A LEADING academic has written to all 650 MPs asking them not to support the triggering of the Article 50 procedure to start the Brexit process as “rule by crowd acclamation is a very poor method of government”.
Philosopher and author AC Grayling of London’s New College of the Humanities (NCH), is the first high-profile academic to say Parliament should not act on the Leave vote.
Grayling set out his reasons in a letter which NCH has put online following its delivery to all MPs on Friday by two NCH students.
It contains a powerful plea to not proceed with Brexit.
He wrote: “The key matter is a vote on whether to initiate the Article 50 procedure. It is within your democratic remit and duty as a
Member of our Parliament to vote on whether to initiate that procedure. By voting not to do so, you will keep the UK in the EU.
“The non-binding referendum, its circumstances, and its slim majority achieved in those circumstances, is not an adequate ground for the UK to leave the EU…
“Parliament as presently constituted has a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the EU.
“Given the following factors, that the referendum was advisory only and non-binding; that the majority for ‘Brexit’ was small (3.8 per cent); that there are major questions about the circumstances of the respective Remain and especially Leave campaigns regarding probity of information, claims and promises made to voters; that a serious risk of break-up of the UK impends upon a ‘Brexit’; that the economic consequences of a
‘Brexit’ are not in the UK’s favour; that a ‘Brexit’ would damage our neighbours and partners in Europe; and that the future of the young of our country is focally implicated in the decision….
“For all these reasons and more, there is a powerful case for Parliament to use its discretion to determine that it is not in the UK’s interests to leave the EU.”
Prof Grayling goes on to argue that such a major constitutional change requires “a significant degree of genuine consensus, at the minimum such as a 60% majority would reflect”.
He adds: “A referendum is in essence a decision by crowd acclamation.
“You will of course well understand that there is an excellent reason why most advanced and mature polities do not have systems of
‘direct democracy’ but instead have systems of representative democracy, in which legislators are not delegates sent by their constituents but agents tasked and empowered to investigate, debate and decide on behalf of their constituents.
“This reason is that rule by crowd acclamation is a very poor method of government.”
Adding that “referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time”, Prof Grayling goes on to say: “If referendums would be a poor way to decide on health and safety, air traffic control, or education, they are an exceedingly poor way to decide a matter as momentous as membership of the EU.
“This is, and should be, a matter for Parliament, taking all factors into account.”
Addressing the issue of those young people who did not vote
– those who did were overwhelmingly for Remain – Prof Grayling argues: “Those young people might have legitimately thought that their elders would not be so foolish as to betray the future by a ‘Brexit’ vote. But punishing them with a
‘Brexit’ is not the right response. The sober judgment of Parliament should be on their side.”
Prof Grayling concludes: “In debating and voting on whether to trigger the Article 50 procedure, it can be made clear that Parliament has noted the
outcome of the advisory referendum; the small size of the majority of actual votes cast (thus, not the majority of the electorate); the circumstances of the campaigns; the consequences both already actual and in prospect, for the future interest, unity and prosperity of the UK; and the impact on our neighbours in Europe. and that it is exercising its democratic duty to take a view and to vote accordingly.
“If the vote is to not trigger the ‘Brexit’ procedure, our partners in Europe can be informed and normality can be restored.
“The EU is flawed and has problems. But as a powerful member of one of the three great blocs in the world, the UK can do much to help it get better, and to work within it to help all its members realise the great ideals of peace, prosperity and co-operation for which the EU exists.
“Let us not absent ourselves from this beautiful endeavour.
Let us not injure it by refusing to be part of it, thereby also damaging ourselves and the hopes of our young.”
More than four million people have now signed the petition asking for a second referendum, but soon-to-be-ex Prime Minister David
Cameron’s spokesman has aid such a referendum is “not remotely on the cards”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here