The Death of Democracy: The implications of a second EU referendum

Economy & Politics | Reports

In June 2016, the British public participated in perhaps, the most significant political vote in the country’s history. With a turnout of 72%, it soon became clear that the UK’s membership of the European Union was a highly emotive issue.

When David Cameron’s Conservative government decided to let the public decide the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU, however, it is unlikely that they ever considered that the debate would still be unresolved, nearly three years later.

As the deadline for leaving the EU draws ever closer, it appears that the complexities of leaving the EU are far more intricate than expected.

The issue of the Irish border, in particular, has sparked worries of a return to the violence between the Irish Nationalists and the Unionists which ended with the Good Friday agreement of 1998.  Against such a volatile political backdrop, the need for rational thinking and engaging in productive political debate has never been more important.

Why do we need a second referendum?

The decision to leave the EU was won by 3.78% of the votes, with a margin of 1,269,501 votes. Many parts of the UK, however, including all of Scotland, much of Northern Ireland, and many of the home counties and Greater London voted to remain.

There were pockets of remain majorities across the country but overall, much of the UK voted to leave the UK. The situation in Scotland, in particular, further complicates the debate with Nicola Sturgeon now using the results as reason for another vote on Scottish independence.

In both the general public and the political establishment, there are constant calls for a second referendum. Accusations of misleading information, uninformed voters, and even illegal campaigning have all been cited as valid reasons for a second referendum. From Remainer activists to Tony Blair and Nick Clegg, the desire for a second referendum is broad and far reaching.

In July 2018, the UK Electoral Commission found that Vote Leave had broken electoral law by overspending. Social media also came under fire with the Information Commissioner’s Office issuing a notice of intent to fine Facebook £500,000 for the unlawful harvesting of data from UK voters and reports from the House of Commons Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee reported that Russian agents had sought to manipulate the vote through Twitter and other social media outlets. In light of this information, should the UK have a second referendum and what are the implications of this?

Democracy: the most valuable of political ideals

Whether you’re pro-EU or staunchly pro-Brexit, there is a more important matter at the heart of the Brexit debate than our membership of the European Union.

When Jeremy Corbyn announced last November that ‘Brexit cannot be stopped’ he was vilified by angry Remainer activists and some of his fellow Labour members. But was Corbyn right? To stop Brexit would be to deny the public’s democratic decision.  Despite the vote having been allegedly manipulated, British voters were not coerced into voting one way or another and were always able to exercise their democratic freedom.

The Brexit debate has highlighted that the UK is a politically fractured nation. It has brought out the worst in many people with rises in xenophobia and reduced tolerance on many levels of society. It has also shown the great political divide between the South of England and the rest of the UK. It is indeed, many of the working class areas across the North of England and the rural East Midlands and East of England where leave votes were particularly high.

Disenfranchisement of the working classes

To put the value of democracy into perspective it’s important to look at the UK’s political history. In 1918, following the horrors of the First World War, all men over 21 were given the right to vote by the Representation of the People Act. In 1928, the act was amended to include all women over the age of 21. The franchise gave the British public the democratic right to vote on their elected leaders’ decisions.  It also gave them an intellectual responsibility for the governing of their own country.

It is these hard-fought rights which would be endangered were we to have a second referendum. If the democratic will of the people is not carried out, it suggests that their opinions are not relevant when it comes to the big constitutional matters which affect all our lives.  With the deadline for leaving the EU less than a month away, our political leaders face a testing time ahead.  It seems increasingly likely that Theresa May will seek an extension to the Brexit negotiations but this situation cannot continue indefinitely.

The UK’s political system is disunified like never before. This is reflected in the great divisions across all stratum of society. It is, however, now more than ever, that the UK must present a united front to the world, both on a political level and on a broader societal scale. Democracy is something which we should never take for granted and something we should seriously consider in regards to the Brexit debate.

Did you enjoy reading this content?  To get more great content like this subscribe to our magazine

Reader's Comments

Comments related to the current article

4 thoughts on “The Death of Democracy: The implications of a second EU referendum

  1. Martin Haitham Taylor says:

    How can allowing people the opportunity to vote be considered a danger to democracy?
    If Britain votes in 2019 and chooses to leave, with the benefit of all the evidence now available from so many sources, then we will know that Brexit happened with the informed consent of the British people. How can one vote only, back in 2016, and made against a set of vague ambitions, be inherently more democratic or satisfactory? Even Jacob Rees-Mogg was recorded as saying that there should be a second referendum, once the detail had been worked out.
    This is our country’s most momentous long-term decision since 1945, and the manner of its taking must be beyond reproach. In this context, a few months of disruption whilst a referendum is organised would be immaterial.
    Those of us who run businesses make our decisions very carefully and with the best available, most up-to-date, evidence. Why should we approach things differently for our country, just because the issues are more emotive?

  2. Michael Cain says:

    Well said Martin.

  3. Paul Norris says:

    It would not be a second vote, it would be a third. We faced an in-out referendum in 1975 that voted 70-30 to remain.
    Interestingly, by a Prime Minister who was attempting to unite his party. The difference between then and now was that the result was conclusive (not 52-48).
    A major constitutional change such as Brexit should require a much more convincing margin than 50% + 1, if not, it runs the risk of just such a mess as we find ourselves in today.
    The electorate was misled in 2016 and a new vote now would be answered by a much more aware one.

  4. Brian crowe says:

    Democracy is under threat. What happens if a second referendum produces the same result? That will mean that the politicians who are currently prevaricating will waste even more time after a second vote causing further economic problems. Can they not accept the publics’ decision?

Leave a comment