You'd hope we might have learned by now that referendums on abstract principles, in which no one has to take responsibility for the consequences, and from which wildly different policies can all claim a mandate, are a really, really bad idea.
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1453108141839855620
To deny a referendum is to be accused of elitism. But the problem isn't the public or its right to make decisions. It's about which democratic tools we use, to ensure politicians are judged on the laws & taxes they impose,not on abstract pledges divorced from the practice of govt
If the vote was lost, would any action on climate change be against "the will of the people"? If it won, would an MP who proposed a different way of doing it be a "saboteur"?How would we know whether it was a "full", "jobs first" or "red, white & blue" NetZero that had a mandate?
Unlike leaving the EU or Scottish independence, policies like carbon taxes or renewable subsidies are not difficult to reverse at a future general election (however harmful that might be). If democratic consent is the issue, the normal constitutional procedures are available.
The poll is a publicity stunt, by a group pitching itself against "a woke ... consensus" & "a remote elite". But it's a reminder that we need to think harder about how we use the referendum, if it's not to become a wrecking ball smashing around in the middle of the constitution.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
