So let me see if I have got this right. We had a referendum on 23rd June, which was not legally binding, although there was an opportunity to make it so. We were presented with a binary question, to paraphrase, “in or out”, without qualification, any discussion of the necessary processes, or consideration of several important (and difficult) issues. 52% voted to leave, 48% voted to remain, with a 70% turnout. A majority voted to leave in England and Wales, while a majority voted to remain in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The campaign was unpleasant, controversial and many false claims were made.
I respect anyone’s right to an opinion and a vote, and one of the reasons many gave for a leave vote, was to preserve or enhance parliamentary sovereignty. Now, we have the bizarre situation where parliamentary sovereignty is whatever the prominent leave campaigners say it is. There appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how a representative democracy functions, or indeed what parliamentary sovereignty is. We send MPs to parliament to represent our best interests; we do not delegate to them. Additionally, suggestions that the judiciary should be under state control, are deeply worrying.
As dissatisfied as I am with our system, I can only be fearful that we are descending into mob rule. Democracy, in order to function properly, must be pluralist. We now live in a state of intolerance, where majoritarianism is seen as indistinguishable from democracy.
Sarah Gangoli
