Below is a list of just some of the reasons why Professor Grayling is urging Parliament not to act upon the referendum:
·
The Referendum is not legally binding
·
Rule by crowd is a poor method of
government
·
Major questions surround the information
given and promises made by campaign groups before the referendum vote
·
The votes of the younger generation should
be given most weight
It’s true that the
referendum result holds no weight in terms of imposing a legal duty but it does
impose a moral duty on Parliament. To suggest otherwise, is to rely on the
dated theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty, first argued by Dicey over 100 years
ago, with the belief that Parliament is all powerful. A counter (and
modernised) argument to this would be that the legitimacy for Parliament to be
the supreme legislator comes from the constitutional principle of democracy.
Therefore, democracy not only gives Parliament its legitimacy, but it also
dictates the limits of Parliament’s powers. In deciding to hold a referendum,
Parliament should be seen to be temporarily offering up their sovereignty to
the will of the people. This is what Professor Grayling has described as ‘rule
by crowd’, implying that the decision to leave the EU is too important to be
left to the masses. At this point I would like to point out that ‘rule by crowd’
or ‘mob rule’ should not carry the usual negative connotations when it is
voluntarily given by a more powerful Parliament. In order for mob rule to
exist, there must first be a wholly democratic system in place. One could even
argue that the British system is not yet wholly democratic, with elections only
carried out at four year intervals and a media swayed by political allegiances.
Another reason as to why referendum result must be upheld for moral reasons and
why rule by crowd in this instance is effective is because the decision to hold
a referendum signals a weak government and a weak government is not fit to
govern. Although many financial experts agreed that the UK should vote to
remain, many politicians were divided, even within the Conservative Party. When
Government is divisive, the next best method is to listen to the masses.
Another point made by
Professor Grayling was that in the circumstances, questions remain regarding
the information and promises made by both leave and remain campaign. It would
not be right to punish the 52% of voters who voted leave because they were
failed by their Government. It is the Government’s duty to provide information
and much like general elections, voters are betrayed by promises made by
political campaign groups which they do not keep. Therefore, whether in the
original decision to hold a referendum or the poorly prepared campaign groups,
the blame is on the UK Government.
The final point that I have
deliberately chosen to focus on is Professor Grayling’s claim that the younger
generations vote should be given most weight. The first issue with this is that
it is not practically possible to do so. To what extent should these votes be considered
more valuable? At what age is someone considered to be a young voter? Secondly,
Professor Grayling’s comments are an insult to anyone who voted leave by
suggesting that they didn’t have their children, grand-children or countries
best interests at heart. He is also making the assumption that the majority of
young people who failed to vote would have wanted to remain in the EU. This is
not a fair assumption and dealing with hypothetical votes is a weak argument.
What Professor
Grayling is ultimately suggesting is that in this instance aristocracy is a
better form of government than ochlocracy. However, what must be recognised is that the greatest result of
the EU referendum is the record breaking amount of people involving themselves
with politics. To ignore the result of a monumental referendum would discourage
people from future engagement in politics and prove that democracy is as far
away as ever. It must be recognised that just as there are occasions when
referendums are held, there is also times of extreme aristocracy that the
public has no say in such as budget cuts or the decisions to take military action
against Syria and Iraq. The use of both systems of government are effective at
different times and referendums or ‘mob rule’ can be used occasionally in order
to keep Parliament in check and to maintain a balanced democracy.
The original letter addressed to all MP's is available here:
https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/
