you could argue. Well, despite all the chaos created, I still stand by the suggestion that the principle of holding a public vote on a matter of such constitutional importance like the EU was no bad thing. Let us remember that it had been 40 years since the public last had a say on their relationship with Europe - far more than a generation. In 2016, only those in their late 50s or above had been given a chance to convey their views on the organisation. Just on the basis of the time period, to allow more recent generations a chance to express their opinions seems perfectly justifiable to me. David Cameron stated that an EU referendum, eventually, was inevitable. It is hard to disagree with this. Just look at how the EU had transformed in the 40 years since the previous public vote. There had been a transformation from a trading organisation involving a few nations to economic and monetary union encompassing the former Soviet nation, the single market, currency along with greater social and environmental regulation. Each of these elements has positive and negative aspects. Given that both sides can agree the EU has been an influential organisation, why not ask the public what their views on this body are? Electorally, there was a democratic case to hold a referendum. My position mirrors that of the Green Party in 2015, who argued for a referendum but personally advocating remaining within the EU. UKIP had been on the rise throughout the 2010s, gaining council seats and eventually winning the European elections in 2014. Built around opposition to the European Union, their policies were clearly resonating with the public. Since 2013, David Cameron advocated a referendum under a future Conservative government by the end of 2017. In 2015, the Conservatives won an overall majority. Thus the decision to hold a referendum was perfectly legitimate. You will note that I have made no comments about the campaign itself. That was, as I have stated before, an utter disaster. On the one side you had Project Fear, making unknowable statements about Britain’s economic situation and, with an emergency budget, almost blackmailing people to vote remain. And then on the other side there was Project Fantasy, constructing arguments about easy trade deals and, in some quarters, being quite vicious in relation to immigrants. Events clearly spiralled out of David Cameron’s control. Yet just because an event can be twisted by forces outside a Prime Minister’s power does not mean to hold the event was wrong in itself. Theresa May, for example, made a perfectly logical decision to hold the 2017 election just after triggering Article 50. She believed, given the poll leads, she could strengthen her majority with plenty of time for negotiations. Even she couldn’t have predicted the rising popularity of Jeremy Corbyn as he moved the focus of the election onto domestic policy (some would say this was peak-Corbyn). Indeed, it was perfectly legitimate for MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate in the 2015 Labour leadership election. Though they had no plans to vote for him, there was a rational belief the debate would be widened and therefore a better election would take place. As we all know, things turned out rather differently. Repeatedly, we see politically how those in power recognise the level of powerlessness. Located in 10 Downing Street, the world is not your oyster. Prime Ministers can light the spark of an event but cannot determine its outcome. Whether through the bureaucracy of Whitehall, the influence of MPs, diligent civil servants or, as evident at election time, the will of the people, other factors culminate to determine how the event plays out. The campaign, outcome and aftermath of Brexit have been awful. There are many reasons to criticise David Cameron; the initial decision to hold a referendum is not one of them.
1 Comment
Stuart
18/12/2020 15:57:50
Good article
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|