,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A couple of people have asked why I would march for a People's Vote, when I've been so critical of the damage to parliamentary democracy done by the 2016 referendum. Short answer: referendums can uphold parliamentary democracy or subvert it, depending on how we use them. [THREAD]
2. The first big proponent of the referendum in Britain was A.V. Dicey, who argued for a "People's Veto". In this model, the referendum comes at the *end* of the legislative process. Parliament legislates as normal, then (for constitutional changes) voters act as a final check.
3. In this model, parliamentary and plebisicitary democacy play different, but complementary roles. Parliament draws up, approves and takes responsibility for specific legislative proposals, in the usual way. The public can then block them if they do not have popular support.
4. For an example of this model, see the recent Irish abortion referendum. After a consultative process, a fully actionable bill was passed through the Dáil. The public were then asked to accept or reject it - so it was crystal clear what a Yes or No vote would mean in practice.
5. 2016, by contrast, followed a different model. It put the referendum at the *start* of the process, not the end. It asked voters to endorse an abstract question of principle ("Leave" or "Remain"), that MPs would then have to translate into law, not a specific policy proposal.
6. Voters in 2016 were not asked to endorse *any* of the options currently under discussion: May's deal, No deal, EFTA, Canada... But ministers & journalists have invoked "the will of the people" to intimidate MPs into backing versions of Brexit that were never on the ballot.
7. So how do we fix this? The solution is not, I think, simply to repeat the exercise conducted in 2016 & hope for a different outcome. Instead, we should revert to something closer to the Diceyan model of a "People's Veto", which gives both Parliament & people an important role.
8. It should be Parliament's job to debate the particular forms of Brexit, without being intimidated by clairvoyants pretending to know "what 17 million people voted for". Their conclusions can then be submitted to "a People's Veto", to confirm whether they have popular consent.
9. That upholds the essential principle of representative government: that "the will of the people" (a cacophony of voices, not a single instruction) is expressed through dialogue between elected representatives, not by demagogues claiming a mystical connection with "the people".
10. But it gives the electorate the right to check whether they did this correctly: a right we take for granted in the usual cycle of parliamentary elections. In this model, Parliament & people both play a role: and crucially, that role is collaborative, not competitive. [ENDS]
