Why A.C. Grayling was Wrong about the EU Referendum

Rather like with the US presidential election, the EU Referendum in the UK continues to have a lot of sore losers who won’t accept the surprise outcome. One of these is Professor A.C. Grayling, who writes:

Those who say that Parliament can note and learn from the outcome of the 23 June advisory referendum, yet not choose to take the UK out of the EU, are accused by those who supported ‘Leave’ of being ‘anti-democratic.’ It is vital to understand why it would not be ‘anti-democratic’ for Parliament to decide to retain the UK’s EU membership. It is especially vital that our MPs should be reminded of these considerations, because the future of the UK and the EU is now wholly in their hands.

I have heard from a number of MPs who will oppose Brexit in Parliament. I have heard from a number more who say they would like to oppose it, but they are concerned about going against ‘the democratic outcome of the referendum.’ I wish to demonstrate to these latter that to treat the outcome of the referendum as binding on them is precisely undemocratic, and that the interests of the nation and its future lies in their exercising their democratic right and responsibility to oppose Brexit if that is what they believe is right for the country.

The key point about what is democratic and not democratic lies in the difference between an election and a referendum. In an election, electors confer temporary and revocable license on representatives to attend Parliament. In Parliament the electors’ representatives are required to act in the best interests of their electors, which they chiefly do by acting in the best interests of the country. They are mandated to enquire, debate and decide on legislation, and to hold the executive to account. They are not messengers or delegates charged merely with reporting or acting on their electors’ views; they are plenipotentiaries, acting by their own best lights on behalf of their electors. If they do a bad job they can be dismissed and replaced. This is representative democracy.

In the first place, he says that the referendum was “advisory”. But clearly the British Government didn’t think it was advisory when it sent a pamphlet to every voter in Britain that included the words:

eu_referendum_promise1This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

The meaning of this is perfectly clear: the Government would do whatever the people decided. It doesn’t say that the Government will take account of their advice, or the Government will think about it a bit, or the Government will come back and ask them again if they give the wrong answer. It says: The Government will implement what you decide.

But on to Grayling’s more substantive argument, which is that in a parliamentary democracy, it is for Parliament to make the decisions, and frame the laws, after “mature deliberation.”

Representative democracy is a filter that guards against descent into forms of populism. It consists in a due process intended to allow for all factors to be taken into account, and for mature deliberation to select the best way forward on the basis of those factors.

I think this is a very strong argument. What if we were to have referendums about everything? What if there was to be referendum about re-nationalising British Rail, or building a new London airport? What if any question of any substance was thrown open to the British people?

The answer must surely be that in most such matters the British people have no relevant knowledge about the pros and cons of railway nationalisation or airport construction. And furthermore neither question affects most people in Britain. The matter is best left for the mature deliberation of Parliament, assisted by various experts in the relevant fields, with any referendum regarded as merely advisory of public opinion on the matter, precisely in the manner that Grayling sets out.

But that is not the end of the matter. For the question that the British people were being asked was whether they wanted to leave or remain in the European Union, and this question was essentially whether they wished to be governed by the Westminster Parliament or by the EU Parliament in Brussels.

In what way can the Westminster Parliament answer such a question about its own sovereignty and legitimacy? It’s like asking the Metropolitan police whether there should be a police force: they can’t answer that question, because it was not they who created the police force in the first place. In the same way, Parliament cannot answer questions about its own legitimacy, because Parliament did not create itself.

The only people who can answer the question of who governs Britain are the British people. It is they, and they alone, who lend its government legitimacy. If their governance is to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels, the British people must first consent to it.

The sovereignty and legitimacy of the Westminster Parliament was established during the English Civil War (1642–1651), at which time the question the English people faced was: Do you want to be ruled by the King or your own elected Parliament? It’s the very same question that the British people are facing in 2016, but with a continental parliament as the rival to the Westminster Parliament. Back in 1642, the Royalists and the Parliamentarians squared off against each other, and fought the matter out, and the result was the triumph of the Parliamentarians, and it has remained ever thus afterwards, even though a restricted form of monarchy was re-introduced.

Now it probably would have been a lot better in 1642 if the English people had been asked in a referendum whom they wished to be governed by. It would have saved many lives. And that is the point of elections (and referendums): to resolve disputes bloodlessly. Instead of the rival armies meeting in the field, they meet at the ballot box.

But the point, back in 1642, was that neither King nor Parliament could decide which of them was the legitimate supreme sovereign power in England. Only the people could decide. And the people did decide, by force of arms.

The same happened in America in 1775, when the American people, who had hitherto been governed by Britain, determined that they wished to govern themselves, and fought a war to overthrow the British, and won. Once again, the people decided who would govern them – although no doubt there were many Americans who wished that Britain continued to exert sovereign power over the American states.

So Grayling’s case for leaving the matter to Parliament falls down when the question being asked is about the sovereignty of Parliament itself. Parliament cannot answer such questions. Only the people can decide. And that is why the results of the bloodless referendum on 23 June must be accepted as binding, however uncomfortable the result may be to many people. For if it is not accepted, then the people will be forced to impose their will in another civil war, just like in 1642 (or 1775).

