英国的民主失败

Jun 24, 2016 Kenneth Rogoff

坎布里奇—英国投票决定脱离欧盟的真正疯狂之处不在于英国领导人敢于让老百姓权衡欧元成员资格的好处和由此导致的移民压力，而在于这个退出障碍低得可笑，只需要简单多数。由于投票率只有70%左右，这意味着脱欧阵营只需要36%的合格选民支持就可以得逞。

这不是民主；这是共和政体的俄罗斯轮盘赌。一个有着巨大后果的决定——远比修订一国宪法（当然，英国没有成文宪法）后果更大——在没有合适制衡的情况下做出了。

需要一年后再进行一次投票以确认结果吗？不。需要议会多数支持英国退出吗？显然不。英国民众真的知道他们在投什么票吗？显然不。事实上，没人对后果有任何了解，不管是对全球贸易体系中的英国，还是对国内政治稳定的影响。这恐怕绝非美妙图景。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Kenneth Rogoff

Writing for PS since 2002
179 Commentaries

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003. The co-author of This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, his new book, The Curse of Cash, was released in August 2016.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 155 in all 155 Comments on this article

Mike Scott Jan 2, 2017

The lunacy is actually Rogoff's unless he can explain why leaving was a more significant issue than joining.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jonathan Story Dec 31, 2016

Prof Rogoff is talking through his hat.Excellent point. The UK population has a vision of a democratiic Europe of constitutional democracies, and has had one since 1945. The Attlee government was present at the creation of the post war Eur-atlantic system, when London was at the heart of the diplomacy that created: the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OEEC, the GATT, the North Atlantic Treaty, the revival of the BIS, and NATO. The vision was multilateral, involving cooperation among nations, preferably with constitutional democracies. In the postwar years, there were plenty of voices in the UK arguing that nationalism was a problem, but the Attlee government rightly considered that nations both fragmented the economic space of Europe, and were more than capable of conducting warfare ranging from petty disputes about trade to full blown military conflict. That is why a permanent structure of multilateral institutions were created to facilitate regular diplomatic interchange, and to provide programmes of action from human rights, to economic co-operation and defence. The Attlee government, also rightly, considered that nation states had two sides: one side spoke of glory, pride, even race; the other side was and is the foundation for constitutional democracy.
That is the vision which millions of people in the UK still subscribe to.
In 1950, the French government advanced its own proposal for a supranational entity, the ECSC, from which the EEC, the EU, the single currency and Lisbon has sprung. Its founding idea is that nationalisms are the source of war, and have to be strangled slowly. The result has been that powers have been sucked out of the constitutional member states of the EU, and become competences of the EU institutions which lack legitimacy, therefore the power and the means to implement them. The present crisis in Europe is a crisis of the French model, not of the British model for which the majority voted on June 23.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Weber Dec 31, 2016

At lest the Britains do not have to vote for Trump in a futile attempt to change something...

When people like Rogoff question democratic rules in a referendum why not question representative democracy as well? It is much harder to judge the character of a person than on a factual issue.

And then there is the possibility of corruption. It is difficult to bribe the majority of voters. Many poltiticians and academics have a problem with democracy when the decisions do not go their preferred way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Dec 30, 2016

Another insulting anti British democracy pro EU oligarchy piece. You are wrong it is not the case that UK referendums at a drop of a hat:
1. The campaign for a referendum had been going on for over a decade;
2. There was a prior mandate from the previous general election, without which Cameron would not have won outright;
3. The original referendum was promised in an election won by Blair, but he and the liberals reneged and signed the EU constitution regardless and without the democratic mandate to do so. There is no way that a referendum to accept that fundamental constitutional change would have even got 50% let alone 70% so the EU constitution does not have legitimacy in the UK!;
4. So no the British public are not thick. They were fully aware that they faced an existential crisis of destruction of society and identity by mass migration, or relentless retaliation by the a German supremacist dominated protection racket that the EU has become;
Its tough, its unfair, its "hobsons choice", to be put in that situation, but the current forecast is that if we remain under the single market rules, we will be inundated with the extra population equivalent to Bulgaria, Lativia and Lithuania, and that is no differnent to the situation pre Merkels invite to the Islamic world, that put 2/3 of the EUs population increase in the UK.
Try actually criticising those who are guilty of causing the mass migrations rather than the English who are as much the victims as the migrants themselves. Start with a critique of Germany's internal deflation policy on Southern Europe and the incompetent structure of the Euro, and their 7 year exemption from Polish freedom of movement! Without those there would have been no Brexit.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Martin Oct 19, 2016

