In much the same way as President Donald Trump, Brexit is a delicate and divisive topic in the United Kingdom.
Brutally fought between campaigns to Leave or Remain, the referendum, which decided whether the United Kingdom would become the first nation to withdraw from the European Union (EU), took place on June 23, 2016. David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister due to his support for the failed Remain campaign.
While the Leave campaign was fronted by several high-profile Members of Parliament (MP), such as Boris Johnson, many avoided the vacant position of Prime Minister, viewing it as a poisoned chalice. Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Windsor and Maidenhead, became Prime Minister on July 13, 2016, despite the fact that May passively supported Remain.
After over two years of negotiations, Theresa May presented the European Union with her government’s proposed Brexit deal. The draft agreement, which lays out the terms of the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU and the format of its future relationship, was accepted by EU leaders. However, it has been badly received by many MPs in the United Kingdom, and before it can be implemented, the U.K. Parliament must decide whether or not to accept the agreement. The vote is scheduled for December 11, 2018.
Given the depth and breadth of the EU’s influence and control, the draft withdrawal agreement is long and complex. The 585-page document has been widely criticized by supporters of both the Leave and Remain campaigns, and Theresa May has been personally attacked for her weak handling of the transition. Those who still oppose Brexit, known affectionately as “remoaners,” have argued against the continuation of proceedings in favor of another referendum known as the “People’s vote,” or for Brexit to be scrapped entirely. Many of their arguments are based on the failures of politicians to deliver on promises related to Brexit and Theresa May’s failure to guide the U.K.’s departure from the EU.
Their logic is hypocritical, flawed, and extremely dangerous.
Firstly, the fact that politicians are criticizing the failure of other politicians to deliver on their promises is supremely hypocritical. For example, Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and a vocal opponent of Brexit, stated that “The people voted for Brexit on a bunch of promises,” despite the fact that Clegg rose to the position of Deputy Prime Minister in 2010 on the back of his own “bunch of promises” that never materialized.
Secondly, the “remoaners” are basing their arguments against Brexit on flawed logic. They are using the subsequent failure of Theresa May to implement Brexit as a reason to denigrate the decision to Leave. This is illogical, as past decisions are not made with the knowledge of future events. It is also irrelevant, as May’s failure to implement the decision does not mean that legitimate concerns in favor of Brexit are suddenly illegitimate. Valid concerns regarding trade, immigration, or sovereignty remain valid regardless of the handling of Brexit. A simple illogical analogy demonstrates this quite clearly:
A person is violently attacked in their home by their abusive partner. Making their escape, they flee from their home, only to be hit by a bus. Therefore, the victim was wrong for leaving.
Brexit should serve as a warning to the United Kingdom, the United States and other world nations. The strength of democracy, which is based on the Greek term for “rule by people,” relies on the protection of the voters’ decision. The attempt by “remoaners” to reject the will of the population by voting again (and again, and again, and again, …) until they obtain their desired result is nothing but an attempt to corrupt democracy itself. We saw this same dangerous attitude during the presidential and midterm elections, and it must be wholeheartedly rejected if democracy is to remain protected.
Dismissing the sanctity of democracy will only leave us vulnerable to authoritarianism. Instead of implementing the wishes of their citizens, politicians who disagree with this decision only have to sabotage its implementation. Then they can simply blame their ideological enemies for the failure, leaving them free to implement their own opposing policies. At that point, why even vote?