Opinion: Referendums Are Not the Kind of Democracy Our Country Needs

Published on: 28 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 29 Aug, 2018

By Laura Neuhaus

Laura Neuhaus is a student reporter attached to The Guildford Dragon NEWS. As part of her experience working with us it was suggested she write some opinion pieces on subjects she felt strongly about. Here is the first…

Soon after the Brexit Referendum talk began of having a second. I remember the discussion coming up in my house in Godalming and my mother’s hopeful face when she announced that she had signed a petition in favour of the re-vote. But how could she do such a thing?

Surely the people had spoken, and in a democracy what the people want must be top priority.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately) things aren’t that simple. I don’t think that a referendum is fundamentally and necessarily democratic. One of Hitler’s favourite methods to confirm his constitutional changes was via referendum. That really doesn’t mean Hitler is suddenly democratic but rather that there is something very suspect about putting constitutional changes to the vote.

In Germany federal plebiscites are outlawed under their constitution. The Germans had good reason to make this rule, since on the 19 August 1934 such a plebiscite was used to merge the role of Chancellor and President and give Hitler ultimate power as Führer. On the April 10 1938 a further referendum confirmed Hitler’s plans for Anschluss with Austria.

Of course, it can by no means be claimed that the violence used to intimidate voters and the manipulation of votes is comparable to the Brexit referendum. However, it is important to remember that a referendum is not synonymous with democracy.

What about, for example, all those 56.2% of Remainers in Guildford? Should populism and rule by the masses replace a representative system that tries to find a compromise to satisfy a more diverse range of opinions than just “Stay” or “Leave”?

It is true to say that referendums are the purest form of direct democracy. However, in the United Kingdom we have a representative democracy, where full-time politicians can debate and discuss policy, and make informed decisions on behalf of us.

This distinction invalidates claims that the referendum cannot be reversed in the name of democracy. Instead, choosing to go with the referendum result is choosing to go with direct democracy over representative democracy.

Nils Christiansen, one of our Guildford borough councillors, rightly argues that constitutional changes should be difficult. Nils uses the US constitution as an example, where an amendment to the constitution must be confirmed by a two-thirds vote in favour, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a two-thirds majority vote by state legislatures.

Nils, sees Brexit as a similarly complex and fundamental change to the way the country operates, which would require careful consideration about the onsequences before attempting. He described the alternative as “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute”.

Choosing representative democracy, on the other hand, would require a mulling over, many debates, time for minorities to have a say…

Did you know what you were voting for?

Our quick and easy Brexit fix has turned out to be a little more complex than some claimed it would be. The mulling over that should have happened before any decisions were made is happening now. Only now do people begin to realise the cost implicated, the colossal legal work required, and the long-term financial consequences entailed.

Constitutional change is far too fundamental to be made by a referendum. Only if every voter took up the full-time occupation as a politician, had lots of debates about the subject and did the maths, could a referendum hope to resemble an informed decision.

It is true that we, the people, need to have a say, and voting is a fantastic and great responsibility granted to us by our chosen system of government. However, there are some situations in which I will gladly elect someone I feel is well-informed and has the time to think over the diverse range of related issues to represent me to make such an important decision. Someone who is in the midst of the action, who knows more about the way the European Union works and has had experience working with it.

In the name of representative democracy, I say the referendum need not be anything more than a survey of general public opinion. If you don’t feel like you have a voice and need a referendum to be heard at all, I think the problem lies with our first-past-the-post voting system and lack of proportional representation. But that’s a whole other article.

Responses to Opinion: Referendums Are Not the Kind of Democracy Our Country Needs

Jules Cranwell Reply

August 28, 2018 at 8:29 pm

Now I hear on the BBC news that, as an EU ex-pat of 20 years, I am at risk of losing my Belgian state pension, along with all EU ex-pats, as there will be no reciprocal arrangement after Brexit.

What were they thinking? Were none of the potential consequences even considered?
- S Callanan Reply
  
  August 29, 2018 at 12:48 pm
  
  “Were none of the potential consequences considered?”
  
  Actually, yes. Try searching for Cm 9216 and you’ll find a 20 plus page government document called “The Process for Withdrawing from the European Union”. This was published in February of 2016, ie before the referendum took place. It stresses the length and complexity of the process.
  
  There’s another 20 plus page government document called “Alternatives to membership: possible models for the UK outside the EU.” That was published in March of 2016, again before the referendum, and its publication was required by the EU Referendum Act of 2015. It stresses all the difficulties we’ve since encountered.
  
  We’re not completely stupid in this country.
Ben Paton Reply

August 29, 2018 at 7:47 am

Brexit is not complicated. Only the intransigence of Mr Juncker created the need for it in the first place. Only the refusal to reform the union makes it difficult.

The issue is very simple: the club rules are out of date and need reforming. The Commission wants doctrinal purity because it fears pluralism will lead to disintegration. It adopts this position to keep the other member states in line.

