https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-desai/2699
As with Lord Ashdown, this begins with his response to my email to Parliamentarians posted the other day.
Comments are welcome.
Lord Desai:
I voted Remain. Yet I think most of your objections arise not from the process of Referendum but the result which you do not like. Would you have written to me had Remain won as to how faulty the whole process is ?
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
Thank you for your reply.
To answer your question, in all honesty probably not, though I would have heaved a huge sigh of relief given the problems I describe, most of which I identified before or during the campaign and wrote about then. I admit that I missed a trick on the issue of the majority required, although that doesn’t of itself invalidate it as a concern.
On that subject, my motive for writing to you says nothing either for or against the validity of the points I raise. So would you care to address them?
Yours,
Peter Roberts
Lord Desai:
I believe referenda will become increasingly the device for decision making. Representative democracy which held the lead for three hundred years ( despite a lack of universal adult franchise till the 1920's) is now not trustee to reflect the opinion of many people. Of course their opinion is ill informed but whose fault is that if not of the political system which I'll educates them before during and after schooling. With social media, it will become very soon a device for frequent consultations. Then one may ask about the size of the majority require red ( not raised in the First Past the Post system ) , or a regulation on 'truth' in propaganda ( not raised in elections generally ) . But referenda have now arrived.
Edmund Burke's speech is the most incredibly elitist . He more or less said elect me and I wil do what I please. The times have changed. People don't tolerate that sort of arrogance.
If Cameron called the Referendum was 'illegitimate' how many other decisions in any parliament are also not so ? This is part of our politics. The Prime Minister has to retain his leadership and listen to dissidents. If it was accepted by his Party and then Parliament what is illegitimate about it ? Again you take an idealist position because you did not like the result. Harold Wilson called the 1975?Referendum for the same reason. Nicola Sturgeon called her referendum to keep her Party happy.
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
Thank you for your reply and may I say that really I appreciate your willingness to debate the matter.
To take the points you raise in your emails:
Burke established a principle that may or may not be used in an arrogant manner; it is, however, carefully expressed (“doing as I please” is far removed from considering a matter thoroughly and conscientiously). It is in practice open to discussion and therefore potential correction. Rather than an idealist position, I think it allows for flexibility and adaptability. Making representatives mere delegates does not. Worse – as we have seen - it encourages both dishonesty and dumbing down in the pitches made to the electorate. Burke’s principle isn’t perfect and is of course open to charlatans, but I find it greatly preferable to the increasing use of popular democracy and referendums to which you appear to be resigned and which seems even more of a blank cheque for more ethically challenged politicians. (Although it seems that you aren’t keen on the prospect either, which relieves me somewhat.)
As a teacher and youth worker I certainly agree with you that much more will have to be done to better the education of young people, whatever the future of democracy. It seems a long time ago - and a world away - when Richard Hoggart coined the happy term “critical literacy” in the hope that people’s first question of the powerful was to ask whether they were trying to con them. That itself implies developed faculties for discrimination – but could these not be described as “elitist”? If so, let’s have more not less of it!
Regarding your citing of the Realpolitik of Wilson's and Sturgeon’s approaches to holding referendums, that’s food for thought and I’d like to consider it. I was too young to take a view of or even much remember the 1975 EU Referendum campaign, but I challenge whether we should tolerate such cynicism at any time when playing with stakes of this size. Again, this is not for me an idealist position but one of great practicality that needs clear and mandatory safeguards in place. That first Cameron’s political party and then legislators passed his proposals remains a stain on the quality of our political class and I’m afraid I am not as sanguine about that or the populist future as you appear to be.
Best regards,
Peter Roberts
Lord Desai
It is not cynical to say that a leader takes into account his own party's internal divisions to resort to a Referendum. Parties are the lifeblood of politics and we have to accept them as they are.
My point about Burke was that today with a widespread franchise and educated public, doing your own thing as MP ( which is what Burke was saying albeit in elegant language) is not on. With social media, demands for direct democracy will multiply. People would want frequent consultations on important subjects and express their opinion online. The very model of Representative Democracy is being questioned. And a good thing too.
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to justify your comment that "It is not cynical to say that a leader takes into account his own party's internal divisions to resort to a Referendum. Parties are the lifeblood of politics and we have to accept them as they are." This isn't just because I fail to see how the second sentence follows from the first, but also out of sheer amazement that you should consider valid the practice of risking the irrevocable future direction of a nation for narrow party electoral advantage! This is what Cameron did. I am, to use an unparliamentary expression, gobsmacked. Over to you.
I'd also like to know why you think it a good thing that representative democracy should be challenged and superseded by direct democracy. Not whether you think this will happen - you clearly do and you may well be right - but why, in your view, direct democracy will be better. I fail to see how Burke's principle doesn't and shouldn't still apply - not as rigid prescription but as living and evolving praxis. Direct democracy - as well as being impracticable - would be neither.
