Brexit and democracy

Both sides of the Brexit argument in Britain insist that their view is the democratic view. But what is 'the democratic view'? For example, although the polls that show a small lead in favour of remaining in the EU, it turns out many people who initially voted to remain in the EU are now reported in the media as troubled by any idea that there should be a second vote over Brexit. The reason for this, at least in the discussions on the doorstep, when party canvassers have been trying to win votes in the local Council elections, is explicitly that a second vote would be anti-democratic.

Yet those seeking a second vote on Brexit also present two, apparently inescapable, democratic reasons why a new vote should happen. First, now that Britons face the reality of 'the deal' needed to get out of the EU, they are able to decide the reality of Brexit. This is a reality that was unavailable in the previous contention over the first referendum where all sorts of notions were presented to the public without any evidence. The second vote would therefore be more democratic than the first.

Second; the democratic weakness of the referendum campaign itself was a barrier to younger voters. The emphasis of the referendum campaign did not relate to younger people (who overwhelmingly, opposed leaving the EU but voted much less than older voters). Instead the de-facto character of the referendum campaign focused on those older voters with their dislike of a failing political class and their fear of the decline of social resources, underpinned by the impact of racist propaganda. This, according to those who want a second vote, undermined the legitimacy of the first vote because those who would be most effected by its result were least present in the traditional and essentially Tory led debate (on both sides). 

How can these 'democratic' arguments be decided against each other? Whose 'democracy' is biggest? And, more concretely, if there were a second referendum (which most polls suggest would produce a close result either way), what would be resolved? To understand this apparent conundrum it is necessary to take a step back. 

What is the true case for democracy in Britain today? It surely starts from the basic fact that Britain's democracy is, and has been for decades, a miserable thing. 'Fake news' some might call it. 

The Liberal Democrat Party managed to launch their assault designed to widen Britain's democracy from their long-standing platform of alternative voting systems. In 2011 this perfectly sensible proposal was voted on and 32% of the voters voted 'yes'. 13 million plus voters voted 'no.' The vote showed that whatever was the malaise in British politics it could not be dealt with via a new voting system - according to a vast majority of Britons - whatever its abstract and theoretical advantages. It was more the irrelevance of the issue than its errors as the UK strode into its first year of austerity that doomed its impact. 

Britain has proportionally the largest Parliament in the world. The largest part of Britain's largest Parliament is the House of Lords. 782 people play a major part in Britain's laws and none of them are voted in by anybody. Institutionally, Britain maintains, finances and allows a vast carbuncle that crushes whatever little squeak of democracy that might emerge from the aptly named 'lower house.' And yet the entire removal of the 'Lords' and their playground and their replacement by a voted Senate or a Federal House to represent the countries of the UK would not determine the critical question of Britain's democracy - however worthy such a step might be in its own right.

The absence of Britain's democracy does not lie in the voting system, although voting reform could become essential. Neither is it the removal of the 782 jokers who feed off their £300 a day expenses - although their removal would be more than a vital piece of surgery. It is something more basic. The bit of Parliament that British people can vote for do not have any power over the country's wealth or its power. Worse; it is a decision that the Members of Parliament and their Parties have made - for decades. Parliament has accepted the 'free market', the tax havens, the 'freedom' of the City of London. On and on it rolls. And that is the reason why Britain's democracy fails. And that is why millions smell something very fishy about the the political class that live there.   

While Briton's are fighting over Brexit a much greater issue has emerged that puts Brexit in its proper place. There is now a battle, led by the current Labour Party leadership, to win a government that will at least begin to reach the owners of wealth and the leaders with power and take some of their assets away - in the name of the rest of the people. If Corbyn's Labour Government emerges, Parliament will begin to face, and hopefully face down, the non elected, normally unreachable parts of society that now drive the engine of Britain's declining society. And that is the broadest and widest expansion of democracy that has been seen since 1945. 

And the Brexit vote? It is an important but secondary issue in relation to Britain's democratic future. The main concern is surely the political recomposition of the young, the old, the white collar workers and the workers without rights, the cities and the towns, the homeless and all those on the edge. Whatever the Brexit vote, the new democracy will have to bust through all the main EU economic rules. And that will be the best possible connection with Europe.