Reply To: More on Brexit

“But perhaps he does have a point that by ignoring the leave vote, it does open the door to questioning the legitimacy of so-called UK democracy and inviting extremism.“

But that begs the question by assuming that there is only one interpretation of the leave vote and would be buying into to the extreme Brexshiteers interpretation that Brexit means leaving not just the EU’s political institutions but the customs union and single market too.

There will have been many leave voters who didn’t interpret their vote that way; in fact one of the arguments of the Leave campaign was that when the UK joined the EU (or EEC, European Economic Community as it was then called) was just a “common market” but that since then it had developed towards a political union which wasn’t part of the original deal. So, any deal that involved withdrawing from the EU’s political institutions and project, as for instance May’s, would not be a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result. Anyway, it is the fault of the extreme Brexshiteers that the UK didn’t leave the EU on 29 March.

What would be undemocratic would be for Parliament to revoke off its own bat Article 50, i.e the application to withdraw. In accordance with our own rulebook that a Party Poll result can only be revoked by another Party Poll and not by a Conference Resolution, it would be undemocratic to overturn the 2016 result unless decided by a further referendum.

So, no, the Farage/Galloway argument does not hold water. It could even be argued that in refusing a second referendum it’s them who are being anti-democratic (though I’m not sure Farage among those as he thinks he’d win a second time, which could well be the case).

But of course the substantive issue at stake — the trading arrangement of the UK capitalist class — is an irrelevant issue from a socialist and working-class point of view so we are talking democratic theory here.