Is a second EU Referendum undemocratic?

Question

People often say a second referendum is undemocratic.

The first referendum was partially based on incorrect/dishonest information. After over two years of the general public viewing the government dealing with Brexit, people's views may have changed dramatically.

Also, a referendum is just a representation of public opinion that the Government can take into consideration, not a final vote.

The whole point of democracy is to represent the people's views in Government, right?

With these things considered, why do people refer to a second referendum as undemocratic?

Answer 1

Very few people voted for "leave" or "remain" per se. Instead, there are goals that they believed would be achieved by leaving the EU or by remaining in the EU, they thought about which goals were most important to them, and voted to achieve their most important goals.

There are two problems: One, the consequences of leaving were not completely understood. At an extreme, the problem with the Northern Ireland border was not something I saw mentioned before the referendum or actually quite a while afterwards (I am told that people in Northern Ireland were aware and wer laughed off). And two, the outcome of negotiations of a "leave" deal were not understood. Whether the leave campaigners lied, or whether they were overly optimistic, or whether negotiators were just incompetent, the "leave" deal is nothing like what "leave" voters expected.

So now, more than two years later, the consequences of "Leave" are much better understood. So the question is: Is it undemocratic to have a second referendum, where people can have a vote based on a much better understanding on the consequences?

There is another question that can be asked: Is it democratic to make a decision that will have a very long term effect based on a small minority, when the natural change of demographics alone would have created a different decision only a few years later?

When you say "people often say it is undemocratic", you will find that most or all of those people are people who still want to leave, for whatever reason, and who want to avoid anything that could derail Brexit. Among them are lots of people who said openly that they would want another referendum if Brexit had failed. So people making the claim it is undemocratic mostly do that for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, but with achieving the result they want.

I would say there is nothing undemocratic about repeating the referendum with a much more informed public, who understands the consequences of their vote much better, plus more of the future generations who are mostly affected by this will have the ability to vote.

Answer 2

In indirect (representative) democracies, referendums (being expressions of direct democracy) are to be organized for decisions that will affect the country for a long time. So long and so importantly, that the representatives return temporarily power back to the citizens for the decision, either because they recognize the right of the citizens to make a direct decision for such a critical matter, or because they just want to avoid taking that decision themeselves. Even if "officially" a referendum is not binding for the government, it is very difficult for a government to go against it.

It follows that when a referendum is organized, the citizens and voters should give a very long thought on how they will vote, trying to envision how the country will evolve by going one way, or the other. And I don't mean that in any narrow way, like trade for example. The "rules of the game" here are "Vote for the long term" -not for a few years as in parliamentary elections.

So I can understand in what sense somebody would say that it is "undemocratic" to have a 2nd referendum on the matter: we would violate the agreement that the vote was for the long term, the agreement on which the first referendum was based.

Does this imply that the matter is necessarily settled for say, "a generation" or something like that?

No. Because there is a situation that makes a 2nd referendum "democratic" even if so early after the first: if the society somehow realizes, say through repeated wide polling and repeated events, demonstrations, etc, that a majority of the citizens consistently want to have a 2nd referendum. In such a case, we "nullify" an instance of direct democracy (the 1st referendum) with another instance of direct democracy (the majority of public opinion favoring a 2nd referendum, and showing it in the pubic sphere repeatedly and in an unmistakable way).

Answer 3

You tagged your question with brexit-related tags, but you ask it in a general way. So let me give you a few thoughts, from brexit to generic:

• There was a referendum on EU membership in 1975. A snarky answer could be that if a second referendum on an issue is acceptable, then a third referendum must be acceptable as well.
• It is not clear if the UK could retract the Article 50 declaration. It is clear that there are only four months left to do it if they can. That makes any new referendum now a slap-dash proposition.
• Just how binding is a referendum, and on whom? While it was not legally binding, politically many significant actors committed themselves to abide by the results. Ignoring it was (and is) seen as a politically risky.
  • What would be the options on the ballot? It seems clear to me that there is no majority for a hard Brexit, or for no Brexit, or for any one option in between.
  • If there was an overwhelming majority in public opinion for one of the options, it would become politically feasible (possibly even politically advantageous) to ignore the non-binding referendum.
  • I also wonder if the EU would want the UK back with all the old opt-outs and special exceptions after all this drama.
• It is usually a bad idea when a political system tries to bind future voters and leaders to a particular course of action. What voters decide now, voters in the future can override.
  • One could try to rank a direct referendum higher than a vote for legislators, so only another referendum can overturn referendum results. Then the ability to hold a new referendum would be a necessity, or the only way to overturn it would be a revolution.
  • One could make a referendum only binding until the next general election, arguing that the new batch of legislators represents a more current poll of the voters' opinion than the old referendum result.
• It is incredibly dangerous to invalidate a referendum or election because of "dishonest" campaigning. Who makes that call? The government? A judge? Pretty soon any campaign flyers would have to be vetted by the "Ministry of Truth" ...
  Much better to leave the debunking to the other side. If they fail to uncover the lies, or if the voters vote for the lies anyway, so be it.

Answer 4

To answer your question, consider a simple follow-up question: If a second referendum is held, and Remain win, and then Leave allege that this win was based on incorrect/dishonest information, do you then propose a third referendum? Once you answer that question, you will understand why the call for a second referendum is undemocratic.

This kind of do-over democracy has a long and sordid history, and has been a common political tactic used by elite groups seeking to implement a major social change irrespective of the wishes of the electorate. The basic method of do-over democracy is simple: hold a vote on a desired policy or social change; if the vote goes your way, treat it as eternal and immutable; if it goes against you, treat it as transitory and illegitimate, and hold a new replacement vote as soon as possible. Rinse and repeat until the "correct" outcome is obtained.

With these things considered, why do people refer to a second referendum as undemocratic?

It is likely that people are familiar with the history of this tactic, and recognise it in the present calls for a do-over vote on Brexit. Most observers are perfectly well aware that the elite institutions of the UK were activists for the Remain position, and that the the same "do-over" would not be afforded to Leave if Remain had won the first referendum, and Leave had made analogous accusations of dishonesty (which incidentally, they have).

Answer 5

The whole point of democracy is to represent the people's views in Government, right?

The whole point of democracy is as a theatre that tells the story that "the people" control "the government" and so the people are in a sense free to represent their views in the government they choose. Or in this case in the referendum decision they make

The set of actions and consequences that we call democracy is a collective decision-making method. Everyone has a vote. The choice with the most votes is the one that is acted on. The choices themselves are not set by the voters but by participating the voters accept responsibility for the choices.

In the UK usually, the choice is for one of two political parties in a general election. In the case of the referendum, it was Brexit or not Brexit

In both cases, the actual choice on offer does not represent "people's views". It's difficult to imagine how a system as simple as a binary choice could ever do that

However, the need to keep the illusion going that people control their own destiny and a valid decision to take responsibility has been made is there. So it's important that the original referendum is acted upon

If there is no action and then just another referendum then the essential part of democracy - of acting on the choice - is missing and so democracy is not served

Having another referendum instead of carrying out the Brexit project is anti-democratic for this reason