Rather than submit to rule from Brussels, that in some respects was bonkers, the British had a referendum and had the guts to vote leave.

The British political system has 329 years of continuity since the Glorious Revolution of 1689 re-established constitutional monarchy and the independence of the judiciary.

It’s a bit rich being lectured to by a whole lot of countries that did not even exist 229 years ago. What is the parallel with Germany, which was only unified by Prussia after the Franco Prussian War of 1871 when the Prussians routed the French, occupied Paris and achieved the unconditional surrender of the French and the abdication of Napoleon III?

If modern German history is relevant then why not look at the system of proportional representation under the Weimar Republic which elected Hitler’s National Socialists on at least three occasions with more and more seats?

It may be clever to question everything and suggest how England could be remodelled along ‘European’ lines. But it does not respect our history. The Europeans may laugh at the way our system works. But it has sustained our values and way of life for nearly a thousand years. Not many other countries in Europe can say that of their own political systems.
- Stuart Thompson Reply
  
  August 29, 2018 at 12:44 pm
  
  That cursed EU must have rewritten European history. When I was at school the Glorious Revolution was 1688; 1789 was the French Revolution.
  
  Thank you for pointing out this error in Ben Paton’s comment which gave 1789 as the date of the Glorious Revolution. It has now been corrected. It should have been picked up in the edit. Ed
Stuart Barnes Reply

August 29, 2018 at 11:17 am

It is over! We, the people, voted to escape from the corrupt EU. If Mrs May will not follow our democratically expressed instructions then she must go and someone else should take over.
Adam Aaronson Reply

August 30, 2018 at 3:34 pm

Laura Neuhaus makes some interesting points. However, I am surprised to see that in common with many commentators she has completely glossed over the fact that Vote Leave cheated and the result of the referendum was achieved by electoral fraud.

The Electoral Commission has fined Vote Leave and referred the matter to the police for breaking electoral law. Details can be found here: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law

As a country that goes around the world monitoring and commenting on the legitimacy of other “less democratic” sovereign states’ elections, the idea of electoral fraud close to home is something that we are not used to. Perhaps because of this, both a wide spectrum of politicians, and indeed the general public, haven’t really grasped what has taken place yet. By the same token neither have the mainstream media.

“It is unclear whether the British media will try to hold Gove, Johnson and other senior Vote Leave figures to account over the cheating where the Electoral Commission was not able to do so. The record so far has not been encouraging” says Emma Graham Harrison in the Guardian, where you can find more details: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

There is no doubt in my mind that the referendum vote is not sound. It was not “the will of the people”. It was fraudulently won at the 11th hour by devious methods funded by unlawful spending by Vote Leave in concert with BeLeave. (See link above). Whistleblowers including Christopher Wylie and Shamir Sanni have given evidence to the House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS) showing how targeted social media advertising was deployed at the last minute funded by the illegal £500,000 advertising spend.

The response from Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn has been deafeningly silent. They both have their heads in the sand.

It is a sad day for so-called British democracy when so many are in denial of the fraud that is taking this country down the negative path of Brexit.
- John Perkins Reply
  
  August 31, 2018 at 8:24 am
  
  We wuz robbed! Eh?
  
  The fact is that the Remain campaign spent more, even disregarding the government’s £9 million on pro-EU propaganda. So if it’s all down to money does it follow that those who voted Remain were bought more cheaply?
  
  The fact is that the Remain campaign spent more, even disregarding the government’s £9 million on pro-EU propaganda. So if it’s all down to money does it follow that those who voted LEAVE were bought more cheaply?
  
  The Electoral Commission would be the fine body that did not refer Lutfur Rahman to the police, despite many investigations in the media. He was later removed from office following an election petition by private residents, who are now being asked to pay for doing the commission’s work.
- Stuart Barnes Reply
  
  August 31, 2018 at 8:45 am
  
  You appear to have overlooked the fact that the remain side spent vastly more than the Leave side (including the disgraceful leaflet paid for the taxpayer sent out by the odious Cameron) and lied consistently throughout the campaign.
  
  The Electoral Commission is packed with Remoaners and serious questions have been asked about its bias. Why has it not investigated the clear breaches of the law by the remain side as presented to it by Priti Patel?
  
  Why are we still being barraged by nonsense (financed by shadowy figures) from the Remain side after the biggest vote in the democratic history of this country?
  
  Give it up – we are leaving the corrupt mess that is the EU.
Mike Murphy Reply

August 30, 2018 at 4:53 pm

What representation does anyone who is not Conservative get in Guildford?

We have a government that’s only policy seems to be austerity taking billions away from NHS, schools, local government etc.

We have Guildford Borough Council slavishly following central government’s edicts well on the road like many other councils to bankruptcy. They follow central government’s two-faced approach to damaging our ancient woodlands and precious green belt.

At least we have had the chance, and so far seemed to have taken it, to leave the corrupt EU which always dances to the tune of federalism and the large multinationals.