I don’t like the idea of holding a referendum on any subject at all. A referendum is the last resort of political bottlers, avoiding the need to make ‘difficult decisions’, delegating responsibility to ordinary folk. Am I anti-democratic? Far from it. I happen to believe in the principle of a parliamentary democracy, electing representatives to take decisions on my behalf. It’s not perfect, but democracy isn’t always perfect.
Why are we having a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU? To give the public the final say as to whether we remain in the largest single market in the world or step into the unknown and leave? Do me a favour. David Cameron called the referendum because of the divided nature of the Tory Party. He thought he could end the permanent civil war in his party by fobbing off the decision to the public and have done with it once and for all. The big winner in all this is the leader of the far right anti-immigrant Ukip, Nigel Farage, whose dog whistle politics has bounced Cameron into this position.
Cameron has history of holding referenda and he is always on the side of maintaining the status quo. If he wants to leave things as they are, he holds a referendum. The voting system, Scottish independence and now the EU. “Big decision? Let someone else take it!” says Dave. Weak, weak, weak.
If we are going to hold a referendum on the EU, then why not have further referenda on issues that really matter to ordinary people? I’ll give you a few examples.
How about Capital Punishment? Opinion polls have shown consistently a large majority of people would vote for the return of hanging. We could break it down, perhaps have a two or three page ballot paper. We could include all sorts of terrible crimes like murder, drunk driving, paedophilia, mugging senior citizens, animal cruelty and theft. If we felt Capital Punishment went a bit too far for some crimes, we could suggest castration for certain sex offenders or we could have a vote on whether to cut off the hands of thieves? Or make it simple. The wording on the ballot paper could be, “Do you agree that the correct punishment for any crime should be around the principle of an eye for an eye?”
Believe me, I am not, for one moment, trying to belittle these awful crimes, often perpetrated by hideous monsters or just nasty petty thieves. Far from it. I find myself ranting at the TV and radio when I see and hear about senior citizens being conned out of their life savings and sick perverts abusing children. I can hang ’em and flog ’em like the best of you. This does not necessarily make me a fit and proper person to make the laws of the land but I will bet you a lot of money that if we held referenda on crime and punishment, the government would have to launch a major campaign to attract the next generation of Albert Pierrepoints and indeed we might need a new prison in every area of town.
And what Trident renewal? Only the defence of our country, that’s all. Can we really leave that in the hands of mere politicians? Or immigration, perhaps? Do we want more immigrants, less or none at all? Think of an issue, almost any issue, and you can come up with an argument for holding referenda. It would cost an absolute fortune, but given the low esteem in which some people hold politicians we could abolish parliament and just let the public vote on everything, right down to local planning applications up to where airports should be built. Absurd? Ridiculous? Of course it is. It would be permanent chaos, anarchy.
That is not to say that our voting system is perfect: it isn’t. I have long been supportive of electoral reform, proportional representation, for all my adult life but for much of that time politicians of most shades of opinion have disagreed. My first MP was Tony Benn, who was of the hard left. He was passionate in his opposition to PR, as passionate as any politician in the land.
This referendum, like all the others before, are divisive. There is no real debate because it’s yes or no. There is no compromise, like you might get with a parliamentary vote, it’s black and white. You don’t sort of agree or disagree with someone who takes a different view. You support EU membership or you support rolling the dice. You support state killing of criminals or you don’t. There are no committee stages in a referendum, no room for manoeuvre, no chance of compromise.
Our future in the EU should have been decided by MPs, elected by their constituencies, MPs who are accountable to their constituents. If your MP voted to stay in the EU and you disagreed, get rid of her/him. If your MP voted against equal marriage and for the Bedroom Tax, get rid of her/him.
The referendum is a derogation of responsibility by David Cameron and people can see it. Remain or Leave, Cameron is damaged and his days are numbered, probably. I say probably because a week is a long time in politics and you do not know what is just over the horizon. A major event like a terrorist atrocity, for example, could rescue him, but his weakness has been exposed and I do not believe he will recover. Anyway, half the Tory Party hates him for not being right wing enough – believe it or not! – and can’t wait for the day Boris Johnson achieves his lifetime ambition in succeeding him.
A strong leader would have asserted his authority and his faith in parliamentary democracy, but instead the opposite has been the case. He has undermined his authority and undermined parliamentary democracy by calling the messiest, most divisive referendum of our lifetimes.
History will not judge Cameron favourably after this, Remain or Leave. He deserves no better.
