Sunday 19 August 2018

Why democracy demands a People’s Vote


Let the people choose. This is the heart of the People's Vote campaign, which is hosting a variety of events during a summer of action right around the country in order to galvanise support for a referendum on the final Brexit deal reached with Brussels. With over 270,000 signatures for its petition at the time of writing, the non-partisan group is growing in political clout, popular sympathy, and business support. Perhaps the most significant success of the campaign has been contributing to a major shift in public opinion, which now is twice as favourable of a People's Vote as it is unfavourable (see graph below). But why, you may ask, should you support a People's Vote and sign the petition, anyway? I can think of three compelling reasons. A People's Vote is 
  1. essential for democracy
  2. essential for unity, and 
  3. essential for everyone who wants their voice heard.
My graphical summary of the results of BMG polling on support for a People's Vote


Firstly, a People's Vote is essential for democracy: it would be plain common sense and in keeping with our democratic constitution. Democracy demands a People’s Vote. In 2016, a very different referendum was held, when voters were asked to choose between the ‘known’ of Remain and the ‘unknown’ of Leave. While we knew what remaining looked like, we had no clue what leaving would look like. But a People’s Vote would be a choice between the 'known' of Remain, the 'known' of the Government's proposed deal and the 'known' of no deal. We will know what Brexit really means. So we will be in a position to make an informed choice. And this time we would have three options - 'deal Brexit', 'no-deal Brexit' and 'Remain' (which we simply rank according to our personal preferences). So if you value informed, democratic decision-making, you should support a People's Vote. 

The Government did not have a plan for Brexit in 2016. But now a plan is beginning to emerge. Since 1997, major constitutional changes have almost always needed the public's verdict - from the Belfast Agreement to the AV referendum. Brexit is, by far, the biggest constitutional change of modern times. Our constitution demands a People's Vote. Relying on the 2016 vote is like asking people to vote on the Belfast Agreement before it was even drafted! The constitutional experts of UCL's Independent Commission on Referendums agree: clear options are vital to holding fair, democratic referendums. As the Commission argues, 'a referendum should come at the end, not the beginning, of the decision-making process' - and so should a People's Vote be held after a deal is negotiated. Only now, and not in 2016, do we see those options emerge, from deal and no deal to remaining in the EU. 

Secondly, a People's Vote is essential for unity of the United Kingdom. Without a referendum, no outcome would have legitimacy, as it would be tantamount to rule from Westminster without any public say. The current deal is a million miles away from the future painted by Brexiteers in the first referendum campaign, and is supported by only 11% of British people (YouGov, 7 August)! Now people have a better idea of what Leave encompasses, a People's Vote would be demonstrably fair, whatever that outcome. We will unite our disunited kingdom.

Thirdly, a People's Vote is essential for everyone who wants to have their voice heard. If you are a Remainer, a People's Vote is the only opportunity to remain in the EU. Parliament has been paralysed since the 2016 Brexit referendum, so there is no way to remain except if a People's Vote provides this option. Ministers are too scared of losing their jobs, and MPs are too scared of hardline party activists. It should be your choice, not theirs. If you are a Leaver, a People's Vote is the only opportunity to legitimise your vision of Brexit, and choose between 'deal' and 'no deal' options. And if you are undecided, or a new voter like me, a People's Vote is your opportunity to decide! So a People's Vote is essential for everyone - Remainers, Leavers and undecided voters alike.

If you agree that a People's Vote is essential - for democracy, unity, and Remainers and Leavers alike - then please sign the petition. And if you want to have a real impact, then follow the South West Herts campaign for a People's Vote on Twitter and Facebook, and consider writing to your MP. Because I do not demand a People's Vote. Democracy does. 

Tuesday 7 August 2018

Peace For Our Time? Explaining War’s Decline



Edward Hicks, ‘Peaceable Kingdom’

The following post is taken from my recent INK article, which details the possible causes of the decline in inter-state war since 1945...



“The tide of war is receding,” President Obama proclaimed in 2011. Which is ironic, because Obama was referring to the seemingly intractable war in Afghanistan, which President Trump is set on continuing. But ultimately, Obama was right. Since the Second World War, the tide of war has receded—worldwide. Annual battle deaths have fallen 90% since 1950. War between countries has declined, the 2003 Iraq invasion being the only conflict this century meeting the criteria of a deadly inter-state war (though there remain a fair few civil wars with outside involvement). But why has full war between states become virtually extinct?

One explanation is democratisation. Between the 76-odd democratic states, peace prevails for two reasons, according to proponents of democratic peace theory such as Yale’s Bruce Russett. Firstly, politicians could simply be voted out of power if they use force against the public’s will, so the political cost of using force is greater in democracies than in non-democracies. Secondly, democracies expect to resolve domestic conflicts by compromise, leading them to “externalise” these internal norms and behave peacefully with other democracies. The last decade of relative peace may therefore be due in part to the sheer number of democracies. But inter-state war is uncommon worldwide, not just in the democratic sphere. To understand this, we need a more truly global explanation.

Such an explanation might be found in the process of globalisation, or the growing interdependence of the peoples of planet Earth. Economic interdependence has expanded apace this century, creating trade interests which do not favour war, argues Columbia University’s Michael Doyle. Maybe ‘perpetual peace’, in Kant’s famous phrase, requires commercial ties and free trade. So capitalism may be ‘a more powerful force for peace than democracy’, as academic Michael Mousseau put it.

For example, in 2014 the non-democratic regimes of China and Russia agreed a $400bn thirty-year contract to supply China with Russian gas. This economic interdependence should help to pacify relations, since commerce between countries reduces the incentive to go to war. But sometimes economic interdependence can exacerbate tensions: for instance, the EU fears that Russia will use Europe’s dependence on Russian energy to blackmail Europe, according to one recent analysis. Nevertheless, the fact that no EU member state has fought a war with Russia demonstrates the ability of some other mechanism to pacify relations.

This mechanism is liberalisation, or the creation of a liberal world order. Liberal institutions such as the EU, the OSCE and the UN employ soft power to make aggression seem more costly to a state’s reputation than pacifism. As Kant predicted, a “pacific union” is forming, established by various treaties of international law, softening normative conflicts between hostile states. These institutions also provide a home for a broad, constant conversation among nations. The development of the human rights regime has also bolstered cooperation and reduced the probability of inter-state war. The liberal world order, propped up for 70 years by the democratic, liberal-minded US, has contributed to the decline in violence between countries.

But cracks are showing in this liberal world order. Mirroring the US’s recent critiques of liberal institutions such as the EU, the UN and NATO, in 2016 China condemned a UN-mandated court’s rejection of Chinese claims to the South China Sea. From the rise of populism in Europe and the Trump-led US to the demagoguery of Putin, Erdogan and Duterte, identity-driven tribal politics within states is fuelling aggressive power politics between them. This threatens all three of the forces for peace we have discussed. The US’s democracy can hardly prevent the possibility of conflict with a rapidly growing China; in any case, the US is one of 89 countries in which the quality of democracy declined in 2017, according to The Economist. Globalisation is threatened by understandable though often misguided popular protests. And the US can hardly prop up a liberal world order which its leader views as unfair and anti-American. As the liberal empire of the post-war era retreats, so the spectre of war might advance.

But the collapse of peace is not unstoppable. Just as democratisation, globalisation and liberalisation progressively reduced conflict in past decades, they could do so in decades to come. Only by tackling inequality within and between states can we reduce the populist pressures that threaten the considerable achievements of the liberal world order. And only with awareness of the virtues of democracy, interdependence and liberal values can we make the future resemble the peaceful present rather than the conflicted past.


Image used under Creative Commons license.