In 2016, just a few days after the referendum, an article (HERE £) appeared in The Washington Post written by a very astute lady professor of political science at Columbia University named Turkuler Isiksel. It was titled: The British people have spoken. But what exactly did they say? It's behind a paywall but I can give you a flavour below. It was an extremely prescient piece and looking back we can see how clearly she saw today's events unfolding.
This is the start of her article:
This is the start of her article:
"The day after Britain’s referendum on E.U. membership, David Cameron observed, “Over 33 million people from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar have all had their say… The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected.”
"But what exactly did last week’s referendum reveal about what these voters want? For instance, how big of an economic hit is the typical “Leave” voter willing to tolerate in order to ditch the E.U.? Do they consider “Brexit” worth pursuing even if it causes Scotland to break off? And what should come next — new bilateral trade agreements or protectionism? Further cuts in government spending or reinvestment in the National Health Service? Deregulation or tighter controls on the economy?
"Here’s the problem: Most referendums do not allow for specifying alternatives, giving and weighing reasons, or ranking preferences. And they give no indication of what trade offs the electorate is willing to tolerate, or guidance on how to proceed with the vast number of decisions that must be made to implement the people’s will".
This was thirty months ago and everything Ms Isiksel said in her article becomes truer every day. Yet no British politician has yet spelled out these uncomfortable truths. Half the population is still talking about 'getting on with it' without knowing what 'it' is nor realising what the trade offs are. She says:
"Referendums commit leaders to a mandated outcome, regardless of the costs and consequences. And this makes it tougher for democratically elected legislatures to deliberate, compromise and forge consensus".
At the centre of the conundrum is the problem that in much of the legislature, especially in the governing party, there is not even an acceptance that there are any consequences at all (HERE). Ms Isikel continued:
"The referendum result leaves Britain’s elected politicians with less rather than more direction. They cannot ignore the explicit will of voters without risking a backlash. But they also can’t hope to sufficiently improve the terms of Britain’s relationship with the E.U. and ask for a second poll. So there’s deep turmoil in the ranks of both major British parties".
"[..] having a direct say over a particular decision may leave voters with less control over long-term political outcomes than when they select their representatives on the basis of their policy promises or party platforms.
"One reason for this is that political decisions are rarely discrete, one-off choices. They generate knock-on effects on other areas of policy, and their implementation requires a cascade of future decisions and trade-offs.
"No doubt the European integration process bears blame for disrupting this relationship – for instance, by whittling down the power of national legislatures. But the fallacy here is thinking that ad hoc referendums can remedy this systemic, long-term institutional erosion. (Ironically, Britain’s decision to stay out of European monetary union has allowed it to retain a greater degree of democratic control over its budgetary powers relative to its continental counterparts.)
"This is not to say that voters cannot be trusted with such technically complex matters as fiscal policy or membership in multilateral institutions. But if democracy is about giving citizens control over political decisions, a referendum is not nearly as effective a democratic mechanism as many tend to assume. In fact, easy resort to a referendum can make political decision-making less democratic. In this case, honoring the referendum outcome will lead to costly choices that citizens neither intend nor prefer. Ignoring it will deepen the popular sense of disaffection with the democratic process".
How true. As I have said repeatedly, at the end of this whole sorry process, if there ever is an indentifiable end, nobody will be happy. In fact there will be more unhappiness than there was in 2015, a lot more.
