It is one thing to point out that in any society there exists a large number of discrete individuals, each with his or her own values and interests. The fact is so obvious that it’s hardly worth stating. It is quite another to claim that, over and above those individuals, there exists a supra-person, “the people” – something with values and interests of its own.
As Zoe Williams points out (Be very wary when leaders claim to speak for ‘the people’, Journal, 2 October), to imagine that the latter, entirely fictitious claim bears any logical relationship to the former obvious fact is to fall prey to a fallacy. It’s a fallacy that ought to be familiar to any undergraduate taking a course in political philosophy, if only thanks to Rousseau’s notorious argument that a majority vote can settle the question of what “the general will” or “the will of the people” might be, the latter being (supposedly) a straightforward question of fact.
Since Rousseau’s time, the idea that there is a “people” with a will of its own has been subjected to much criticism, not only for its logical sloppiness but also for its totalitarian implication that it can be right to sacrifice some for the sake of others. Such criticisms have come from across the political spectrum – from liberal philosophers with conservative leanings (Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper) as much as from thinkers of the left such as Stuart Hall (Williams’s example).
It is, therefore, all the more depressing that the pro-Brexit faction has managed to get away for so long with parroting the mendacious platitude that, with the 2016 referendum, “the people spoke”. Since “the people” is a non-existent entity, that can’t be true.
Alan Haworth
Hornsey, London
• Drawing on Professor Stuart Hall’s brilliant deconstruction of hegemonic rightwing narratives about “the people” and “common sense”, Zoe Williams demonstrates how damaging and misleading the current blitz of vox pops about Brexit are.
The continual refrain of “just get on with it”, usually from white over-60s citizens in market towns, is doing ideological work for the Tories and the Brexit party which distorts demographic reality. The BBC in particular failed to challenge the baseless claims by Boris Johnson et al during the referendum about the huge benefits of leaving the EU in a spurious pursuit of “balance”, just as they did with the climate change issue. Even the referendum-winning claim of “take back control” was never evaluated. Control in what sense? Certainly not parliamentary sovereignty or corporate capitalism. Now even the comprehensive catastrophe of “no deal” is being spun as delivering the “will of the people” (37% of the electorate). I hope journalists report the anger of people when they realise that leaving without a deal on 31 October has opened the Pandora’s box of years of strife, inflation, rising unemployment, transport chaos etc. Certainly not the risible “managed” no deal of Andrea Leadsom.
Philip Wood
Kidlington, Oxfordshire
• One of the many stunning ironies, or should I say contradictions, over Brexit was highlighted by your report on the plans for the island of Ireland (Dismay in Brussels as Johnson finally reveals his Brexit plan, 3 October).
Boris Johnson and Brexiteers damn the majority of MPs for blocking moves and ignoring the wishes of “the people” – the UK-wide majority in the referendum. At the same time, they imply that DUP members of the Commons, but not a majority in the Commons, have a veto over the plans.
A majority in Northern Ireland voted remain in the referendum. Meanwhile, the plans supported by the DUP are described (Irish reaction, 3 October) by “NI parties” – meaning business and other political leaders – as “sabotage” and “a disaster”.
Richard Norton-Taylor
London
• The Guardian is known for its occasional misprints. Your report of Johnson’s conference speech contains one, referring to his “populist rhetoric pure and simple” (The closing speech: Fish puns and testicles in a peculiar metaphorical mix, 3 October). Simple certainly, but pure?
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
