By: Alex David
One issue that took
centre stage in all of the coverage and debate surrounding the British exit
from the EU was that of democracy. Prior to the vote, one of the Leave
campaign’s biggest electoral draws was the idea that in the EU, we cannot ‘kick
out our rulers’. The claim was that British parliamentary democracy was being
superseded by autocrats in the EU. As such, the Leave campaign presented
themselves as being pro-democracy. By extension, the Remain campaign were then
portrayed as anti-democratic in their support of the EU. Boris Johnson even
went as far to compare the EU to ‘Hitler and ‘Napoleon’, an insensitive
parallel that is blind to history. Napoleon did not have elected members of
parliament, as the EU does. Unlike the EU, Hitler famously did not have
commissioners elected by the governments of the countries he invaded. This
bizarre comparison of an economic and political treaty with two violent,
conquering and autocratic forces is indicative of the fact that as with many facets
of the Leave campaign, the EU and its democratic nature were being entirely
misrepresented. However, that this democracy (misrepresented or not) became
such a key part of the EU debate shone a spotlight on democracy itself.
When we did
eventually vote to leave, many Leave campaigners up and down the country saw
the result as not just a democratic victory, but a victory for democracy,
fighting back against tyrannical dictators in Brussels. However, this brings
several problems. In painting themselves as the sole arbiters of democracy, the
Leave campaign have portrayed the Remain camp as undemocratic. Furthermore, in
portraying democracy as an important part of patriotism, both directly opposed
to the EU, the Leave campaign and its supporters make the Remain camp not only
undemocratic, but also unpatriotic. This is most clearly shown in Farage’s
simple claim that we have ‘taken our country back’; implying necessarily that
the Remain campaign wanted to give the country away.
As a result, the
Remain camp are increasingly portrayed by proponents of Brexit as being
‘undemocratic’. One thing that has compounded this is the petition to
parliament to trigger a second EU referendum, seen by many as an undermining of
the democratic decision to Leave. The ‘March for Europe’ on the weekend was
portrayed in a similar manner – autocratic Remainers ironically using democracy
to protest a democratic result. This objection has been raised on both the
right and the left – this morning on Victoria Derbyshire, Ed Miliband argued
against both the petition and protest as undemocratic. However, this is
incorrect. It is in fact the case that the petitioning of parliament, and this
protest, are greater displays of British democracy than the referendum itself.
This is because of
the fact that British government is fundamentally a parliamentary democracy.
Decisions, such as the decision to leave the EU, should be the responsibility
of elected Members of Parliament. The country is not ruled by plebiscite; the
only decisions put to the electorate are as to who should be elected. The few
times that referenda are called are more often than not a political tactic
rather than legitimate government. The EEC referendum in 1975 was to end the
Labour split over Europe. The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was to
(unsuccessfully) quieten Scottish nationalists. The referendum in 2016 was
almost a mirror to 1975, but this time, it was to try and mend a fracturing
Conservative party. There are so few of these votes because the country cannot
practically be ruled by holding referenda whenever there is an issue – it is
the reason that we have a parliament. We should trust the people we elect to
make the correct decisions. After all, if we do not like these decisions, we
can (as Boris Johnson so pithily put it) ‘kick the buggers out’. It is for this
reason that this petition to parliament is inherently democratic. In fact, in
keeping with British parliamentary democracy, it is more aligned with British
democracy than the referendum.
With regards to the
‘March for Europe’ protest, rather than arguing against the points of
contention for this protest, a handful of people were calling for a halt for
the demonstration - the Remain camp, some 16 million people, should hold their
tongues on this vital issue. This is inherently undemocratic. Democracy is not
the rule of the majority with disregard for the minority – each party must be
considered. Again, this opposition to a democratic process is deeply ironic
given the repeated claims that leaving the EU would increase sovereignty and
thus democracy. This irony is furthered by the breakdown of British democracy
post-Leave. The ruling party are entirely split, more focused on internal party
politics than the day-to-day running of the country, something increasingly
necessary in the turbulence post-Leave. With the Prime Minister stepping down,
to be replaced with another Tory minister only voted in by 150,000 Conservative
Party members (a number comparable with the population of Cambridge), we end up
with a Prime Minister for whom almost nobody voted. It is almost comical that a
vote for democracy should end with an unelected leader. Given that Jeremy
Corbyn’s version of the Labour party offers no functional opposition we find
ourselves with the SNP, a party who do not even want to be a part of Britain,
giving the unofficial opposition in the British parliament. The state of
British politics at the moment is dire, and the Remain camp’s contribution to
this democracy through petition and protest, two fundamental pillars of
democracy, cannot and should not be seen as undemocratic. With British
democracy thrown into greater disarray than ever thanks to the EU referendum,
it is questionable that Leave voters should be considered defenders of British
democracy given its current state.
The Remain Campaign and Democracy
Reviewed by Student Voices
on
22:49
Rating:
No comments:
Share your views here! But read our Comment Policy first, found on the about page.