What are the potential consequences of a People’s Vote?

I want to start off by saying that at the beginning of the year, I was incredibly receptive to the idea of a People’s Vote due to my pure desperation to stop Brexit. Whilst at the time I believed it to be a legitimate scenario in which the (No) Deal would be fully presented and laid out to the public, I fail to see the Government legitimately considering that notion and see the potential ramifications and precedent set for the future as inconceivable.


Firstly, I genuinely fail to believe that Government will be prepared to present the full negotiation and deal with the Public. The nation has been divided based upon their desire to Remain or Leave and I believe that a People’s Vote will only enhance and intensify the clash between the two ideologies in the future. When I open my Twitter newsfeed, I am bombarded with #FBPE retweets arguing, with much evidence, as to why leaving the EU would negatively impact the nation and I can only see the rivalry between the two divisions increasing if a People’s Vote were to be called. Brexit has become a highly politicised issue and there is a genuine disbelief among Remainers that Brexiteers are delusional. Therefore, if the Government were to be logical and rational in this decision, the potential for civil unrest, which would be highly undesirable, means that the Government would be concerned at the potential disobedience caused in calling a People’s Vote.


However, the Government may also be political about this and see the idea that each and every clause will be inspected by each division, resulting in mass criticism from both sides of the spectrum towards the negotiations. Whilst a publication of this size would be beneficial to businesses globally, the conflict and criticism that would arise would be detrimental to the Conservative Party and so, in that scenario, the Government would be wise to not publish the entire deal.


My next point is actually the one I believe most strongly on, the idea that the people of this nation can reverse a common plebiscite held sets a vigorously dangerous precedent. The pure concept of being able to revisit a previous political decision so far in the future and correct what you believe was a misplaced vote can only cause trouble for the future. Not only does it place less importance and meaning on the initial vote itself, it sets out the idea that you don’t have to be fully aware of the facts for the first vote itself because you can just delay yourself being knowledgeable towards the facts until the second vote. Furthermore, if you believe you have made a mistake in the initial vote, you would then proceed with tunnel vision should there be another vote in terms of which way you would vote. This then reduces the political discussion that is so vital in these plebiscites as you are then predetermining your vote years in advance. Even worse, you could then elect a party in x years and decide you made the wrong call so in x + 2 years you demand another General Election. Without being too extreme, it creates this idea of flexibility around politics that can ultimately lead to instability. The instability caused would amount to a constitutional crisis, should the UK ever have one, and the precedent set means that vote now matters less than it did back then.


Now some of you might cite Denmark and Ireland’s multiple votes on EU membership/legislation but for Denmark, the second vote was held less than a year after the first, regarding the Maastricht Treaty, and contained key alterations of the deal in which Denmark had more opt-outs. This type of plebiscite is different from the proposed People’s Vote is that it acts to correct a certain mistake made in the original plebiscite rather than propose an alternative – which happened in Denmark. Likewise, in Ireland, controversial issues that arose during the debate on the first plebiscite were adjusted and rectified in a latter form and this just isn’t the case for the UK – and yes I am aware that were original modifications made to the EU deal during Cameron’s time but that bears no resemblance to anything proposed by May or her party that it is incorrect to compare the two.


Look, I sympathise with all that want to stop Brexit however, there was a democratic wish back in 2016 to leave and that must be respected. As an analogy I use frequently, should the electorate wish to elect extremists, then extremists you have as your Government. The democratic will of the people must be obeyed.


And if you enjoyed this blog post, please leave a comment and let me know so I can make more in the future :)