Would another Brexit referendum undermine democracy?

Brexit: constantly in the news, never any positive progress.

As with any major decision, there will never be a solution that suits everyone. Cameron initiated Brexit through holding a referendum in the hope of not only preventing further divisions within the Conservative Party, but he thought this would unite them. Yet all it has actually done is cause further divides, including a number of MPs turning against their new leader and ministers even leaving major cabinet positions over Theresa May’s proposed deal.

There are so many things that have gone wrong with everything about Brexit. No, that’ an understatement. I’m not quite sure I can do justice to how much of an embarrassment Brexit has become.

From the infamous lies during the campaign to a vote of no confidence being filed against Theresa May and having to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline, the entire process has been hap-hazard and chaotic to say the least. Attempting to get a deal through Parliament was left until the 23^rd hour, despite the referendum being two years prior.

Theresa May has now resigned. A new Prime Minister will be appointed just over three months before the new leaving date (including almost seven weeks summer recess). The new Prime Minister will not have been voted in by the public. Yet they will hold a lot of power over the coming Brexit negotiations. In fact, they hold so much power they have talked of suspending parliament in order to get a deal in place. If the public’s approval is so important (as it definitely should be), then should the public not also get a say on who negotiates the deal?

Ministers say they don’t want to hold another referendum because they don’t want to undermine democracy, and want to deliver on what the nation voted for. Under any normal circumstances, these would be two very valid arguments. However, this is a very unique and unprecedented case, and these arguments are flawed as a consequence. Yes, parliament should deliver on what the public vote for. But did the public know what they were voting for? No, in fact, one knew what ‘Brexit’ would look like – as there was no deal on the table as an alternative to remaining; no one could predict how lenient the EU would be. And the reasons against remaining – which made the bulk of the leave argument, rather than why leaving would be beneficial – were lies.  All these ideas were thrown around about being able to spend more on health care and such causes, but no one factored in the benefits (financial and other) that Britain gained from being a part of the EU, as well as there never being a guarantee on what the EU envisaged, and what they would want in return. People also had no idea of the complexities of leaving; what happens to driving licences? Passports? Erasmus? The Good Friday Agreement and the Irish question? Scottish independence? British ex patriots currently living in Europe? Europeans living in Britain? The list is endless and complex. I think the fact that these problems were not made more explicit reflects how badly the remain campaign was run. Finally, by the time Britain leaves it will be 28 months between the referendum and leaving. Multiple general elections have been called in smaller time frames than this, reinforcing the fact that another referendum would not be undemocratic.

Leaving the EU, and the deal on which Britain leaves the EU, will have long-lasting consequences for the majority of British citizens, and also ones which were not initially made clear, or even really mentioned. I think the public should get to vote once a final deal is negotiated. This wouldn’t be undermining democracy. It would be giving the public the chance to have some autonomy over their future. ��