s Kenneth Rogoff in any position to lecture us about "Democratic Failure" ? The type of economics as advocated by Rogoff has helped lead to the failure of the EU which in turn has led to the Leave vote. If we'd had the vote just ten years ago before the failure was apparent then the outcome would have been very different.

Rogoff was at the center of worldwide attention with Carmen Reinhart (coauthor of the book This Time is Different) when their widely cited study "Growth in a Time of Debt" was shown to contain computational errors. These undermined its central thesis that too much public debt causes recession. Too much public debt, if it is linked to too much overall spending, can cause too much inflation - it is too much private debt that causes the boom and bust which brings about recession.

We now have too much private debt because governments have relied too much on the level of interest rates to control the economy. The initial lending creates the boom but as debt builds up the economy starts to flag and so another reduction is needed to move it along again. So you and I might think that now interest rates are so close to zero, they can't reasonably go any lower, that might be the end of the line for interest-rate-ism!

Not so for Kenneth Rogoff. He's advocating negative interest rates! The snag is that we'd have to abolish cash. So he's advocating doing that too!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Hanson Oct 10, 2016

If the leave vote was won by only 36% of the overall eligible vote because only 70% of the eligible population voted I can't see why you feel it somehow shouldn't be allowed to stand. We live in a country governed by political parties that get voted into office on far lower % than that but don't gripe on and on about it. You argue we didn't know the facts on what we were voting on. Dothe majority of people voting in general elections really know the facts. No they don't, they know what they have been told by the vested interests of the political parties vying for power, these are very seldom the true facts . That's the vagaries of our democratic system for better or for worse. Please get over the result of the EU vote and move on. Life is like a game of poker, you can't control the hand your delt, you can however go on to win with a bad hand or loose with a good hand, it's all down to how you play the hand your delt.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lucien Hoebeeck Jul 23, 2016

Would you still be writing the same complaint if the remain had won, I think not.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
JohnPS Gmodzel Jul 9, 2016

I respect Mr. Rogoff as an economist. Not too sure of his qualifications as a political scientist. I'm puzzled that Project Syndicate published the piece.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alison Rogers Jul 8, 2016

In some respects I agree but not enough to shake my belief that we need to be sure. This is a poisonous situation and precipitate action will only create lasting resentment. Lasting resentment and unexpected consequences are natural bedfellows I think. I have been reading 'In praise of idleness' by Bertrand Russell and would recommend it to everyone at this juncture. I also think our 'elites' are on both sides - just like the public!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Wauchope Jul 5, 2016

I actually voted Remain but we need to get over the result and move on. Finding reasons to ignore the vote only alienates those who suspect our elites only accept democracy when it goes their way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alison Rogers Jul 5, 2016

I remember that the in referendum was a substantive majority. Wasn't it almost 2 to 1 in favour? It was clear. This is too close and so does not feel clear. We all need to be sensible about that, no matter what our own beliefs and wishes are.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Wauchope Jul 5, 2016

We had a Referendum to go in and a Referendum to come out. We don't need additional barriers. If the first decision was legitimate so was the second.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Calum Dique Jul 5, 2016

