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.
Tony Blair says UK should 'keep options open' and delay triggering of Article 50
UK could rejoin, in time, says minister
“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.”
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 per cent majority would reflect”.
He adds: “A referendum is in essence a decision by crowd acclamation.
“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.”
He adds: “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.”
More than four million people have now signed the petition asking for a second referendum.
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