Would a referendum be legitimate when there is a so important part of their core message that is misleading? Could it be democratic to go for a 2d referendum? And then…. how we handle with the expectations of Leave voters? These and many other questions arise when we see the consequences of a referendum lead by lack of transparency and ambiguous leadership. Leaders as Boris Johnson or Theresa May exposure a twofold message from the very beginning, including going against their own principles and statements about the European Union years before: “If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognize that most of our problems are not caused by ‘Bwussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.” B. Johnson exposure the truth on an impeccable way and a solid knowledge of British reality. As well as T. May: “….if we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade”.
Both leaders were aware of the conditions and consequences for an exit, however ,leading –funding- by private interests, mainly hedge funds, they embarked on a long way that included racism and nationalist bigotry; making of Leave campaign an act of euphoria and confrontation. When feelings instead of rational reactions make decisions the energy come down very fast and the reality of a dead-end street come about.
Only a 2d referendum can fix the process with the European Union, although not the damages done within the British society. The determined from Brexit leaders should be accompanied by the responsibility of the irreversible consequences of these in-depth fractures.
Is it clear now, especially after “Peoples vote March” in London, last October, that there is an important number of people that are against Brexit, not precisely a majority but enough citizens that are demanding a 2d referendum. In addition that some of them are former Leave voters.
According to recent poll, 2.6 million voters have switched to Remain. Even if we could eventually think that this is just the reaction of a group of indecisive voters the same is happening in Parliament, that more than 100 Westminster constituencies are supporting Remain after Brexit*.
We cannot take it for granted the impact of failed negotiations, broken promises, a general lack of transparency and the establishment of a hateful environment. It really creates an impact and it transforms the solemnity of a referendum into the irresponsible swindle of private interests and a hidden nationalist agenda based on racism, xenophobia and anti-multicultural values.
All positions are “democratic” and legally correct: 1.- those that vote Leave and want to keep the results despite failure on negotiations and mainly on leadership and transparency; 2.- those that vote Remain, 3.- those that vote Leave but fell betrayed by what T. May concludes as: “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”.
However, a serious breach of trust embraces all of them and results on a no democratic referendum that does not reflect the will of a majority of citizens but a consequence of no responsible political performance from leaders. Indeed, a biased and no transparent message that undermines the own nature of a democratic process as a referendum.
A 2d referendum represents the consolidation of that claim for transparency and accountability from political leaders.
It becomes essential to make sure that euphoria and hate was not the motive for voting for Leave but an in-depth certainty that getting out of the European Union will empower British citizens and the Nation in itself. Actually the challenge is not to get out of the European Union but how, at what price and if it truly represents the will of a majority of citizens.
There is a big and complex issue for addressing: the own legitimacy of a referendum when citizens have been deceived. Is it true, a consultation in which the people vote pacifically may not undermine any citizenship´s rights, however, what happened when no accountable leaders with a no transparent message made the people vote against their own interests and will? It results on the paradox of a vote with no guarantees, therefore: no democratic.
Wrong promises as NHS or great economic growth were among the main euphoria messages, however about the latest, there is a forecast that UK ´ll have the weakest growth of all European countries over the next two years.Which means much more than an ideological perspective of leading with crises but simple no transparent messages coming from biased interests. Taking into account that hedge funds were the main source of funding for Leave campaign.
Even if there is a responsibility to respect a legal referendum as the maximum expression of democracy and people´s will, is it also true that when leaders are not delivering results -and are not able to fulfil their promises and goals – their must be held accountable and a referendum becomes the least expression of democracy.
More than the chaos generated by failure on negotiations, distrust from a global and European political perspective, the “killing” of a multicultural British society and its values, there is something much worse: a loss on democracy.
Is time for a strong political leadership able to revert part of this chaotic stage in which there is no coherence even for Leave voters. If the idea is a “new life” for UK, so, lets use all the resources to make democracy wins within a frame of strict fulfilment of citizen´s will not just Brexiters upside down sense of patriotism and bigotry.