This was not a democratic failure and a majority vote is not simple, you have to get through to millions of people, make them care, make them see the light. They saw both light and dark, made their choice. That is democracy, the failure of democracy is that through the leave campaign bremain voters are throwing a tantrum "We believe in democracy until we dont get our own way" currently the gbp has retained the 10% it lost and rose back to its origional level with slight increases and decreases periodically with an average of 0.4%. Since we left the EU we have shown our strength and independance, we saved our government, we saved the NHS, we saved our armed forces, we saved the gbp and caused an influx of honesty from lies and more companies have made the UK their HQ such as boeing. Normal products such as Milkyway stars were specified as to not be sold outside of the EU but they released a statement they will not leave, the same for nandos and many others. It is easy to criticize when you lose but take a look at the EU, they attempted to remove nato that we would become dependant on them for military unity, now that we have left they are "bullying" the UK (search on newspaper articles, its everywhere) and all countries within the EU are beginning their own referendums. Does the EU care for us, well if they lost £35 billion (no euro key) which had nothing to do with us and then further to charge us for the financial black hole then obviously they do not care for the UK. This site is representative of the outdated and bigoted view that all brexit voters were racist. This is incorrect, I was for bremain until I noticed the huge tremendous lies, I marginalised all lies and truth and brexit definately had less lies than bremain. This site is also in the assumption that brits are intellectually inadequate because they voted for democracy well perhaps you should re-read your paper. As a professer you are taking advantage of the faith that people place in you and subtly slandering the under party. Perhaps expand your views for this paper is irrellevant. In finalization as I always leave this for last, consequences; the only issues this country is facing right now is the bremain voters throwing their teddy out of the cot. We will not rejoin a dictatorship and bow to the EU, we do not need to. We have been offerred trade rights with canada, china, australia, new zealand and the nordic alliance of free trade. Because I am a patriot and will not bow to a dictatorship I get labbelled as racist while the majority of my friends are foreigners, I even have indian/french ancestry. This subsides every single bremain act of opinion ever placed about votes & consequences.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Lusher Jul 3, 2016

Having read this post from Prof Rogoff I asked myself to read the argument with the word 'Brexit' replaced by 'Remain'.
Prof Rogoff's thesis is what one would expect from the losing side.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
peter fairley Jul 3, 2016

Prof. Rogoff makes excellent points, but we can also criticize the flaws of the EU democracy and how the EU has evolved into something very different than what UK signed up for originally. UK does not know completely what they voted for but also does not know completely how bad the EU is now and how bad continuing membership may become.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
peter fairley Jul 3, 2016

Dr. Pippa Malmgren, a leave optomist, says she does not expect a bitter divorce.' The EU is desperate for UK to keep paying dues so the UK has that at least to negotiate free trade and other advantages.'
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jul 2, 2016

I must ask? Irregardless of which side of the issue that you folks are on. Do you really want to prove to the voters that voting is a joke and democracy is a farce? Because if the vote is annulled it will beyond any reasonable doubt that people's votes mean absolutely nothing that the rich and powerful will get their way no matter votes or elections say? It would announce what a lot of people are afraid of the west does not have democracies or republics just Oligarchs. Is what really need to be telling people?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gabriel Orazi Jul 2, 2016

I really thought about it, how to render the decision more democratic, and I also came to the conclusion that something similar to the two staggered votes + referendum was needed. But later I came to the conclusion that this vote is more democratic than we think. The Brits actually had their 2 votes + referendum, and they consistently voted out. The electorate supported a strong eurosceptic majority (Tories + UKIP) both in the 2014 European elections and in the 2015 general elections. So it seems to me that we have an acute case of crocodile tears...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Bull Jul 1, 2016

The UK is governed by Parliament, but the party controlling Parliament does not require more than half the vote. Therefore by uniting for a single cause and demanding a General Election, 48% of the electorate can prevent Brexit from ever happening. That' s democracy at work!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alison Rogers Jun 30, 2016

Um, an election for a democratic representative and a referendum are fundamentally different kinds of election. It would be foolish to leave a community unrepresented and so the quorum is lower (as it were).It would be equally foolish to bow to the will of a minority because large numbers of a population of electors were undecided so referenda require a substantial majority, normally. I wish people wouldn't confuse these two things. A lot of the 'heat' we are experiencing here, I suspect, comes from this misunderstanding. I support the ideas in this article. We need everyone to feel this is fair and a truthful reflection of the will of the people. 37.47% to 34.72% with 27.8% undecided is too close. If it is the will of the people to leave the EU the Leave campaign have nothing to fear. If it is not, better find out now. Truth, proper democratic process and the feeling that it is a fair and honest outcome are more important than either side winning.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank T Hollenbeck Jun 30, 2016

