{"id":1258,"date":"2019-01-24T14:32:07","date_gmt":"2019-01-24T14:32:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/?p=1258"},"modified":"2019-07-01T02:09:16","modified_gmt":"2019-07-01T01:09:16","slug":"out-of-brexit-chaos-part-1-peoples-vote","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/out-of-brexit-chaos-part-1-peoples-vote\/","title":{"rendered":"Out of Brexit Chaos, part 1: People’s Vote"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Calling for a People’s Vote<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This means asking the rest of the EU for a significant extension to the Article 50 period. This is not for significant further negotiation \u2014 if Brexit has to happen, May\u2019s deal is pretty good \u2014 but to enable things to be done with considered thinking about the future.<\/p>\n

I suggest that the process needs a People\u2019s Vote, but on a longer timetable than people are suggesting to allow adequate preparation. It needs a Government of National Unity to provide the stability for this to happen, and for enough time afterwards for political parties to draw up manifestos in the light of the result, on which to have a General Election.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll pick up the idea of a Government of National Unity a second article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

People\u2019s Vote<\/h2>\n

Downing St recently drew criticism for suggesting that it could take a year to organise a People\u2019s Vote<\/a>. In the present state of anxiety, it is tempting to accelerate the process, but my plea is for it to be given more time because it is more than simply enabling people to put crosses on ballot papers. Several things lie behind this:
\nPreserving democracy<\/p>\n

Referenda risk undermining representative democracy. Unless the question is very specific, they carry a sense that those elected can\u2019t be trusted. Proceeding too quickly now risks compounding this it can be spun as \u201cMPs couldn\u2019t fix this, so the people had to\u201d, and inviting an \u201canti-politics vote\u201d.
\nEuropean Parliament elections<\/p>\n

If the article 50 period is extended by more than a very short time then we are likely to be taking part in elections to the European Parliament. At its best this dispatches the myth of the EU being undemocratic and gives a chance to talk about what the Parliament actually does. But it risks voter fatigue if that is followed too quickly by a People\u2019s Vote.<\/p>\n

Listening away from London<\/h2>\n

Gordon Brown has suggested<\/a> a listening process at regional level across the UK. Things look different in the different regions of England, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Preparations for a referendum can\u2019t have the stamp of \u201cremote Westminster\u201d. Regional debate is needed before the question to go on the ballot paper is formulated.
\nAddress rule-breaking<\/p>\n

The Electoral Commission has fined the Leave campaigns for their behaviour in 2016, and referred the matter to the police for criminal investigation. That\u2019s led to suggestions of caution on the part of the Police because this is politically sensitive<\/a>. We need time for this legal process to conclude so that the lessons from it inform changes in the regulations for the People\u2019s Vote \u2014 with enough transparency to mean people see this as about fairness to both sides. As it\u2019s hard to set aside a referendum even if the rules were broken, we need a way to catch rule-breakings as they happen.
\nOutside interference<\/p>\n

There were concerns over interference from outside the UK \u2014 particularly from Russia \u2014 in the social media campaigning in 2016. This is a tougher nut to crack, but we need to do something to address this so there\u2019s not a sense that the result is \u201cthe will of Putin\u201d.<\/p>\n

Clarity about the question<\/h2>\n

The question needs to be be unambiguous. Some have suggested a three-way question, such as ranking \u201cRemain\u201d, \u201cMay\u2019s deal\u201d and \u201cNo deal\u201d. But Gina Miller, in her blog<\/a> and on twitter<\/a>, has provided evidence of people thinking \u201cNo deal\u201d means to carry on as we are (i.e. Remain), as there was evidence in 2016 of people voting \u201cLeave\u201d to keep things as they are (or were), without registering that this would mean a big change.
\nResponsible question<\/p>\n

We mustn\u2019t repeat the mistake of having a question where one option was well defined (Remain) and the other wasn\u2019t (Leave). For the People\u2019s Vote there needs to have been adequate thinking about both options, which means the Leave option has to be something the EU are likely to accept (probably means close to May\u2019s deal). There will need to be time for proper impact assessments of both options, whose results are made public.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also essential that both options are viable, so the Brexit option is something the EU are likely to accept. With suggestions that Boris Johnson is using the \u201cDonald Trump playbook<\/a>\u201d, Parliament would be grossly irresponsible to put an option on the ballot that would do profound harm \u2014 such as crashing out without a deal.<\/p>\n

Continue to part 2: Government of national unity<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThis article originally appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice<\/a>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Brexit process began as an internal Tory party squabble, but its resolution has to move from there to mature thinking about the future. Part of this is around the People’s Vote done thoroughly, overseen by a Government of National Unity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_wpscppro_dont_share_socialmedia":false,"_wpscppro_custom_social_share_image":0,"_facebook_share_type":"","_twitter_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type":"","_pinterest_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type_page":"","_instagram_share_type":"","_medium_share_type":"","_threads_share_type":"","_google_business_share_type":"","_selected_social_profile":[],"_wpsp_enable_custom_social_template":false,"_wpsp_social_scheduling":{"enabled":false,"datetime":null,"platforms":[],"status":"template_only","dateOption":"today","timeOption":"now","customDays":"","customHours":"","customDate":"","customTime":"","schedulingType":"absolute"},"_wpsp_active_default_template":true},"categories":[72,218,207,2],"tags":[219,193],"class_list":["post-1258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brexit-politics","category-government-of-national-unity","category-peoples-vote","category-politics","tag-out-of-brexit-chaos","tag-peoples-vote"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1258"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1258\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1657,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1258\/revisions\/1657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markargent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}