Nigel Farage and The Conundrum of a Second Brexit Referendum

So as I was casually scrolling through my newsfeed on my break the other day I was enjoying the memes and banter that social media gives us on a regular basis. But then I found myself feverishly heading back up to find an article The Independent had posted, because honestly I couldn't believe my eyes. Surely in my hasty glance at the headline I had misread it. I mean I just had to have imagined it......

After much frantic searching I found what I was looking for. "Nigel Farage says 'maybe' there should be second referendum on leaving the EU". Ok. My curiosity was piqued. I couldn't help but have a look. In an appearance on Channel 5's The Wright Stuff Nige said “What is for certain is that the Clegg's, the Blair's, the Adonis's will never, ever-ever give up. They will go on whinging and whining and moaning all the way through this process. So maybe – just maybe – I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum on EU membership.” That's right. One of the architects of the movement to get out of the EU, one of the most prominent Pro-Leave figures in the country has come out saying that he is basically warming to the idea of a second referendum. Now why he would say this I am not sure. Of course he gives his reason as being sick and tired of the moaning by certain figures, however a cynical person maybe forgiven for assuming this is just another of the many thinly veiled attempts by Farage to stay relevant and visible in a post referendum climate. The point of this post however is not to dissect the motives of someone who is essentially the political equivalent of Toad of Toad Hall (to whom Nigel does bear a striking resemblance). No. Most certainly not. The question I am looking to answer here today is should there be a second Brexit referendum?

Nigel Farage "Maybe we should have a second referendum."

Before I can even get onto answering this first of all we must look at a couple of things. First and foremost is the actual referendum result, and then the campaign itself. Now using a selection of previous domestically based referendums as a bench mark for acceptance of the result the last Scottish Independence Referendum worked on the basis of the majority vote would win, with no conditions put in place on voter turn out, and neither did the 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum, or the 1997 Scottish Devolution Referendum, keeping the actual victory conditions to be met by either the Leave or Remain sides in line with the three most recent referendums to take place in the UK. 

In all the hubbub it is very easy to forget this wasn't the first vote by the public on whether or not the UK should stay within the European political/economic system. There was in fact a referendum in 1975 on whether or not the UK should stay in the European Economic Community (EEC). This came about through a campaign pledge (much like the aforementioned referendums) made by Labour when contesting the October 1974 General Election, with the UK having entered the EEC the year before under Edward Heath's Conservative government without a referendum which had caused a slight level of discontent amongst the electorate. This referendum, much like the 2016 referendum, also operated on a yes/no majority rules, no minimum turnout conditions. Ultimately the remain side won with 67.23% of the vote.

This however has not always been the case. The 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum had a condition that the side in favour would only win if at least 40% of the total electorate voted in favour of the conditions laid down by the Scotland Act 1978. Despite the fact that 51.62% voted yes, due to a turnout of 63.72% it meant that only 32.9% of those registered to vote had voted in favour of devolution and the Scotland Act 1978, thus it was quietly repealed. If we take all of these referendums into account most of them are operated on Majority Rules, no conditions winning criteria and so in that respect we should accept the result of the 2016 Referendum.

If we look at the campaign prior to the 2016 Referendum in isolation then there is potentially a case to be made by Remain voters and those who voted Leave but in light of information and pledges given at the time that have since been gone back on. Firstly lets look at the infamous campaign poster regarding the UK being at "Breaking Point" in regards to immigration with a picture of refugees standing in line, urging people that "We must break free from the EU and take back our borders". The impression this gave is that anyone from anywhere could come to our nation with no checks and this was down to the EU. This wasn't the first time UKIP had used a tactic like this, stoking the fears of the public, and trying to set in place an almost us vs them mentality. However in with an important vote like this such scaremongering tactics came across as tasteless and inappropriate, especially as the photo used didn't depict immigrants coming to the UK. It was deemed so bad that leading Leave campaigner Michael Gove said he shuddered when he saw it, and George Osbourne said it had "echoes" of 1930's literature. Add on to this a front page from the Daily Mail showing a picture of migrants arriving with the headline "We're from Europe: Let us in!" which actually featured migrants from the Middle East and the dirty campaigning was in play.

