Would a second referendum be wise, or would it represent a failure to learn a lesson from history? I campaigned, leafleted, and voted for Remain but despite the millions of pounds being spent on the calls for a “People’s Vote” and still being of the opinion that “Brexit would be bad”, I’m yet to be convinced that holding another referendum would be a good idea, especially one that asks a question on the terms of the deal. However, as someone who spends all day, everyday, thinking about democracy — what it means and what it entails — the question of whether we should have a new referendum is an interesting one to consider.

So, if it’s of interest to you, here are my thoughts and I would be genuinely interested to read your responses, opinions, and counter-arguments to them.

The 2016 referendum

For me, the overwhelming feeling I have is that the idea of holding a public vote on a highly complex and deeply intricate issue such as membership of the European Union is, and was, a terrible, terrible idea. Imperfect though our democracy is, there are some nuggets of logic to it. We elect representatives, and pay them handsomely, specifically to spend the time required to mull over the detail of complicated legislative issues and to then make informed decisions which they believe will best serve their constituents.

With a referendum, we subvert and ignore that principle and instead place the decision-making responsibility into the hands of the everyday citizen. This is not a good thing. People, in general, are relatively uninformed when it comes to the ins and outs of trade deals, intelligence-sharing, and immigration policy. That’s not to say that they are unintelligent, but that they do not have the time nor resources to sufficiently educate themselves on the details.

This is important because decisions which affect the future of the nation should be informed and not based on the whirlwind of a six-week campaign with slogans on the sides of buses or shiny leaflets sent in the post.

In 2016, we saw a campaign which started with the former Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, warning of “Paris-style terrorist attacks” if we stayed in the EU, punctuated with “Breaking Point” posters reminiscent of old Nazi propaganda films, and ending with an MP being murdered in the street by a terrorist radicalised by the far-right. That’s not to mention the massive spike in racist hate crimes following the vote and the resulting momentum injected into the Trump presidential campaign.

Am I alone in thinking that the idea of putting ourselves through that again is bonkers? You might argue that it would be different this time, but would it? The likes of Farage and Co. would relish the opportunity and platform of a second referendum.

Undermining democracy

What does all of this mean for democracy? Many of the prominent voices calling for a second referendum are the same people who voted the first one through at every stage in Parliament. I don’t like the idea of government by referenda but if you are going to go through with it and ask the people to provide an instruction, surely the democratic response is to implement that decision instead of undermining it through calls for another referendum, another say, another shot at getting back the ‘right’ result? Some argue that the economic magnitude of the decision warrants the public to have a ‘final say’ before leaving but it was made as clear as day during the 2016 campaign that Brexit would be damaging to jobs and the economy. People heard the message and the majority voted Leave regardless.

The most convincing argument I’ve heard so far for holding another referendum is that if allegations of electoral law being broken are found to be true, a re-run of the vote would be necessary to reinforce the principle of fairness in democracy. This is a strong argument. In a campaign where millions of pounds are being spent, fines of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of pounds would be merely treated as another cost involved with winning elections. However, if we are to accept this argument then a new referendum should be a re-run of the exact question asked in 2016, not a vote on the terms of the deal.

What would a People’s Vote look like?

Which brings us to the question of “what would a People’s Vote look like?” Given the deeply complex and intricate nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU, do we seriously believe that a vote on the terms of the deal is something that the electorate at large will feel equipped to undertake? The proposed ‘deal’ and its resulting implications on the nation’s economy would likely fill more pages than the entire Harry Potter series and take thrice as long to comprehend. It’d be a giant terms and conditions document that the overwhelming majority of the electorate will not read. Instead, as with the 2016 referendum, complex considerations will be boiled down to slogans and rhetoric designed to divide and conquer. It will not be an informed vote.

It’s hard to imagine that the campaign in a new referendum would be much different to 2016. Immigrants would be vilified yet again, economists will be divided, and the media will be treated as ‘enemies of the people’. The vote would be pitched as the People vs the Establishment. In 2016, Obama came along to share his thoughts on Brexit, who would come along this time? You know who. Imagine the sight, Boris and Donald on the campaign stump together, sowing discord and distrust throughout the nation.

British politics would descend into a Trumpian cocktail of distrust, discord, and disenchantment.

Let’s say, however, that we have the referendum and the result returned reverses the 2016 decision. A narrow win for the Remain campaign (judging on current opinion polls, it would be narrow) and Brexit is cancelled. Hurrah! What happens next? Angered and betrayed by the political establishment, Leave voters would reject the mainstream parties in swathes turning instead to a reborn, resurgent, and rejuvenated UK Independence Party. Perhaps by this stage, Gerard Batten will have made way for Nigel Farage’s fourth stint as UKIP leader, or, worse, they turn to rising star of the alt-right, Tommy Robinson. And then would come pre-2016 UKIP on steroids. British politics would descend into a Trumpian cocktail of distrust, discord, and disenchantment — not something I have any particular desire to see.

Maintaining integrity in democracy

Is there any way forward that would have Britain as a member of the EU whilst maintaining some level of trust and integrity in our democracy? Possibly, but it could be a long wait and one which would still involve Britain leaving the EU. Having left the EU (honouring the result of the 2016 referendum), a new campaign to re-join the EU would need to be undertaken with Britain retaking its place in Brussels following a General Election or, God forbid, a referendum. Surely that is the only realistic way Britain can reverse Brexit whilst maintaining democratic integrity? It’s sad — I wanted Remain to win — but it’s true.

Has reading these thoughts in any way altered your opinion? Perhaps you can alter mine. As I mentioned at the beginning, I’m genuinely interested in reading opinions, counter-arguments, and solutions to the problems that I’ve identified. It’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen next. If, however, another referendum does come to fruition, we need to ensure that we think through, in full, how that campaign is conducted and what comes next. Comically, referenda are put forward as a mechanism to heal divisions but, so often, the opposite is much closer to the truth.