What does it mean to respect democracy and uphold constitutional values? Since the beginning of the Brexit drama, heated recriminations have been flung by both the Leave and Remain camps, each side claiming that the other has undermined the integrity of the political process. News broke last week that former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, had been de-selected by his local Conservative Association. Grieve has been a prominent campaigner for a second referendum, and one of his opponents accused him of having:
“betrayed the people of Beaconsfield and the nation by continuously opposing and obstructing that decision from being implemented”.
This was the view of John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, and one of the driving forces behind the vote, but we need to discuss whether this criticism is fair and rational. Certainly, the Beaconsfield electorate voted leave, but the decision teetered on a knife-edge, coming down to less than 600 votes difference. It also goes without saying the overall referendum result of 48% versus 52% could hardly be described as a landslide victory for the pro-Brexit campaign. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that on the day Leave won by 1,269,501 votes, and well over a million citizen cannot be discounted as small-fry. Furthermore, even if the gap had been smaller, a win is still a win when it comes to a popular vote.
The basic charge being levelled at Grieve, and some of his colleagues at the House of Commons, is a refusal to respect a democratic decision. In order words, the contention is that they disagree with the result of the referendum, and are more interested in getting their own way than in honouring the will of the electorate. However, this kind of simplistic rhetoric misses the complexity of the present situation, and does great injustice to parliamentarians like Dominic Grieve. Even though it is entirely legitimate for people to disagree with his stance on a Second Referendum, whether they come from his party or outside of it, portraying it as a bad loser flinging his toys out of his pram is neither fair nor responsible. The inescapable reality is that the UK is currently in a mess of epic proportions, partly as a result of a break with established constitutional practice and norms, and we have no roadmap on how to travel forward. As a result, differing perspectives are to be expected, and launching ad hominem attacks on individuals whose position we disagree with is not a legitimate way of moving forward.
The following factors are making the situation difficult from a constitutional and wider legal point of view. Firstly, unlike some other nations (e.g. the Republic of Ireland), the United Kingdom does not have a strong, entrenched tradition of using referenda. In fact, they have always been a rare and exceptional vehicle for decision-making.
Secondly, not all decisions can be distilled down into a simple Yes/No question suitable for a ballot paper. In truth, the nature of the future UK relations with the European Union is not a straight binary choice, but a matter of complex negotiation. It is reasonable to point out that people did not vote for a No Deal Brexit, for instance, or a Norwegian Style arrangement, because the mandate was just not that detailed, and therefore, refusing to back a particular plan cannot be labelled ‘betraying the people’s will’, as their ‘will’ was never manifested at that level. Unquestionably, no referendum could have ever resolved the detail of Brexit, as direct democracy is not really workable in relation to highly complex issues and a State of 66 million people. For that reason, amongst many others, we have representative democracy as a general principle in our Constitution.
Thirdly, there are also robust justifications for the separate constitutional roles of both the Executive and the Legislature. At present, Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, is asserting its control over the Executive in relation to Brexit. This has been the consequence of the Prime Minister seeking to act without the backing of Parliament, a course which is inherently problematic, although in doing so, she was trying to follow through with Brexit in accordance with the popular vote. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of all of this, commentators would agree that Parliament and the Government have separate constitutional functions, and what might be appropriate in a crisis, and what is desirable in ordinary circumstances, are two very different issues. The Executive must have sufficient freedom to govern, and Parliament must have the time and space to carry out its legislative role, as well as this scrutiny of the Government.
There are many unanswered questions about how to resolve the Brexit crisis, and ample scope for reasonable people to disagree. Whilst a Second Referendum might bring clarity, it might also give rise to more bitterness and division, as there are weighty arguments on both sides, all of which need to be considered calmly. Moreover, anyone who has looked at a map of the referendum results can see that (in general) the areas which voted to Leave are those with the smallest share of the economic pie (in some communities we are talking of people left with stale and pitiful crumbs) and the greatest social needs. Whatever we do about the future, we must address poverty, social exclusion, as well as the anger and despair which these phenomena breed. That agenda should be one which all politicians, left and right, Remain or Leave, surely have to agree on, much as they might disagree about how best to do it.
The Brexit saga is part of a much bigger picture, and regrettably, it has become a towering monster which has eclipsed that broader perspective. To accuse Dominic Grieve, an MP who has consistently demonstrated a willingness to place his ideological convictions above the advancement of his career, and whose integrity and courage are acknowledged by both sides of the House of Commons, of undermining the democratic process, is destructive and utterly unfair. The only possibility we have for finding a way forward is through adult and respectful dialogue, and we cannot allow ourselves to lose the wood for the trees. It is to be hoped that Dominic Grieve will be reselected come the next General Election: no sane local party of any colour, abandons a dedicated and caring constituency MP when it comes to fielding a candidate in a General Election.
Deeply as Brexit matters, it is not the only issue which matters, and we really need to wake up on all sorts of levels.
Related Articles
Naked Truth: Climate Change Protesters Cause a Stir in Brexit Debate (Reuters 1/4/19)
Grieve criticises no confidence vote (BBC News 30/3/19)
Dominic Grieve loses no confidence vote by local Tories (BBC News 30/3/19)
Brexit: Here are the worst insults British and EU politicians have lobbed at each other (Euro News 1/10/18)
Referendum Results (BBC News)