Your contention that we have an "educated public" is at odds with your earlier statement that we have collectively done a bad job in educating people (with which I agree), and I think that the Referendum showed this rather well. I hope that neither of us will be so extremely relativist as to deny that our "educated public" were successfully sold some visibly damaged goods. Since the Referendum I have personally tried to engage a number of Leave voters in intelligent debate. The results haven't been pretty and are certainly not printable here.
I hadn't wanted to mention this, but another thing in Burke's defence is that, whether or not one likes or agrees with him, at least he WAS elected, however limited the franchise at the time. Personally I'm much less concerned than I used to be about the fact that members of the House of Lords - including yourself - aren't. This is in part because I respect the fact that many of you - yourself most certainly included - have long, expert and relevant experience and therefore ARE qualified to participate in the legislative process. I'm sure Burke would agree. But, since you have criticised "elitism", I don't mean to be rude but, while your presence in the Lords is justified in my eyes, how do you justify it in yours?
Best regards,
Peter
Peter
Lord Desai
Thanks. The last Furst as it is personal. I have been in favour of an elected a House of Lords for over twenty years and have spoken repeatedly about it.
As to the other issues I will revert. But as you may know there us no definitive answer in these matters. We will just have to differ
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
I'm not sure what you mean by "revert". Do you mean that our conversation is over? That would be a pity.
Since democracy is about open debate rather than just voting, I'd really appreciate it if you would take me on. Since we both clearly DO believe that there is a definitive answer to this question (it's a binary one: I think Parliamentarians should vote against Brexit and you don't), that means one of us must be wrong. I'll happily admit that it's me if you can convince me, I promise!
Best regards,
Peter
Peter
Lord Desai:
No. Just that I will write on a day or two
Lord Desai:
I am not 'taking you on'. We cannot 'settle' this one way or another. We can only express our views and agree to differ. Parliamentarians will do what seems to them right. The House of Commons has ratified the Referendum result last month. If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court decision, Parliament will have a debate before the Government invokes Article 50.
The issue still is that you don't like the result hence you object to the process. I don't like the result but I accept it because I respect the process.
After all Parliament passed the legislation for the Referendum. More people turned out to vote than have done in General a Elections lately. The majority share at 52% is higher than any winning party has got in Post war elections. We have had numerous plebiscites in the last forty two years- 1975, Scottish a Devolution 1978, Northern Ireland 1998 , Scotland devolution 1999 ( or thereabout) , Wales devolution Referendum ( sometime around early 2000 ? ) , Referendum on First Past the Post 2011 ? , Scottish Independence Referendum 2015 and finally EU Referendum 2026. We may not be 'a plebiscitary democracy' but we do decide big issues by Referendum.
Regards.
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
By “take me on” I was being provocative, but I genuinely do mean that I am open to persuasion. I agree that we can bash away at each other to no avail, and clearly we both have strong opinions on this, but at the very least we are oxygenating our respective pools so I remain grateful that you are debating with me. I still aim to convince you though.
That said, I have to correct you again about the relationship between my case and my motives: even though, like most people, I didn’t expect to lose it, I objected to the Referendum process well before June. (I’ll send a link to my Blog – please judge it by its contents not my lack of followers!). But even if I hadn't, proof of motive does not of itself invalidate an argument.
You write that Parliamentarians will do what they think is right. I certainly hope so and this is the very point I’m making, for we already know what the majority in both Houses think is right: that the UK should remain in the EU. Or did you mean (as Paddy Ashdown has written in his response to my original email) that they will do what they see as politically prudent (I was going to write “politically correct” or even “the line of least resistance”) which is quite another thing? I believe that if they exercise the representative principle to which almost all pay lip service - even Steve Baker MP, a co-founder of Leave.eu, has told me he follows it – they should oppose Brexit. If they place fear of opprobrium over exercising their conscience, I think they offend the principle and should stop telling us they believe in it.
Moreover, if Parliamentarians had wanted to deny themselves the option of rejecting the Referendum result, why was it not made mandatory? (The 2011 AV Referendum result was.) It would have been easy. So why enshrine a principle in law but not even consider that it may actually be applied? There are at best some very mixed messages coming from Westminster.
Citing the ‘No’ vote of 52% of the total as higher than any government has achieved is disingenuous: in general elections the vote is divided between multiple parties; the Referendum was a binary choice. Also I would remind you that many of those who made it a (relatively) high turnout don’t usually bother to vote. They are no paragons of democratic virtue and I question whether you should enlist their support.
Your references to various other referendums, including those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, give food for thought and I'd like to consider them further. From what I recall, though, both the circumstances of their calling and their conduct of the campaigns were considerably superior.
In the meantime, I do look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Peter
Lord Desai:
There is no end to thus. You win. Let us put an end to this.
My reply:
Dear Lord Desai,
What a pity, but thank you for discussing the matter this far with me, a courtesy few have paid me. I believe you flatter me by saying that I've won, so let's call it a score draw or I fear I'll become quite unbearable.
For what it's worth, here is my Blog. http://spudpeel2.blogspot.co.
I would very much like to put our exchange on it and trust you have no objection.
Best regards,
Peter
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment