Brexit: Case for a Second Referendum

Baroness King of Bow Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness King of Bow]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made an assessment of the case for holding a second referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

My Lords, let me begin by making one thing very plain. At this point in time, it is the will of the British people to leave the European Union. Therefore, negotiations on Brexit must take place. Once they conclude and the shape and meaning of Brexit become clear, at that point it is only fair and democratic that the British people accept or reject the final deal. The problem is that at the moment we have no idea when the deal will be made—even if it will be made—or what it will include. To borrow a phrase, we know nothing.

David Cameron repeatedly said that if he lost the referendum vote he would trigger Article 50 for Britain to leave the EU. Well, he did not trigger Article 50 but he did trigger a series of events that may well lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and the impoverishment of its people.

Let us turn to the British people. They voted by a narrow margin to leave the EU, but many British people—possibly the majority; possibly even the majority in this House—were unaware of the far-reaching consequences of the EU referendum. After all, they were asked, “Do you want to leave the EU?”, not, “Do you want to break up the UK?”. This likely outcome was not articulated clearly by either side during the referendum campaign. This brings us back to the central problem. After the dust has settled, in the immediate aftermath of the referendum vote, we do not know what we voted for. We have no idea.

Did we vote to leave the EU but stay in the single market? A lot of people who campaigned and voted for Brexit, including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, say that was what they were fighting for. Really? Well, we are not going to get that unless we accept free movement of people. That has been made very plain by EU leaders. Although the remain camp accepts free movement of people, many in the leave camp do not; in fact, that was why many of them voted to leave. In many of those forgotten British towns that have been left to struggle on their own—like Don Valley in the north, Ebbsfleet and Thurrock in the south and Ebbw Vale and Gwent in Wales—a lot of people who voted to leave said that they did so because they wanted to restrict free movement of people. They voted for something that will probably never happen, so they have already been deceived. At least let them have the final say when they know what the cost is.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does she not think it may be perceived as being somewhat patronising to suggest that people did not know what they were voting for when they voted in the referendum? Would it not be better for this unelected House to say, “The people have spoken, whether we like it or not”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness King of Bow]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. He called me his noble friend and I regard him as mine. I will come on specifically to what I think the role of this unelected House is. It is absolutely fair to say that most people did not realise that the EU referendum and the Brexit vote would trigger the chain of events that have happened so far. Our economy is in crisis, major companies are lining up at this moment to leave and jobs are flooding out. People did not realise that there would be those consequences, and the main reason why they did not know is that the architects of the campaign themselves did not know what the final deal would be that they were voting on. It is that point that I am bringing before the House today.

As I was saying, after only two weeks a new opinion poll released yesterday showed massive voter remorse in Wales, precisely because they did not realise what they were voting for. According to this opinion poll—although I agree that we cannot always trust polls— Wales has changed its mind. If there were a second referendum, Wales would now opt to stay in the EU by a margin of 52% to 47%. Notwithstanding that apparent change of heart, it would be entirely illegitimate for Parliament to thwart the will of the British people by voting down Brexit—something that the noble Lord will know has been raised in the other place. It would be entirely illegitimate to do that even if leave’s key claims were untrue—and it transpires now that many of them are.

It is, however, entirely legitimate for Parliament to ask the British people to review their vote, as it has monumental consequences for our country’s future that were not discussed during the referendum campaign itself. Governments are constantly asked to reconsider their legislation, whether by judicial review or legislative amendments in the Commons or the Lords. In the same way that Governments must often vote on their legislation a second time, I do not see why citizens should not do the same. Like Governments, they are quite entitled to vote the same way if they choose, but it should be their choice.

In these extraordinary circumstances, the House of Lords should fulfil its constitutional role, which is to require legislators to pause, reflect and vote again. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have no elected authority; our only role is to scrutinise the decisions of those with democratic authority—in this case, the British people—to bring more facts to their attention and to ask them to review their decision. Do they still believe that it is the right thing to do?

But if there is a second referendum, here is a note of warning to all in the remain camp: it will lose again unless we have a very clear plan to spread economic opportunity beyond affluent groups and affluent areas. We should reflect on one point above all: our current constitutional crisis is built on Britain’s inequality. Losing Britain’s position as the world’s fifth largest economy—incidentally, something that took place within 24 hours of the Brexit vote; we slipped from fifth to sixth—is meaningless to those who do not even have a toehold in our economy. Why should they care? They voted for change. The problem is that the change they voted for can only make the situation worse for those cities and communities that have been abandoned. Making Britain poorer cannot help Britain’s poorest communities. Shamefully, making Britain richer did not help them, either—or not enough. That is why we should thank the leave campaign for illuminating an inescapable truth: if we do not radically change our economy to provide opportunity for all of Britain, not just metropolitan Britain, our country as we know it will cease to exist and our identity as a tolerant, influential, outward-facing people will vanish.

In summary, in terms of what I am asking parliamentarians to do, if they believe that citizens have voted for something that threatens the future prosperity and fundamental integrity of the UK, they must tell them what they routinely tell the British Government: pause, reflect and vote again, once we know what they are being asked to vote on. Today parliamentarians will not play that role, but it does not really matter what they say today—it is what they say once Brexit is negotiated. This is the most important peacetime challenge that Britain has ever faced—certainly the most important in my lifetime—and, incredibly, we do not have a plan. Basically, the remain camp had no plan B and the leave camp had no plan A. Instead, what have we got? Oliver Letwin, the new Brexit Minister—or, as one journalist described him today, “the Wizard of Brexit”. The curtain has been pulled back to reveal—a disappointment. He can say whatever he wants but that will not make it any more believable.

Our economic prospects are fading. Since Brexit, as we know, the pound has crashed to a 30-year low and innumerable large companies are moving their workforces out. The political prospects of sorting this out are ebbing away almost as quickly as the strength of the pound—and in the meantime, hate crime is on the rise. We are turning into a country that we do not recognise. Last week a Member of this House told me that a friend of hers, a white man, was stopped in his car by a group of men. They asked him threateningly, “What language do you speak?”. “English,” he said, “I’m English”. “Well, that’s all right then,” they said, and drove away. As someone who has campaigned around issues of xenophobia for years, I have to ask what this country is coming to when white Englishmen have to put up with racism. Of course we expect black British people to put up with it—it has been like that for ever and a day—but not white Englishmen. Whatever next? The genie is out of the bottle. We need to protect our tolerant society in every way we can.

That is why I brought this debate: to ask if the Government had made an assessment of the case for a second referendum. I know that the Minister will stand up and say, “Yes, we have made an assessment and no, there will be no second referendum”. I simply say that politicians often eat their words: look at David Cameron and Article 50, Nigel Farage saying that migration would be brought down, and Boris Johnson claiming that £350 million more a week would be available for the NHS. Then let us look at ourselves and think about what we say today. I say this: in the interests of democracy, the British people must be given the chance to vote on the deal to leave the EU once we finally know what the deal is and what it costs in terms of our economy, our jobs, our pensions, our future, our global influence, our geographical borders and—last but certainly not least—our precious identity as a tolerant, open, outward-facing nation. I say let the people decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in essentially making a distinction between an argument for a later referendum based on whatever is negotiated under Article 50 and an argument for a rerun of what happened on 23 June. The noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, said that she was making the case for a later referendum based on the negotiations that took place, but all the arguments that she advanced were for a rerun of the referendum on 23 June. They were based on why the electors got it wrong. That is an extremely dangerous path to pursue. It would convey the impression that the political class was not prepared to accept what the electors had decided. That would undermine trust in the political process when that trust is already fragile.

We cannot second-guess the electors. They voted. We might not like how they voted but there was a result. We asked the electors to make a decision on whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. They made the decision—perhaps by a small majority but it was a decision. In the past two days we have heard various people arguing, “But it was only advisory and there was a small majority. We should have had some sort of threshold or there should have been a much larger majority”.

To say that the referendum was advisory is misleading. We did not say to the electors, “Please tell us what you think and then we’ll decide whether to accept what you’ve said”. It was non-binding but that is a very different matter. There is no statutory obligation on Ministers to trigger Article 50 but there most certainly is a compelling political argument for doing so. The Government are bound by that political dimension. Yesterday I quoted Dicey, who distinguished between parliamentary and political sovereignty. The latter matters.

As for whether we should have applied some rules, we did not. At Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill, I raised the question of a threshold but there was clearly no desire to pursue it, so we put it to the people. It was a simple choice based on a majority. We cannot rerun it; we cannot apply rules that were not in place at the time. Therefore, I think that for the moment we have to accept the decision of the people and proceed on that basis. There may be a case for a later referendum based on negotiations—

[Baroness King of Bow]

I agree with the noble Lord. We accept the rule of the people, we see where it takes us and then we give them the democratic right to decide whether they want that or not.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

That is the line I am pursuing. My point is that we go forward on the basis of what has been decided. There may be a later case for putting the negotiations to the people, but we do so on the basis of that case, not on the basis that they got the decision wrong on 23 June—on which the noble Baroness’s argument was essentially based. We have to accept the decision and move on. There may be a later argument about referendums but it is not one to have now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

Honestly, I have only three minutes; it is ever so difficult.

