Imagine if Yes had won the Scottish independence
referendum in 2014 by 52% to 48%. There would have been much celebrating and
there would have been the expectation that soon Scotland would be independent.
Imagine however if someone resident in Scotland, but
born in England had been so horrified by the result that they brought a court
case to the High Court in London. Imagine if the person bringing the
court case was from Australia or indeed South America. How would this have gone down in Scotland?
Suppose that the High Court said that the decision
in fact lay with the UK Parliament, the majority of whom opposed Scottish independence.
Imagine if this UK Parliament so watered down Scottish independence that the UK
Parliament retained sovereignty over the whole of Great Britain. Imagine if the UK Parliament, despite the Yes vote in Scotland, ruled that the Scottish Parliament was to remain subordinate.
What would you think about this? I oppose Scottish
independence, but let us be absolutely clear, such an action on the part of the
UK Parliament would be an absolute disgrace. It would mean that we no longer
lived in a democracy.
This is exactly what happened on Thursday November 3rd
2016, when the High Court in London ruled that the UK Parliament can in effect
overturn the result of the EU referendum. They could, for instance, vote to
prevent Article 50 being triggered. What is to stop them? Alternatively they could make “leaving” the
EU in effect the same as remaining.
If this remains the case, then any future referendum
on Scottish independence would be utterly pointless. The UK Parliament could
simply overrule it or water it down so as to be meaningless. The same indeed
goes for any other referendum that may be called in the future. Why ask the
people at all if you can simply overrule what they say?
I am in favour of representative democracy as
opposed to direct democracy. We could all have little buttons on our computers which
enabled us to decide everything democratically each evening. But this is a
recipe for poor government. But we must
have direct democracy on two occasions. The first is when we have elections.
The second is when we have referendums.
We the people appoint MPs to rule in our place. They
are our delegates because we hope they have the time and competence to take
decisions for us. But in any democracy the source of power is the people. It is
for this reason that Parliament governs with our consent. If this were not the case,
we would live in a tyranny.
During elections and during referendums we briefly
have direct democracy. The people can choose who they will. No-one can stop us
electing this candidate rather than that one. So too during a referendum our
choice is free. We can pick either option. This choice is not mediated
through our parliamentary representatives, in the same way that our choice of
these MPs in the first place is not mediated. It is a direct choice.
Imagine if the 650 MPs after an election decided
that they were not going anywhere. What if they refused to recognise the
result? After all being in Parliament is pleasant. Who wants to lose? Imagine
if there were a court case that said that those MPs who had lost their seats
could vote in Parliament to Remain. What would this mean? It would mean that we
were no longer living in a democracy.
The same is the case with a referendum. Parliament
ceded authority briefly to the people to choose. This is the purpose of having
a referendum. If Parliament refuses to accept the result, if it declares that
it is merely advisory, then it is the same as if it were treating a General Election as
merely advisory.
When Parliament refuses to recognise the will of the
people then the people have no legitimate means of changing the law. Under
those circumstances the law lacks the consent of the people. The people are
then justified in following the principles set out in the United States
Declaration of Independence. They can seek a new form of government and they
can seek to achieve this by force if necessary. I am, of course, not suggesting this for the reasons set out in the Declaration. There must be patience and all other means must be exhausted. But ignoring the will of the people is a serious matter. Let none of us treat this matter lightly.
Theresa May has done fairly well as a Prime
Minister, but we are paying the price for a Conservative leader who was neither
a Remainer nor a Leaver. She lacked conviction on the only issue of
importance of our time. It is this above all that has led her to make a major
error. She should have triggered Article 50 as soon as she became Prime
Minister. Cameron could have done so. So could she. All we need to do is to tell the EU we are leaving. There is nothing
to negotiate. "We are happy to trade
freely with you, but if you don’t want to reciprocate, it’s your loss. Bye."
What May should do now is prepare a debate at the nearest
convenient opportunity. The debate should be on her right to trigger Article 50
whenever she pleases and in whatever way she wants. There should be no need to
tell Parliament any more than that.
There should be a three line whip on Tory MPs. Any
Tory who votes against the Government should lose the Whip and face deselection
by his or her local party. If Theresa May loses this vote she should treat it
as a vote of no confidence in her Government and should go once more to the
people in a General Election.
Too many people whether in Scotland or other parts
of the UK are unwilling to accept the result of democratic referendums. This
has gone on long enough. It is dangerous. It is a threat to our democracy. If
you are a democrat, it is time to metaphorically prepare to man the barricades whether you
supported Leave or Remain. This is not about what democratic decision you made,
but whether you have the right to make it at all.
There is nothing I like less than the idea of
Scottish independence, but if this idea were supported by a democratic majority
in a legal referendum I would fight for the right of the majority be upheld.
If Remain had won the EU referendum and was threatened by a Parliamentary coup
to leave the EU, I would likewise fight to uphold the will of the people to
Remain. This transcends political division. Either you believe in democracy or you
don't.
