Referendums prove we are sovereign

I have always enjoyed Gerald Warner’s journalism. He is well-informed and witty, and he is splendidly reactionary, breathing the air of the most ancien of anciens regimes. I have always assumed that he believes that the passing of the Great Reform Bill in 1832 was a terrible blunder, evidence of the crumbling of civilization. So it comes as a surprise to find him, in his writing for Reaction, coming out as a Man of the People, declaring that the result of the 2016 referendum is irrevocable, now and forever more Amen… “The voters of Britain have given their clear instructions to their servants, the members of the House of Commons, and some of these  insubordinate servants are refusing to obey their instructions.”

So much for the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament. Here we have Gerald whom I have fondly thought of as the Last of the Bourbons or, perhaps, of the Romanovs, posing as Marat, founder and editor of “L’Ami du Peuple”, and writing approvingly of what Churchill called “a device of dictators and demagogues”.

Unlike Gerald, I am not a fan of referendums – or, at least, of constitutional ones. The reason is simple. If the side seeking change loses, it doesn’t say “that’s it then”. On the contrary, it prepares for a second go, just as we can see Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP doing in Scotland. If, however, the people vote for change – for leaving the EU or breaking the Union of Scotland with England – there must, it appears, be no return to the issue. The question has been posed once and the matter is now closed.

Actually, the EU Referendum in 2016 served only one useful purpose, though few pointed this out at the time. It gave the lie to all those – some of them clever men like Professor Sir Roger Scruton – who spoke of our loss of sovereignty, or said we were now governed by Brussels.

We had of course never lost sovereignty, and happily this can be illustrated by the tale of three referendums.

When the Scottish Parliamentary Election gave the SNP a majority in 2011, the First Minister, Alex Salmond, called for a referendum on Independence. To be legal such a referendum required the approval, or at least permission, of the UK Government because the Scotland Act which had established the Scottish Parliament and devolved certain powers to it, reserved constitutional affairs to Westminster. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, acceded to Salmond’s request, and an Act of the UK Parliament made the Scottish referendum legal. The UK was a sovereign state, Scotland wasn’t, and the EU had no role. Whether it approved or disapproved of this referendum was irrelevant.

In 2015, having been returned to Downing Street as Prime Minister, and no longer constrained by having partners in a coalition, Cameron acted on a manifesto commitment and legislated for an in-out referendum on membership of the European Union. He had no need to seek authority or even approval from the EU, no need because the United Kingdom is a sovereign state.

The third referendum I mentioned drives my point home. In the autumn of 2017 the devolved Government of Catalonia determined to hold an independence referendum. This was immediately declared to be illegal by both the Spanish Government and Spain’s Constitutional Court.

Nevertheless, the Catalan Government went ahead. It won a substantial majority on a turn-out that was low because many – indeed most – of those in Catalonia who didn’t want Independence followed the advice of the Spanish Government and stayed at home.

The Spanish Government behaved in a stupid and heavy-handed manner sending in police to try to prevent the illegal vote from taking place. Then it arrested members of the Catalan (devolved) government, whose trials are now getting underway. Sympathizers with the Catalan cause, among them the SNP, were indignant. Some called on the EU to intervene. Of course it didn’t. Officials, among them the President of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, pointed out that Spain was a sovereign state (as well of course as being a member state of the EU) and so they were not entitled to interfere in what was an internal Spanish affair. None of the EU treaties (all negotiated between the Member States) had granted EU institutions any authority in such matters.

One might add only that if the UK Government headed by David Cameron had refused Alex Salmond’s request for a referendum on Scottish Independence, that would likewise have been no matter for the EU.

The only tolerable referendum is one that can be pretty easily reversed if there is a change of mind. Suppose discontent with professional politicians provokes a revival of the old Chartist demand for annual parliaments, and suppose this is approved in a referendum. A few years’ experience of annual General Elections might so bore and disgust us that a demand for a second referendum to revert to five-year Parliaments became irresistible and the result of the first referendum was overturned. Doing this might be awkward, but no more than awkward. On the other hand, once a major constitutional change has been effected  – leaving the EU or creating an independent Scottish state, for example – the difficulties of returning to the status ante quem might seem, might even be, insuperable.

This is why there is a good case for a second EU referendum before we have actually left if only to ask people if they are sure this is what they want. (Despite being a Remainer, I think there would again be a majority for Leave.) Once, however, we have actually left, on whatever terms, I would guess it would be many years before opinion swung so heavily in favour of applying to return that a new referendum was contemplated.

Meanwhile one has the pleasure of watching Gerald emerge as a Man of the People, dancing hand in hand with Professor Scruton and Mr Rees-Mogg round the Tree of Liberty.