How to Hijack a Referendum
Let me paint an absurd picture. Imagine that it’s 24th June 2016, the day after the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and, counterfactually, ‘Remain’ wins by a margin of 52–48. The government immediately proceeds with an application to join Schengen, the single currency Euro, and moves to join the fast-track towards a United States of Europe.
Why not? There must be some sliver of Remain voters who voted for the whole hog. Could it not be argued that by proceeding in this manner, the government is simply executing on the will of the people?
Absurd as it may seem, the binary nature of referendums lend themselves to political ‘pyramid schemes’ where a small sliver of say 12% can claim to speak for 52% and impose that view on 100%.
Let me explain.
It is true that 52% of people who voted, voted to leave the European Union. Brexit means Brexit. So let’s unpack what it is that Brexit means. There are at least two dimensions to it. What did we vote for? And what price are we prepared to pay for it?
We often hear that people voted for more control over our money, our borders and our laws. At a general level, this is hard to dispute. Who wouldn’t want more control? Which takes us to the second question: at what cost?
Arguably, there are at least five groups of people behind the Brexit vote — all perfectly legitimate:
1. Those who voted to leave at any cost. For these people it’s much more than economics; it’s about identity, patriotism, independence, perhaps a harkening back to the glory days of the Commonwealth for some. They are not driven by probabilistic forecasting or the likelihood of economic scenarios. As long as there is ascenario in which we can make it work, we should rally around it. Everything else is Project Fear. It is almost a point of principle that we should leave the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. ASAP.
2. Then there are those who voted to leave at some cost. Many are genuinely concerned about the speed and nature of immigration and what it means for public services. They are happy to pay some amount to gain control over the border. It is possible that many of them hold no ideological opposition to the European Court of Justice.
3. Thirdly, there are those who voted to leave at no cost. What are we waiting for? Isn’t it like a Pay-As-You-Go mobile phone contract? Why can’t we just walk away, start making our own laws and strike trade deals with third parties straight off the bat?
4. Fourth, there are those who voted to leave at no cost and receive an immediate windfall, possibly in the form of £350 million per week for the NHS.
5. Finally, there are those who voted Leave not necessarily to leave (or expecting Leave to win) but as a vote of protest against domestic issues — social dislocations, fiscal austerity etc. After all, this was an advisory vote and what better way to send a message to the establishment!
Once you bring costs into the equation, it is clear that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is not a unidimensional challenge.
How do we apportion weights to each of the five forces behind the vote to Leave? I don’t know and I am open to suggestions and/or empirical evidence. What we should not do is attribute weights based on the decibel level of those speaking for each section.
To illustrate the framework, I would postulate an equal weight of 10 percentage points to each of #2 to #5 and a slightly higher weight of 12 points to #1 to help take the total to 52. This is what it looks like in tabular form:
The job of leadership is to reflect the spectrum of views in the 52% and ideally, create a shared narrative that also appeals to some in the remaining 48%. What it should not do is succumb to the classic design-flaw of referendums where a sliver of 10% or 12% can hijack the votes of 52% and impose it on 100%.
END
Written as a draft strawman and discussion-starter.