A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority (???) that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion. the vote was close but definitive? NOT razor thin. Obviously Rogooff should have studied math instead of economics. Where I come from 52% is greater than 50%.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bogdan Apostol Jun 30, 2016

A more accurate implementation of democracy is needed all over the world. I am tired of suggesting the mandatory option of "Refrain from above choices", where any decision will be taken only if it meets the 50%+1 threshold of the total vote count. Please help spread the word and find a way to get it implemented, explained and promoted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alan Carter Jun 29, 2016

The UK has lived in a dream, unaware it seems of its own constitutional deficiency, now news anchors preface questions with ''do you accept the will of the people? " soon we will have a prime minister we did not elect via a general election implement an Advisory Plebiscite from 34% of the electorate, 25% of the population, this is against natural justice I believe, as the doctrine of the mandate cannot operate with a fundamental change of government ; so they will not hold another election as that would invalidate the previous mandate? But we are going change prine minister and cabinet! Gordon Browns lack of legitimacy looks paltry compared to this.
Also, UKIP want to undermine the EU full stop: there will be no Single Market if the EU breaks up, this vote has emboldened the French NATIONAL FRONT and others who have xenophobic and authoritarian tendencies ;
Maybe it won't all go through, but if we restrict freedom of movement for ourselves and 'others' we slip towards Neo-feudalism...
A.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank T Hollenbeck Jun 29, 2016

In essence, this article is an elitist rant about the flaws of letting the majority decide. What this elitist seems to forget is that people are much more educated, informed than in the past so that our average joe is just as competent to make important decisions as those who consider themselves the cream of the crop of society. I think today we can get rid of most of what we call government. Have a constitution and a bill of rights defining fundamental inalienable rights (and something like the supreme court) , and have a form of direct democracy of the Swiss type with internet voting on all issues. Again, all of this would have to be flushed out. But we must recognize that representative democracy is NOT working. Our representatives are more concerned with their own well being and that of their crony capitalist sponsors than they are at representing the people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bogdan Apostol Jun 29, 2016

A more accurate implementation of democracy is needed all over the world. I am tired of suggesting the mandatory option of "Refrain from above choices", where any decision will be taken only if it meets the 50%+1 threshold of the total vote count. Please help spread the word and find a way to get it implemented, explained and promoted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
koen van peteghem Jun 29, 2016

it is Russian Roulette. Suppose : a referendum to go to war. All people vote. There is a 1 vote difference to go to war. what do we do? Call it democracy?
- Stephen Morris Jun 30, 2016
  
  A nice argument from hypothetical evidence. Of course anyone can construct their own hypothetical evidence to "prove" their own view. If we look at ACTUAL evidence we find that Europe's only genuine democracy - Switzerland - has consistently refrained from going to war. If we look at ACTUAL evidence we find that It is undemocratic politicians who make wars for Citizens to die in.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marcus Lang Jun 29, 2016

This is a obvious case of "the voters are dumb because they don't decided the way I wanted it to" and "only academics should be allowed to decide anything important".
Luckily democracy does not work this way otherwise the world would be ruled theoretically and technocratically.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Archie Macintosh Jun 29, 2016

When the population is split pretty much 50:50, a 'yes/no' referendum based on simple majority is no better than tossing a coin, and a statistically insignificant difference in one direction or the other will produce an outcome that is in reality uncertain.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
joseph buttery Jun 29, 2016

EU formation some 40 years ago was fine, but who could predict that terrorism and vast immigration into Europe would happen. This has been problematic and the 'undesirables' now residing in many European countries have disrupted the European way of life. Brexit is the best move that Britain has made and this is now worrying Europe. Why should this be so if the EU is considered a fine and strong establishment. Apparently not.
With the mess the EU has now brought unto itself, best EU dissolve this union. Last saving grace, let EU deal only in Trade. No automatic movement of people. Each country can choose the type of immigrants it wants based on specific criteria.
Can anyone imagine an Asian Union (AU)? It is a thought that is too terrible to contemplate.
- koen van peteghem Jun 29, 2016
  
  why is it bizarre that so many doubt the wisdom of having a EU but no-one calls for the USA to be dismantled? Trying to wreck the EU is having your house burn down and shoot the firefighters..
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tony Phillips Jun 29, 2016

Where to begin? First, the 36% claim is absurd—in 1997, Tony Blair’s Labour won in what’s universally considered a landslide. They got 34% of the vote, if (like Rogoff) you fold non-voters into the denominator. What Rogoff doesn’t appreciate—but those of us who actually live in the UK and talk to our neighbours do—is how many people said their “hearts were with leave” but were too frightened by the doomsday scenarios concocted by Cameron, Osborne et al’s to vote that way. The “real” sentiment for Leave isn’t 52-48, but closer to 2-1.

