Theodore Dalrymple weighs in on the farcical controversy surrounding Boris Johnson´s decision to suspend the British Parliament at the beginning of September in his Law and Liberty column. In the standard left-liberal and EU response to a lost referendum or election, it was the majority that got it wrong and, therefore, there must be another referendum—or referenda—until those silly, ignorant voters get it right. Once again, democracy is a glorious gift as long as the unwashed masses vote the way their neo-liberal, globalist overlords wish them to vote. Classic Dalrymple.
To hold a referendum, or plebiscite, and then ignore the result is now a European tradition, but to call it a democratic procedure is surely to twist the word beyond any possible meaning.
The protesters against Mr. Johnson’s manoeuvre are not trying to defend parliamentary democracy, about which they do not give a fig: what they are protesting against is that the votes of those persons whom they consider ignorant, uneducated, prejudiced, xenophobic, and so forth, have a chance of being taken seriously, indeed as seriously as their own. This is an outrage to their dignity.
The referendum question was binary, “leave or remain”. There was no option of partially leave, and so it was actually “remain or leave without a deal”, since any deal results in a partial leave. The government and Parliament, in the last three years should have been assessing and discussing the issues that a full departure presents, not arguing about whether to leave.
The recent shenanigans in Parliament have been excellent pantomime, but appalling democracy.
Never mind whether it is a put down of a “silly ignorant electorate “or not
There was a blank space in the Referendum where everyone could fill in what leaving the EU would involve in practise according to their own desires
Maybe most voters would approve crashing out-maybe not
But now we know what the alternatives are I don’t see why people should not be asked what they want.
The meaning of Leave was stated with clarity by Mr. Cameron as no CU, no SM and no legal primacy for the ECJ. That he said it in order to frighten many into voting Remain is, ultimately, an irrelevance to its exactitude. The vote was a binary and non-contingent choice. The Government had abrogated the choice to the electorate, relinquishing its sovereignty in the matter, and has no moral right to interfere, in any way, with the implementation that it guaranteed, nor any tight to arrogate back to itself the decision making power.