In March 2019, there was another protest in Britain calling for a second referendum on BREXIT. Over 1,000,000 people turned out for the “Put It to the People” march, one of the biggest demonstrations Britain has ever seen. Online, support was augmented by over 4.5 million people signing a petition.
Under the increasing call for another vote and the persistent difficulty in negotiating an exit deal, it would be tempting to simply ignore the first plebiscite and to hold another one. Supporters say that the people really didn’t understand what they were voting for and that a second referendum would more accurately assess people’s current desire. The absence of a break-up deal makes this idea even more appealing. Critics either still want to leave the EU or feel that reversing course would be bad for democracy. So who’s right?
Referendums will become an increasing component of future governance around the world. However, it takes time to learn a new system of governance. Staying with the first referendum will help the British people inculcate a rigor and a discipline that will make future referendums more refined, more honed, and perhaps more honest. Walking away now will forego that opportunity, perhaps setting back Britain’s evolution by decades.
Viewed another way: if Britain stays with the first referendum, and it works out, then all is well. If it stays with it, and it doesn’t turn out well, Britain will have learned even more from the experience. If it doesn’t stay with it, then the entire venture was a waste of time and effort—and a missed opportunity. Britain can get ahead of the curve by staying with it. In fact, abiding by the first referendum, in the long-term, is more important than being a part of the EU, despite the trouble that separation portends.
References:
Washington Post, “Marchers in London call for do-over Brexit referendum,” 24 Mar 2019, A19.
No responses yet