On Brexit the idea of being objective can feel like an oxymoron, so entrenched are the views on each side. But what if we were able to put our personal views about the result to one side and consider the objective case for a referendum? Would it stand up to scrutiny? A variety of arguments are given or insinuated . Let’s run through them in turn.
Vote Leave cheated and lied
Chatter about the wronging of Brexiteers has been a consistent theme since, and even before, the 2016 referendum. There was of course the famously incorrect £350m a week NHS spending promise painted on Boris' battle bus, followed by the later revelations about spending rules and payments to Cambridge Analytica. While the £350m figure was clearly misleading, the point it made about UK net contributions to the EU budget (modest in the grand scheme as they are) was not untrue. While violations of spending rules are serious matters, they do not themselves negate the result of a free vote. Using Cambridge Analytica and micro-targeting was not illegal, the way the money was handled that was. So while such talk may be cathartic for remainers, these discretions do not make the way 17 million people voted illegitimate.
Voters were ill-informed
Another common refrain is that an issue so difficult as our relationship with the EU should never have been put to a public which could not be expected to understand a matter of such complexity. Not only is this view a hugely patronising one, it also stands up to no scrutiny at all. How many people understand, for example, the rail system well enough to judge if re-nationalisation would work in practice, or if the Government's T-level reforms are the right approach to vocational education? Few of course, and it's not their job to. You could make this argument about any democratic vote.
It's more democratic to vote again
It is of course true to say that democracy does not stop at one vote, and that by its nature it allows for people to change their minds - as they have so many times on political parties and leaders. However with general elections there is a clear expectation of another vote in no more than five years. Yes, there are circumstances where one would be needed sooner; but these are clear from the outset. It was also clear from the outset that the referendum was generational, with no chance of a re-run anytime soon. Indeed David Cameron said so during the campaign. So an appeal that the public has the right to change its mind needs a different justification. Something big needs to have changed. Has it?
We now know things we didn't
Many argue that events since 2016 necessitate a second vote. They point to rising inflation, low growth, issues on the Northern Irish boarder and difficult negotiations as evidence that the public should be given the chance to think again. While most would accept that an extreme change of circumstances or new things coming to light might justify a second referendum, these changes just aren't strong enough. More importantly, all were addressed extensively before the referendum and did not change the result. We may not like the consequences of the choice made, but the public were warned and took it anyway.
We didn't vote on a destination and Parliament can't deliver one
There is one thing, of course, that was never definitively set out, or decided, during the referendum campaign. What kind of relationship Britain would have with the EU once it left. How do we know the so called 'will of the people' on the details of Brexit? In addition, it is said that we now know much more about what the terms of Brexit are. They have become slowly (if modestly) clearer with the Government’s agreement with the EU of the Withdraw Agreement and Political Declaration. There is a strong case that the public should be given a say on these. This argument is strengthened by Parliament's failure to agree its interpretation of the Brexit the public want or, as yet, any constructive way forward. A referendum starts to look increasingly like the only way to break the deadlock.
Remain on the ballot?
The difficulty of these arguments is that they make a convincing case for the public to have a say, but not to overturn the past result. The public knew that they were voting to leave the EU, even if not the future they were voting for. The logical conclusion of that is to hold a vote on the kind of Brexit the country wants, not to re-run whether we want Brexit at all. Indeed, if you examine the polling on support for a second referendum, the public appear to take a similar view. While there is broad support for a People's Vote, that only holds as long as Remain is not the ballot.
Remain at all costs?
In the end then, support for second referendum is not based on objective arguments about the legitimacy of a second vote. It is based on the belief that Brexit will be a terrible thing for this country, a view I share. Yet, an equal and opposite belief is held by the other side. While there may be an objective case for the real economic damage that could occur from Brexit, there is an equal risk that those who voted leave will feel an immense sense of betrayal if a second vote is called, the ramifications of which are unknowable. So the case for having Remain on the ballot again continues to be an ideological rather than objective one.