An article in the FT today suggests that Theresa May could press for a second Commons vote if the first fails. This will further dilute the parliamentary time available to pass some of the legislation that we sorely need.

It seems to me that there are at least two types of Brexiteer – one type with whom you can have a reasonable discussion and one with whom any discussion is a waste of both parties’ time.

The first type is comprised of old-fashioned Eurosceptic patriots who have always felt they could get a better deal from the EU but understand that the nation-state cannot provide the answers to global problems. Their only negotiating solution was to threaten to leave, even though many never thought it would happen.

The second type is comprised of  Europhobic nationalists who believe the nation-state could have worked if only the filthy internationalists (like me) had left it alone. For those interested in economics, their approach can be seen as something like the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. These are the real Remoaners because they have never accepted the result of the 1975 referendum, even if they have only learnt about it at school. As their approach is faith-based they will never be convinced by facts.

That is why I now advocate another referendum which will allow the Type 1s to express themselves clearly. The plan that is proposed to the Commons is not just a farce for Remainers,  it’s exactly the opposite of what the Type 1s were trying to achieve. Trying to please the Type 2s is like urinating into a strong wind.

The will of the people – which people?

https://www.ft.com/content/92974b74-e8d9-11e8-885c-e64da4c0f981

I am sure this excellent article will be used in modern history classes in the near future.  But it will also be used in Politics, Philosophy and Economics…..and various other discilplines. My concern is that the Johnson brothers are both too young to remember what the UK was like prior to our  entry into the EEC and the absolute catastrophic economic and social conditions that prevailed in this country at that time. It is also important to underline that it was always the accepted view that UK could not join the EEC without the Republic of Ireland doing so precisely because of the border issue. That was before the Single Market, the Eurozone and the Good Friday Agreement existed! We also tend to forget that the first referendum was held in 1975 and resulted in us remaining in the EEC. To say, as my detractors certainly will, that the EEC was a purely economic construct is to be wilfully blind to the facts. Pro-Europeans at that time were openly proposing a third way between the US and Soviet empires, and one only has to refer to speeches by Churchill and De Gaulle to appreciate some of those arguments.  Indeed, it was some years later that Thatcher and other sceptics tried to dilute the political aspects of the Union by creating the Single Market and by enlargement to the East. Both of those events were, in my opinion (but it is one that is shared by most moderates), outstanding successes that actually increased the political nature of the European Union to the chagrin of many. But that does not mean that the EU was not a primarily political construct before!  So we then come to the second referendum and now the proposal for a third. It is difficult to deny the logic that a third referendum is necessary because the agreement that is now on the table (as opposed to the fantasy presented by the Brexiteers at referendum time) has changed the facts. That would be to try to pretend that the 52% knew that the agreement would end up like this, that they had been informed about the Irish border issue, that they had not been told that billions could be saved and spent on the NHS etcetera. This is all the more logical because of the Brexiteers contention that the 2016 referendum was a recognition that the facts had changed since 1975. The lapse of time might be greater but the facts of the agreement presented are certainly very different to what was presented in the 2016 campaign.

Last night’s emission on Channel 4, wherein the figures from a recent poll on Brexit  – the largest since the 2016 referendum covering the opinions of 20000 and therefeore statistically relevant- suggest that  a new referendum would see a change in opinion was worth an hour of one’s time. Well done Channel 4; again you have done something which could be a game changer! There is concern in certain quarters, however, that the country is divided and that a “People’s Vote” would exacerbate those divisions.

Meanwhile, in the US, we hear the same concerns. A vote against the president – for that’s how the Republicans and Trump now see it – would be divisive. HE is the only one capable of uniting the country, according to him and them.

So when the nationalist/anti-liberal/isolationist minority discover that they do not speak for the majority – many of whom do not vote until they understand the consequences of their actions – they broadcast their own brand of project fear; if we allow the people to accept that they were mistaken when they voted Trump or Brexit, then we are undermining the system. That is surely not most people’s view of democracy.

The fact is that when we ask people to cast a vote on a single topic, whether it be Brexit or the election of a candidate, we do not know why they have made the choice they have. They have, at a specific moment in time, chosen between two options – Trump or Clinton, Brexit or Status Quo. It does not mean that they think that the option they have chosen is eternal perfection. The basis of a democratic system is that the electorate may change their minds once they have seen what the unforeseen consequences of their choice have been. The unique nature of Brexit, however, that it will affect the lives of future generations, is a major constitutional change and is almost irreversable, makes this winner-takes-all-forever attitude absolutely unacceptable.

Farage may say it’s because of the media. Banks may say if had known it was going to be like this he would have voted to remain. Boris may say that he would have done a better job than May. Ultimately, we should be trying to reflect the will of the people based upon the facts as they are and the truth as it is now revealed.

There is a parallel with the appeal system – it recalls the pretence in legal circles that a judge and jury can never get it wrong, when we know that the opposite is true and that an appeal system is essential for any legal system to function properly.