Then of course there was the famous battle bus which proclaimed that when we would be getting back £350 Million a week that could be put back into the NHS. This was promptly rescinded as soon as the vote to leave came through, with Nigel Farage describing it as a "mistake", and saying "he wouldn't have said that". Already Leave was pointing fingers at each other over who should and shouldn't have said what. A poll by Opinium last year suggests that a third of people who voted to leave believed this would be the case. Arguably this means that some of those who voted Leave may have voted to remain instead if this hadn't been thrown out there by the VoteLeave campaign, with Chris Grayling having since come out as saying this was more an "aspiration" than a pledge.

Then of course there is the whole situation with the Single Market. Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan said that "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" which has since been proved to be absolute tosh with Theresa May being set on taking the UK out of the Single Market. Again a point which may have swayed leavers who were in favour of a "soft" Brexit to vote Remain instead.

But amongst the previously mentioned points there is another underlying thing which was never made clear. What exactly does Brexit mean? Of course it means leaving the EU, but the EU as an entity is a large, many limbed beast. What about the Single Market? What about Freedom of Movement? Or the European Convention on Human Rights? There was no mention of whether leaving the EU would mean leaving or losing access to these (which due to the "hard" Brexit approach being taken is looking increasingly like it will be the case, barring some sort of miracle in the opposite direction towards a soft Brexit). The fact of the matter was even though Leave had won, no one actually knew what leave meant. To some it meant completely out of all things even vaguely associated with the EU, while to others it meant having certain economic benefits without the  bureaucratic quagmire of the European Parliament. If we look at the campaign in itself then there is a strong argument to be made that maybe if all the information given by both sides was accurate, and there was a clear plan of what leaving the EU actually meant then the result may have been very different indeed, and as such perhaps there should be a second referendum. 

I guess if you have stuck with me this far then you deserve an answer, or at least my two cents on the matter. The thing is this country was a barrel full of gunpowder, C4, dynamite, nitroglycerin, and various other combustible elements prior to the referendum, however being British we did what we do, made sure our upper lips were suitably stiff, and put on this pretence of everything being fine and dandy. We were just carrying on, as you do. But then the referendum happened, a spark was touched to this explosive combination that had been brewing for a while, and blew it all to kingdom come. 

The young blamed the old for ruining their future. The old pointed fingers at the young reminding them of those before them who had died so that they might be free. Remainers were up in arms about the narrowness of the vote, the lies peddled by leave, the fact that some idiots had used this as a protest vote, not actually believing in leaving in the first place but rather wishing to give the establishment a bloody nose. Leavers were jumping on any remainers they could find on social media to gloat, or criticise them for "sour grapes". Within the political establishment there was a lot being thrown about. Remain campaigning politicians criticising Leave for not believing they could win, or having a plan in place for if they won, while the leavers accused the remainers of scaring the public into believing Brexit was a bad thing, without actually clarifying what Brexit meant. Elsewhere, while all those who voted to leave were not racist, the vote to leave had made those who held those beliefs feel like they had been legitimatised. The racists, bigots and fascists became bold. Reports on hate crimes went up. Far right groups were in the news much more than they had been prior to the decision to leave being made. The cracks that had been papered over for years had finally surfaced in all there glory. The fracture lines became fissures between the people. In a poll by the Daily Mirror published on 12 of January 2018 they found that if there was a second referendum that 55% would now vote to remain. Even if that isn't accurate and Leave were to win again by a larger or narrower majority it doesn't matter. Either way it would cause absolute chaos, possibly on an even larger scale than before. It's taken 18 months to get even a semblance of calm and healing in place  vaguely like we had prior to 24th of June 2016. The bigger question is, is it worth risking that? Is it worth lighting the wick a second time and blowing everything sky high all over again? 

The answer is no. It's not. But even more fundamentally than that, the idea of a second referendum undermines democracy in it's entirety. I'm all for consultation with the public about what happens in negotiations. I am OK with the idea that we get the final say on the agreement that sees us leave the EU. That's fine. But if you have second referendum no one will ever trust anything any politician does in this country again. It's as simple as that. Yes, we are disillusioned with the current state of the political establishment in this country, but there are rays of hope creeping through that maybe, just maybe, not all politicians are lying, self-serving, manipulative scumbags interested in furthering their own career or lining there own pocket; that possibly, there are still politicians out there that still believe in serving the will of the people and ensuring that they do what is best for them. Whether we like the methods used or not, regardless of if we were ecstatic or outraged by the result it doesn't matter, because the people have spoken. We're leaving the EU, and there shouldn't be a second referendum, because, lets face it, it could only make things much, much worse.

Jake