,
24 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Really interesting debate w/ @AllieRenison and, for what its worth, should be discussed. You can argue from different angles, normatively and from perspective of political realism. Both don't provide a way out. /1
Let's start normatively: The idea here is that the referendum was a democratic decision which must be enacted. Overriding it with a decision by parliament or referendum would not be fair. /2
The first problem is that key stakeholders we're excluded during the election, some of them even with the notion that the referendum would be advisory anyway. Highlighting that parliament itself enacted A50 doesn't cut it either. I will briefly explain why. /3
1) The stakeholders I'm talking about can be divided in four groups and are arguably the most affected ones. a) UK citizen who live longer than 10 years outside UK in EU. They didn't have the right to vote and are way more affected than anyone else. /4
b) EU citizens who have been living as residents and who are not citizen of a Commonwealth state. They didn't have the right to vote either and are as much affected as the former group. Arguably you can neither blame a) and b) for not taking up dual citizenship. /5
For one: UK citizenship is incredibly expensive (I came to pay roughly £5000 including costs for a good lawyer - if your case is not really simple and straight forward, you will need one). Second, not each state in EU allows dual citizenship (e.g. Netherlands). /6
You'd obviously say that my second point is not valid, given you'd still pick up another one. I would agree if UK wouldn't be structurally unreliable player. Which would make maintaining relations w/ UK for former UK citizens in EU & former EU citizen in UK with EU difficult. /7
Besides, most migrants have a dual identity. It's at best cruel to expect to give an important sign of their identity up to be able to vote. Especially if it would have been easy to change the electoral laws. /8
And highlighting that it would be unprecedented doesn't cut it either. For one, it's UK who wanted the option to change so it isn't too much to expect to include those stakeholders. Second, UK already promised to abolish the ten year threshold. /9
Third, Commonwealth citizen we're allowed to vote too. So why not EU citizens? Fourth, Scotland managed to do that in their independence referendum as well (knowing they are not supportive). This leads us to 2 other stakeholders persons between 16-17 years & devolved nations. /10
For the 16-17 years old, the same applies as for UK citizens in EU and EU citizens in UK. SCO allowed them to vote, also given its them who need to deal longest w/ the results of that vote. This also has been internationally recognised, so there are changes across Europe. /11
So arguably it would be good democratic practice. Before people come with too you and unmatured: If you think they are to unmatured, why do your criminal laws allow to send them for decades into prison for e.g. murder. If they are to unmatured, they don't know what they did. /12
It's strange too argue that you think that they are matured enough to treat them in court with full force but in electoral law like infants. The other point is that there is no proof that their (electoral) decisions are qualitatively worse. /13
In several cases they are even better educated than their grandfathers. So if you argue that it was the greatest mandate and you exclude those groups of the most affected, that's arguably not particularly democratic. /14
The devolved nations are doubled problematic. For one UK recognised that it is not a national but a multinational state. The question here is why this wasn't reflected in the referendum. Other countries do that, precisely because it'd otherwise risk frictions and break up. /15
Interestingly, the argument against thresholds have been that it is advisory. Arguing that HoC triggered A50 doesn't help because HoC doesn't recognise a separate role for devolved nations either. MPs are UK MPs not Scottish MPs in a meaningful sense. /16
Meaningful here is that they can block it or would be required to approve anything They aren't. They can be override by English MPs and this is what actually happened. /17
Northern Ireland was even worse off. It's not Brenda from Bristol which might need to live to get blown up by a car bomb but Shonagh from Belfast. The GFA itself would have implicitly required to consider the special status of NI - but no, completely ignored. /18
If we have a look on those stakeholders, you can already now perfectly argue that the whole process is democratically questionable an possibly invalid. /19
In short: Leavers made a decision which was not theirs to make. And HMG as well as HoC pretended that it would be a choice they are allowed to make even though it arguably wasn't. So you could perfectly argue that new referendum or revoking isn't unfair or undemocratic. /20
It should not have been done in the first place. By the way even in the aftermath devolved nations have been significantly ignored, by the way under the approval of large chunks of Leavers. They may see this as justified but it questionable whether it is. /21
I would love to hear other opinions on this one, I will focus on political practicality in a second thread. 22/22
Maybe interesting for you... @colinrtalbot @Sime0nStylites @trefeca @APHClarkson @BrigidLaffan @simonjhix @HzBrandenburg
PS: Just discovered this one 👇 My answer'd be that referendums require fairness in the set up of the referendum process itself. Respect isn't a one-way street. Instead of indulging anger, people may want to ask themselves whether they did something wrong.