Furthermore, the same question is being faced in every single member state of the EU: Do you want to govern yourselves in your own elected parliaments or assemblies, or be governed from Brussels? And I suspect that the answer in every case will be the same as the British answer: they will want to govern themselves.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Why A.C. Grayling was Wrong about the EU Referendum

  1. nisakiman says:

    Yes, well argued, Frank. The analogy with the English civil war is very apposite. One can just imagine how Oliver Cromwell would have reacted had the Cavaliers suggested that the result of the wars was ‘advisory’, and that the final decision should rest with Charles and his court.

  2. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Yes we do want to govern ourselves and also severely restrict immigration into the UK.

  3. H says:

    Amusingly, had there been a referendum in 1642, Parliament (which was as unpopular then as it is now) would almost certainly have lost. Fortunately, perhaps, Charles I was never very likely to consult the public on this or any other issue.

  4. slugbop007 says:

    It appears that President-Elect Trump wants to spend more money on space exploration. I like that. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research


  5. Alan says:

    “Representative democracy is a filter that guards against descent into forms of populism. It consists in a due process intended to allow for all factors to be taken into account, and for mature deliberation to select the best way forward on the basis of those factors.”

    Which method has also led to the political classes being able to rape the public purse for their own benefit!

  6. Clicky says:

  7. Tony says:

    I think you are right and he is completely wrong. Without claiming to be an expert on the British constitution, I reckon your comparison with the civil war is correct too. He presumably threw in a long word (plenipotentiaries) so as to seem clever and intellectual.

    I am not religious and I used to hold the British Humanist Association (BHA) and National Secular Society (NSS) in fairly high regard. A. C. Grayling is effectively their philosopher in residence or at least their favourite.

    Interested in finding out about him, I bought a book of his called ‘Liberty in the Age of Terror (A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values)’. To say it was a disappointment is an understatement. He took it for granted that we live in an age of terror unlike anything that humanity has ever experienced before. So his conclusion was simple: all liberties must be sacrificed for the sake of security. No caveats (or maybe I blinked at the wrong moment and missed his bit on defence) .

    The man is a blithering idiot. It took him a whole book to say that.

    As it happens, he was writing just after the smoking ban came in and he did state that it was considered by many as a classic example of lost liberty. But this time he was brief and simply stated that the ban was about health, was absolutely right and had nothing to do with liberty.

    At about that time, I was disgusted to discover that the guy running the Humanist’s international side was David Pollock who was a trustee of ASH and author of the revisionist history of smoking ‘Denial and Delay’.

    The National Secular Society seems little better and I now have no time for either of them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I had heard of Grayling. But didn’t know much about him. He has written for both the Guardian and New Scientist (which says rather a lot). He’s also written to all 650 MPs in parliament asking them to vote against Brexit. I’m not quite sure why he’s pro-EU, but I imagine it’s because he’s a leftie who wants the largest and most powerful state possible.

      He must have had a fit when Trump got elected!

  8. Igromyown says:

    Beware of people who initialise themselves to confer an aura of great intellect.I often find the company of two short planks more stimulating.

  9. George Speller says:

    Exactly. It’s a major constutional matter and beyond the remit of Parliament. I would have thougjt that was obvious.

  10. Supergran says:

    Who the fuck does he think he is, or any of the Remain Polititions? You find out who looks down on the voting population of this country dont you? Think we are not educated enough and they are there to guide the rabble? Pathetic. How DARE ANYONE question democratic process – especially those that are PAID and paid well, to do AS THEY ARE BID by said rabble? Makes me so angry.

  11. Supergran says:

    Politicians** whoops!

  12. margo says:

    A timely post, Frank. I voted to leave for precisely that reason – self government – and also because the more I found out about the likely future of the EU the less I wanted to be part of it. In the lead up to the vote I searched and searched for a good reason to vote Remain and completely failed to find one. All I found was, ‘We might lose some money and the EU will punish us’, or ‘I love Europe’, or ‘My life’s fine so why rock the boat?’ I’m still baffled that so many people did vote to remain.

  13. Smoking Lamp says:

    Frank, I am sad to report another case for the “Wall of Hate.” This case comes from New York City and involves a murder. The victim Joseph Communally was 26. The incident is reported at the New York Post: “Party-goer was stabbed to death after argument about cigarette.” http://nypost.com/2016/11/23/party-goer-was-stabbed-to-death-after-argument-about-cigarettes/

    • Frank Davis says:

      You may mean the Smokers’ Graveyard. But from your link, it’s not clear he was killed because he went out to buy cigarettes. He might have been killed if he went out to buy anything. Or just went out.

  14. Lamia says:

    Very good article, Frank. Grayling is an old-style elitist authoritarian snob, and this can’t be concealed by the thin sprinkling of ‘liberalism’ in his writing.

    He’s fine with democracy so long as it delivers results he finds acceptable. When it doesn’t, he stamps his foot. He’s really disgraced himself over the past nine months.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.