I sat through the whole Committee stage of the referendum Bill. The referendum was supported by the Conservative Front Bench, by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, by my Front Bench, by the Green Party, by the Scottish National Party and by the Welsh national party—all parties supported the referendum. I never heard anyone say, “This is only the first of two referendums”; I never heard anyone say, “Oh, this is just an advisory referendum. You don’t have to take much notice of it. It’s useful advice, but let’s leave it at that”. The unanimous view of this House—no one voted against—was that the public should decide in a referendum.

I simply say to this House, of which I am very fond, that this is essentially an advisory House; the public are not an advisory public. The public have made their decision. I say to my friends in this House—I would say it to my friends at the other end, among whom I see no appetite whatever for another referendum—that it really is not our job to thwart the will of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord is taking me neatly into the next part of my remarks.

Perhaps I may first dispose of this issue. There is an argument that leaving could be achieved by an Order in Council, whereas others say that we need to repeal the European Communities Act. Last night, I pointed out that repealing the European Communities Act is the end of the process—it is not the beginning—because the only lawful route to leaving the European Union is through the procedures laid down in Article 50. That is absolutely clear. The report published in May by the European Union Select Committee of this House made it clear that that is the only lawful route; otherwise, if we were to go straight ahead and repeal the European Communities Act, we would be in breach not only of EU law but of international law. This proud country does not breach international law; that is not our plan. There is a process that one needs to go through, but it naturally will involve seeking advice from Parliament. What that will be is now a matter for Parliament to advise on, and getting that advice has been part of the process over the past two days.

We had some tremendous contributions to the debates. For example, my noble friend Lord Lawson suggested with regard to the European Communities Act that there could be an early introduction of its repeal but with the equivalent of a sunrise clause within it so that implementation of the repeal could be delayed. There are lots of ideas that can be brought forward on these matters.

I turn to a matter raised by the noble Baroness which is different from the text of her Question on the Order Paper. She feels passionately that, after a negotiation and once we have reached a position where the Government feel that they have achieved an outcome that is in Britain’s interest, at that stage we should put that decision before the public. Other noble Lords have pointed out some of the holes in that argument. This last referendum put before the public, for the remain side, the negotiated outcome, and yet we are now being told by the noble Baroness, or certainly by others, that people did not know what they were voting for. We are now being told, “Let us bring forward a full negotiated package and we will then put that package before the public”. My concern is that, if the public say that they do not agree with that, there would be an attempt to rerun and rerun. There is a core issue here that we have to be really worried about, which is that as politicians we must re-engage with the public. They have shown that they distrust the political elite. We will increase that disgust if we keep saying to people, “Keep on voting until you do what we want”. That is not the way we operate. I know that it is not what the noble Baroness wants, but I think that that is the implication behind her argument.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Perhaps I may continue, because the debate is time limited. Some of the previous speeches overran, although not by much—noble Lords have been terrific in how they coped with that.

Perhaps I may put another point. Let us say that we reached a position where, at the conclusion of a negotiation, the Government of the day decided that they did want to put the agreed package before the public in a referendum. Let us say that, at that stage, Parliament agreed to such a referendum—there has to be an Act of Parliament for that, with all the conditions that apply, and we know of the resistance to referendums and whether they should be used for the precise purposes that the noble Baroness has outlined. However, let us say that there is then a referendum. Would it be a binary choice? We need to think about that further after this Question for Short Debate, because the noble Baroness has raised some interesting issues. Is it really binary? What if the public say, “No, we don’t want that, but we don’t want to stay in”, because at the time when the choice was put to the public we would still be a full operating member of the European Union, which we are this minute, this day and this year. Or is there a third option, which is, “Go back and try again”?

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Perhaps I may finish what I am saying. We must remember that we are reliant on the fact that it is the 27 other members of the European Union who will decide, first, whether the agreement is one that they can agree to, and secondly, how long it may take. Asking to negotiate first for an extended period beyond two years is an interesting idea. It is novel and I am not against the novel, but I like my novels to have some element of reality in them as well. We cannot predict what the result would be.

I have two minutes left, so I shall give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness King of Bow]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness and others who have said that we must not treat the British people in a condescending way. They can make up their own minds—absolutely they can. But you cannot say that on the one hand and then say, “Ah, but what happens in two years’ time? It might be too complicated for them”. I am saying this: do not curtail democracy; enhance democracy; let the British people decide when they know the decision that they are actually taking.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, when the British public know what the deal is, the question will be this: what will be on the paper offering the options? I am trying to point out the unreality of the proposal being put forward by the noble Baroness, given that the other 27 member states would look on in astonishment at this pick ’n’ mix option that she is proposing.

But overall what I would say is that, while democracy can give us a kick in the teeth, my goodness it is better than any alternative of governance that I know, and I am proud of the role that this House plays in it.