Nick Clegg (Britain must have a new election, 4 July) says a general election must be held before any attempt is made to actuate article 50. Zoe Williams (Labour’s differences don’t justify tearing itself apart, 4 July) says we want a culture that is not simply tolerant of difference, but exhilarated by it. They are both right. The referendum must not be used as a pretext for refusing the rights of the minority to continue to fight its corner. Affirming the democratic rights of the minority is a multilevel undertaking.
We may oppose the threat to make the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain subject to negotiation by the government in its talks with the EU. We may support parliamentary oversight over the conditions and outcome of negotiation with the EU. We may call for a general election to get rid of the party that brought us into this unwholesome mess. We may reach out for a political alliance capable of articulating the economic, cultural and constitutional advantages of Britain remaining part of the EU project. We may call for an end to the name-calling of those concerned about the political shortcomings of the Labour leadership as plotters, Blairites, surrogate Tories or whatnot. The list goes on, but the key is to respect the rights of the minority by publicly activating them. Democracy is an iterative process, which surely contains the possibility of democratically correcting itself.
Robert Fine
Emeritus professor of sociology, University of Warwick
• Nick Clegg is right on principle, but implausible on the likelihood of 434 MPs voting turkey-like for Christmas (section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011). Exiting the EU and breaking up the UK demand an accountable process involving both houses of parliament, as well as a popular mandate.
This process could happen in July, if sufficient members of both houses passed a short act to: (1) authorise the multiple expenditures urgently needed to prepare for Brexit; (2) take parliamentary control of the giving of notice to leave the EU, to include affirmative resolutions by both houses after publication and select committee scrutiny of a detailed white paper – that paper should cover all departments, with fiscal and economic projections audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, and policy statements by the devolved governments; (3) oblige the government to publish such a white paper no later than January 2017; (4) if parliamentary permission to leave has not been secured by the end of March 2017, exclude the giving of notice to leave the EU until after the 2020 general election.
The UK needs to believe again in parliamentary democracy, adding something to the will of the people rather than despising it. Europe needs to know that indefinite drift is not on the cards. And the Brexiters need to be handed that length of legislative rope which their campaign has earned. They said it would be quick and easy: let them make it so. If they end up with enough rope to hang themselves, the recklessness and mendacity of their campaign will be the reason.
Douglas Board
Senior visiting fellow, Cass Business School
• Nick Clegg points up the chaos in government triggered by the unexpected 4% majority to vote leave. In posing the referendum as a choice between in/out options of equivalent status, the profound constitutional implications for a majority leave vote were never mooted. While a remain majority would have left us with the status quo, the leave majority shifts the problems of unwinding 40 years of intertwined legislation back to our elected representives in parliament. As Clegg argues, a general election in which all parties would have to present manifestos explaining their intentions in their negotiations with the EU is now essential.
A further positive is that such a move would respond directly to the leave campaign’s call to “take back control” and help to settle the inevitable frictions being generated by alternative visions.
Emeritus professor Gwen Wallace
University of Derby
• I have no idea what the outcome of the election suggested by Nick Clegg would be, although his own seat may still be at risk. It should not be forgotten that he led his party into an electoral wipeout and that just a few more Lib Dem seats retained would have enabled the blocking of the referendum. Advice from him on elections or electoral strategy should be be regarded with great caution.
Richard Harris
Watlington, Oxfordshire
• Amid all the other confusion following on from the referendum, has anyone else noticed that the presidency for the European council of ministers for July to December 2017 is ... the United Kingdom. To clarify the role of the presidency, I cite direct from the EU website: “The presidency is responsible for driving forward the council’s work on EU legislation, ensuring the continuity of the EU agenda, orderly legislative processes and cooperation among member states. To do this, the presidency must act as an honest and neutral broker.”
Bon courage, as we say in Normandy.
Michael Hewitt
Lonlay L’Abbaye, France
• As a former British diplomat who served in Europe and a former lecturer in international relations, you might think I had a strong and informed view about Britain’s relationship with the European Union. As part of my Foreign Office training, I attended a course on how to understand the EU. What my insight has shown me is that whether or not we should be part of the EU is a highly complex issue. We are entwined with Europe on matters of security, trade, migration, health and many many other issues besides – so much so that a PhD thesis could barely cover the pros and cons of membership. I was therefore dismayed when my government outsourced such a major decision to the public, who, despite many turning into vocal political orators on the subject, know very little indeed about the connotations.
This flawed referendum appears now to have now divided our beautiful nation, and it seems that leaving the EU isn’t the worst outcome of this debacle. As Miqdaad Versi writes (Brexit has given a voice to racism – and too many are complicit, theguardian.com, 27 June) it has unleashed “a Pandora’s box of bigotry and Islamophobia”, but it has also ruffled the feathers of the remain camp, which, rather than understand the drive behind leave voters, are aggressively defending their own ill-informed stance.
The only real option is to make the best of what we have and find a way to work together to find a way forward. This might mean an intelligently negotiated exit, allowing us a status similar to that which Norway enjoys – giving us access to European markets and labour and giving some contribution to the EU. But I very much hope this negotiation will be left to the real experts at the Foreign Office and elsewhere. Hatred should not be allowed to take seed because our government gave a choice we should never have been asked to make.
Caroline Jaine
Stroud, Gloucestershire
• Nick Clegg is completely wrong to propose a general election, but absolutely right to say that parliament rather than the prime minister must start the article 50 process. An election following the Conservative party’s choice of the next prime minister might seem like the democratically correct thing to do, but it would just add to the present climate of instability and uncertainty. There is doubt about whether the parliamentary arithmetic required by his coalition government’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act would deliver a vote for a general election anyway.
But parliament needs to assert itself. A prime minister who began the article 50 negotiations as David Cameron appeared to suggest would be exercising powers under the royal prerogative, which are inherently undemocratic even with a parliamentary debate. If we are to leave the EU – and it is not something I want – then parliament must take control and require the exercise of ministerial powers under the European Communities Act 1972, so as to to provide the government with an explicit mandate for the Brexit process.
If, as some legal commentators have suggested, the 1972 act cannot be used because it does not contemplate withdrawal, parliament must pass a European Union (Withdrawal) Act to ensure it retains control. What we desperately need is for our MPs in particular to assert the primacy of representative democracy over the uncertain outcome of direct democracy.
Tim Treuherz
Oxford
.jpg?w=600)
