One of the messages uniting the two candidates running to be the UK's next Prime Minister is, other than 'delivering' Brexit, the necessity of bringing the country together. Beyond Brexit, both Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson argue Britain must unify and tackle other significant issues facing the nation. Brexit has transformed politics. This cannot be emphasised enough. Even though the seed of division had been brewing for years, the vote to depart the European Union was the catalyst that so openly exposed the differing views of the world. However, while we may all share a common respect for institutions like the judiciary and values such as liberty, true political unity is impossible. People have such vast disparities in how they believe a society should be run. Yet, far from despair over this matter, Britain should celebrate the diversity and breadth of opinions permeating the public sphere.
Take Brexit: the defining issue of our times. Our future relationship with the EU, whether as a member or (hopefully) a close ally, will dramatically impact our standing in a globalized world. Many individuals, the vast bulk of whom were on the 'Remain' side yearn for another referendum. With remain on the ballot paper, it is suggested that people would change their minds, recognize the benefits of pooling sovereignty to increase our global clout and thus remain in the EU. What if this second referendum took place? Say, for example, Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, failed to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, was prevented by Parliament from implementing a 'no deal' Brexit and so decided to go back to the people. With his undoubted ability as a campaigner, he would fight for 'no deal' against the chance of remaining in the EU. What if the people voted for no deal? The #PeoplesVote campaigners would have been granted their second referendum. Yet the outcome would differ from the one they intended to triumph. Do we expect them to shut up shop, go home and never speak about the EU again? Of course not! A mandate to depart the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement wouldn't prevent many Remainers from believing we were better placed inside the supranational institution. Their position is irreconcilable from Brexiteers. If we left, the 'Remain' campaign would be replaced by the 'Rejoin' movement, much like the 'Referendum Party' of the 1990s after the Maastricht Treaty signposted the way to European economic and social unity. That is a perfectly legitimate position to hold. Despite the majority of people opting for 'no deal' in this hypothetical second referendum, a minority of people would still believe in being inside the EU. The lack of compromise, with people holding dear to their principled positions, would allow a debate. This is a central feature of both liberty and democracy. Liberty allows people to hold whatever views they wish, regardless of what the majority think. These views are then democratically argued for and accepted or rejected in public votes, whether through a referendum or general election. This imaginary scenario, which could become reality, would be the same if remain were to marginally triumph. Maybe it would receive 52% of public backing. How ironic that would be. By remaining in the EU, a Eurosceptic force which makes the Brexit Party look like the European Commission could be unleashed. Brexiteers would feel angered and betrayed that, just through one vote, their original decision was overturned. The debate, as Nigel Farage argued during the recent European elections, would be less about the EU as a body and more about the failure of Parliament to deliver the first democratic result. Militant Brexiteers would not be satisfied by any form of remaining in the EU; just like remainers, compromise is impossible. Once politicians grasp this simple knowledge that the decisions they enact cannot make everyone happy, the whole political process suddenly becomes far easier. They can make decisions based on what they believe to be the right thing for the country. Of course, one would hope this is grounded in forecasts and evidence about what has previously worked, as well as adhering to manifesto promises the governing party was elected to pursue. This is why I personally supported the Prime Minister's Withdrawal Agreement and, had I been an MP, voted for it on the third occasion, like Jim Fitzpatrick and Rosie Cooper. This is because I oppose both a second referendum and leaving the EU without an agreement. This deal would prevent both of those outcomes. Of course, I recognize there are many flaws and downsides to the agreement, but I believe it is the best outcome for the country. The agreement is certainly a form of Brexit - leaving the single market, Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy - and could plausibly be regarded as delivering on the referendum result. Nevertheless, I accept this won't please everyone. My intention for supporting the agreement (which is still, at time of writing, alive) is not to make people happy but enact the outcome that had the greatest chance of delivering future prosperity to the nation. My views on the Withdrawal Agreement, as an example, are how politicians should address the public. Openness and honesty are key. They must accept, and make clear, that it is impossible to please everyone. In a liberal democracy, which we must cherish and value dearly, people will have competing philosophies about how the world should be run. Therefore, the priority of the politician should be to win the philosophical argument with practical policies at an election. It would allow for intelligent debate which gave voters the broadest possible choice. This, to me, is a far superior way of engaging with the public - like the adults they are - than the obsessive vacuum of pooling and focus groups. Indeed, the politicians so engaged in the views of voters often had few political ideals of their own. The aim of making everyone happy fundamentally goes against the purpose of being an MP. In a representative democracy (which of course the direct democracy of the EU has come into conflict with), parliamentarians are meant to be trustees, who, using their own judgement, make tricky decisions - like implementing the Withdrawal Agreement - on our behalf. They should do so not to create euphoria and contentment but because the have courage in the logic of their ideas. Democracy is not a beauty contest to be the most loved, but the most competent in office. Politicians must implement what they think is right. If not, we, the demos, have that oh so important power to remove and replace them with someone else.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|