Just some quick notes on a sentiment I’ve heard expressed across class and economic backgrounds which was just summarised neatly by one member of the public in Hartlepool: that we’ve negotiated for two and a half years, it’s got us nowhere. We wanted to leave, so let’s leave now. Common phrases include:
- for it to be over
- think we’re strong enough on our own two feet
- it’s what people voted for
- Europe needs us more than we need Europe
This expresses well a couple of key points about Brexit and the British public. The basic connection made by this sentiment is this: that they are frustrated, that they understood the result to have been for Leave and that the carrying out of that result seems to have been delayed and mishandled to the point of increasingly delusional stagnation.
1. The general frustration and desire for this to be over
Much as this is commonly expressed in terms of No Deal, the emotion behind it is primarily of frustration. Frustration with the government’s recent stagnation and that of parliament as a whole; frustration over the uncertainty for society and for businesses both large and small; but also frustration over the inconsistency of this process with other referendums. This is why it is expressed by people from a range of backgrounds, and why damning opinion on the government’s handling of Brexit has been increasingly universal.
Most of this frustration can be traced back to two things: the way David Cameron held the referendum in the first place, and the way in which Theresa May has carried it out since. Usually, when a government puts forth a referendum, the necessary work has been done to carry it out in a timely manner. As is now widely known, and was also seen in the Scottish referendum, David Cameron saw the use of referendums as tools for safely answering and dispatching of those issues for the near future. Safe, because he never expected them to vote for change. This was fundamentally not the case with the Brexit referendum. His failure to actually prepare for a Leave outcome has left the government unable to deliver the referendum result with the immediacy normally expected from voters in referendum scenarios. This disconnection and discombobulation have understandably left the general public wondering what’s been going on for the last two and half years.
Theresa May’s primary failings, visibly the case from early in her tenure, have been that she has no natural talent for negotiation and that she saw Brexit as damage control. Whilst this latter point was not uncommon amongst Remainers at the time due to the societal shock of the Leave vote, it should have been short-lived. Particularly after she committed to Brexit at all costs, the Prime Minister should have looked to build the most positive possible outcome for the UK whilst still adhering to a Brexit outcome. She has never attempted to build bridges, instead blaming others for not knowing what Brexit means when very few people ever did.
Brexit has never had to mean a negative attitude to Brexit; as many Leave voters have argued, it could still be seen positively as an opportunity to reaquaint ourselves as a country without the distractions of international obligations. Equally, revocation of Article 50 doesn’t have to mean Remaining – just resetting the timer and allowing the UK to come to some kind of conclusion without being under dire existential threat. Indeed, is it possible that, given all the rhetoric over making our own rules, Brexit simply meant leaving the European legislative and executive arm, the European Union?
In many ways, the Brexit vote was a call for recognition of the problems of society and bridging those gaps. It’s no wonder that frustration has resulted from taking the opposite of that view. The Prime Minister should not be dragging her feet, she should be taking positive forward strides, staying ahead of the curve rather than holding it back with all her might. If she had, she might find many fewer members of the public holding the opinion that they just want the way she’s handled Brexit to end.
2. The connection of getting this over with to No Deal
This frustration is usually expressed in terms of No Deal, but that isn’t the only way for the situation to be over quickly. The options for a quick resolution are: acceptance of May’s deal, Remain or No Deal. The reason why No Deal is the most common way this is expressed is largely because of the choice between Brexit, in the form of No Deal, and Remain, Brexit was the result of the referendum. No Deal is what would happen if things ended right now; it is also the quickest ending which reflects Brexit and gets around the key cause of frustration which is stagnation over the backstop.
The other reason No Deal tends to be highlighted as the form which a quick ending should take because no one has yet made the case for most Leave voters as to why Remain would be a preferable option for them. I talked about this need to bridge communication recently in relation to the 1906 election, but it also applies to the underlying economic inequality, resulting from austerity, which is widely seen to have driven the result in the first place. Of course people don’t want out of this via Remain if they believe it’ll be back to the same situation which caused them to vote Leave in the first place. This was the only non-party-based vote on which they had the opportunity to meaningfully express their frustration without just electing a party only from the options available. The motivations behind it need to be listened to, or the connection between wanting out and No Deal will not be changed.
3. Terminology on another referendum
This need to listen to the needs and concerns of the public goes a long way towards demonstrating the importance of the language in which another referendum, if there is one, should take when discussing it. This can sound pedantic, but it’s very important because of that language’s implications in relation to the now well-established use of the people’s mandate:
1. A people’s vote
Referring to it as a “confirmatory vote” or a “people’s vote” implies trust and respect for the views of voters and the British people. After all the (rather populist) language we’ve had from Theresa May about understanding “the voice of the people” and honouring the 52% or 17 million people, putting another referendum in terms of a “people’s vote” continues that theme of power to the people and, most importantly, trust that people have a right to have a say on whether this is what they wanted from Brexit.
2. A second referendum
The language of a “second referendum”, on the other hand, implies a revision of that original vote. If there is a second, there must have been a first. Without an expression of the purpose of that referendum, the implicit purpose must be that it is the same as the first. Rather than the right of people to have a say on whether this is the result they wanted and whether their views have changed, a second referendum sounds a lot more like the ‘do-over’ Leave voters are concerned about from the Remain side, which lost the original referendum. Unsurprisingly, this has not been found to have gone down well. As Gove just said, it implies that “We think you’re stupid. We’re going to do something else.” “Second referendum” implies precisely this.
3. A confirmatory vote
This terminology is perhaps the best compromise. It loses quite the power and partisan attractiveness of a “people’s vote” or even a “second referendum”, but it does avoid the temptations of populism whilst emphasising the respect given to voters to evaluate the way the government has, for two and a half years, carried out the mandate it has claimed in their name. Similar to a “people’s vote” a confirmatory vote continues that theme of a people’s mandate.
Indeed, confirmatory referendums have been common in similar situations: they were held in Greece, on their deal with the EU over the bailout, and in Ireland, when their people did not agree with the EU’s Lisbon Treaty after the EU had made changes to resolve that difference. The Greek referendum happened under a populist government, Syriza. In Ireland, the margin under the first vote on the Lisbon Treaty was similar to the Brexit referendum: 53.4% to 46.6%. The second referendum on the treaty was successful by a margin of 67.1% to 32.9%. There is nothing unusual about a confirmatory referendum. Indeed, it is the standard response.
The terminology of a confirmatory vote takes the vitriol out of the debate and sets it in a more considered tone, which is largely what people seem to have expected when they undertook that vote in the first place. Rightly or wrongly, it has long been the image of the British government in particular that, if nothing else, we are good administrators and good business people. The language of a “confirmatory vote” fits most appropriately into this perspective – or at least goes some way towards salvaging it. This said, by this point, it could also backfire and be seen as an attempt to misdirect on a referendum designed to Remain.
Recognising the effectiveness of the “people’s vote” terminology over a “second referendum” in this current climate demonstrates that for any conclusion on Brexit to be successful, it must involve mutual respect, bridging gaps and working together. It involves allowing people room to change their minds – in either direction – or to change their reasoning, whether this is due to a revision of their original vote or due to the profound changes which have taken place since 2016. Above all, it involves honesty. Frank, open honesty. Positive engagement is possible, even on a topic like Brexit. This principle is equally, if not more, important for this country domestically as it is for its situation internationally.
Global Retrospective 