The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as Boaty McBoatface.

 

Welsh voters are already regretting their decision. A snapshot of public opinion one day in June should not condemn us to 50 years of error and misery. Before referendum day, I said the winners would be those who told the most convincing lies. Leave did. We are all democrats, but only up to a point. Referendums are blunt instruments that favour the lowest common denominator of malleable public opinion. There are no takers for a poll on a return to capital punishment. The UK Parliament traditionally obeys the decisions of referendums, although they are under no obligation to do so. The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as the vote which chose to name a

The UK Parliament traditionally obeys the decisions of referendums, although they are under no obligation to do so. The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as the vote which chose to name a state-of-the art ship Boaty McBoatface (it was named RRS Sir David Attenborough instead). There is a crescendo of anger rising in the Celtic nations against Theresa May’s Little Englander myopic insistence that a Hard Brexit must fall on the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland is outraged that their 62 per cent rejection of Brexit will be ignored. Moderate opinion in Northern Ireland is aghast at the nightmare of a ruinously expensive, but ultimately unenforceable, hard border that will reverse improving relations with the Republic. Referendums are not a reliable measure of public

Referendums are not a reliable measure of public opinion, and do not deserve the respect of Holy Writ. On Tuesday, at the Public Administration Select Committee, the Brexit Leave team leaders were the main event. William Norton and Matthew Elliott whimpered that the promise of £350m a week for the NHS was a distant aspiration. Both have form. They also led the infamous "No" referendum case on the alternative vote 2011. They protested in horror at the suggestion that voters were fooled by posters saying our brave boys in Afghanistan would be denied protective equipment, and delicate babies would be denied health care, if the country voted for AV. By any standard, this was wild hyperbole. This conclusion was based on the gossamer-thin thread of an argument that that AV would cost money and Government would fund it from two politically suicidal budgets.

With the joys of instant rebuttal via iPad, I showed them the adverts of a soldier as a target for the bullets aimed at him by AV supporters. (To be fair, the "Yes" to AV campaign was also wildly off target, with a plea that it would stop MPs fiddling their expenses.) Voters obediently chose the biggest lie. The chance a fairer voting system that would reflect the opinion of the public is lost, probably for a generation.

Referendums should no longer trap governments. In September 2015, the Tory government firmly stated its decision. They asserted their right to over-rule the public’s majority view. Wales is already regretting its decision to vote Leave. The 48-52 vote was heavily influenced by the promise of billions of pounds for the NHS, and the crude incitement of racial fear and hatred. The Welsh academic Roger Scully asked in a July poll that searching question: "Imagine there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU tomorrow. How would you vote?" The result was 46 per cent Remain, 41 per cent Leave.

Opposition parties are reluctant to appear to be bad democrats. They fear that attacking the Brexit result would be politically inept now. Time will embolden them. If Hammond’s promised "bumps" in the financial road ahead turn out to be a giant sinkhole into which the UK economy falls, caught in a tailspin of lost jobs and the falling pound, public opinion will demand a new vote. Second thoughts are always superior to first thoughts.

Comments

[Katie]

Must admit, whilst I think Brexit was not a good idea and that the far-right played too much of a part in it, I am made uncomfortable by democratically elected representatives like John Major using terms like "the tyranny of the majority". To me, it smacks too much of what an 18th century member of the aristocracy during the French ancient regime might well have said as an argument against the notion of government by the general will. Yes, the majority of people can make the wrong decision like the ancient Greeks who foolishly voted to start a war that destroyed them (not well up on when and against whom). And of course in more recent times there's the disturbing reality that Hitler was actually democratically elected. However, what is the alternative to rule by the majority? Rule by an intelligentsia, or an illuminati or only by those from backgrounds rich enough to be able to be privileged with a good education?

[Paul Flynn]

There is an over-arching priority here. Voting against Article 50 would have been pointless because success was impossible plus a vote against would have been a gift TO UKIP andthe Brexiteers proving their claim that the political elite is out of touch and anti-democratic. That view s the road to disillusionment with politics and the path to a populist obscenity such as Trump. No point in barking before you can bite. Opposition will fierce after next week as the Tory anti-Brexiteers will find their mojo.

Paul Flynn MP

M.P.Newport West,
A.S.Casnewydd,

01633 262 348/ 0788 792 5699/ 020 7219 3478

Twitter: @paulflynnmp

www.paulflynnmp.co.uk

Blog: paulflynnmp.co.uk

[Martin May]

In that case, can you account for your vote in favour of triggering article 50? Have always voted for you and feel incredibly let down.

[Paul Flynn]

Anonymous messages are not read.

Paul Flynn MP

M.P.Newport West,
A.S.Casnewydd,

01633 262 348/ 0788 792 5699/ 020 7219 3478

Twitter: @paulflynnmp

www.paulflynnmp.co.uk

Blog: paulflynnmp.co.uk

[Concerned of Newport]

Err, did you vote (7th Dec) to back Theresa May triggering Article 50 in March next year? Please explain.

[Paul Flynn]

My election was not a one day snapshot of public opinions. It was seven elections success over 29 years in a seat previously held by a Tory Mp. These votes confirmed previous victories for council seats since 1972. Not one day but approval over 44 years.

[Mike Phelps]

'A snapshot of public opinion one day in June' was how Paul Flynn descibed the EU refrendum result.

His election to Parliament could be descibed as a snapshot of public opinion one day in May.

[Ad]

Ultimately the government is supposed to be accountable to the people. I think a referendum was the right thing to do in this instance because of the polarity of opinion. The leavers were not duped or frightened any more than the remainers were by Cameron saying peace in Europe was under threat. Both major parties had leaderships which favoured remain, the public did not follow.

People aspire to more freedom and say in their own affairs and futures. The EU has become increasingly unaccountable, exercising authority without permission. It obviously did not go to plan for Cameron, but the result was in my opinion a good one for the reasons I've tried to articulate.

I cannot see the point in a second referendum if there is no overwhelming popular call for it. Will that change? The scales tipped and the public decided DESPITE the uncertainty of what followed. This was a vote for change as much as anything. If you really believe that £350 million extra for the NHS lie swung it then make them cough it up.

Not much, and with respect.