The condescending paternalism of the politico-cultural elites is truly staggering: “Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?” Rogoff asks. “Absolutely not.” How inaccurate, how ridiculous, and how incredibly, insultingly patronising! This debate has been going on for years, not in the months before the referendum, not only at sporadic party conferences, but day in and day out during school runs, in pubs, at youth football matches. This was not a “one time snapshot”, and everyone but Rogoff seems to know this. The ordinary people that Rogoff despises so much know far more than he does how petty EU bureaucracy has complicated their lives at every turn. Most of all, they know that British sovereignty has been handed over for a mess of pottage. Brussels can and does trump British laws; EU courts over-rule UK courts, and in Juncker’s project the EU will be raising taxes and raising an army as well. All of us knew there’d be economic consequences to Brexit that couldn’t be predicted, but that’s the price of freedom. This referendum was about sovereignty, pure and simple.

Rogoff’s most shocking statement is this: “The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.” No, that’s actually the definition of the term. Why doesn’t Rogoff come out and admit that what he’s actually arguing (surreptitiously, and dishonestly) for limits to democracy. To use his words, he sees a “need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions.” There’s a valid argument to make there—maybe the common people are, as Rogoff seems to think, less equipped than he and his class is to make important decisions—but he should state his position honestly so it is open to critique and perhaps refutation. Because almost universally, the “informed parties” he speaks of are those who have profited the most from the status quo and who stand the most to gain by controlling the future. Or perhaps he didn’t notice that throughout England and Wales, the only constituencies that voted for Remain were urban and wealthy?

Dr Rogoff, come just come out and say it: democracy is fine, as long as the people do what they’re instructed to do. In Brexit, the people have spoken and you and your fellow cultured despisers of the popular will can’t stomach it. Perhaps you should dissolve the people, and elect another?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wayne Barker Jun 29, 2016

Seems to me that Rogoff is only for democracy when it goes his way.

Just another illogical left leaning Marxist in disguise.

Rogoff seems to subscribe to Stalins' saying that "Elections don't matter, only those who count the votes matter".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brad Mayer Jun 28, 2016

The liberal elites' hatred of democracy comes through loud and clear. Militarist Sparta is preferred to commercial Athens!
"Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences", describes only one system, the U.S. Needless to say, but the archaic 18th century U.S. system is profoundly anti-political and anti-democratic, as it was intended by its founders.

Hence few other modern countries have followed the U.S. system. And when they have, as with the EU, they experience failure, as is the EU now.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank Roels Jun 28, 2016

Am I mistaken that the British Parliament must decide about the exit, that is Art 50? there is no automatism after the 37,44 exit referendum.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
srinivasan gopalan Jun 28, 2016

Hats off to Prof.Rogoff for perspicuos presentation about the worst decision made in the post-war annals at a time of trouble and turmoil. The political hara kiri committed by the Brexiteers would have ravaging repercussions with the concussion afflicting Britain for years to come. Others might take a leaf out of the British book with protectionist and insular sentiments gaining egregious sway across the world.
G.Srinivasan. Journalist, New Delhi. India.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
harvey ellams Jun 28, 2016

So which form of Democracy is Kenneth talking about? There are 2 primary types of Democracy: Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Much of the world follows Representative Democracy whereas Switzerland espouses, in the main, Direct Democracy. For Example, between January 1995 and June 2005, people in Switzerland where able to vote 31 times on 103 federal questions [1] How many referendums did the UK have in the same time period? To quote Kenneth’s article, “Given voter turnout of 70%”. Actually, the turnout was 72 %, significantly more than last years UK general election. This equates to over 30 million people voting. [2]. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but the 2% Kenneth omitted accounts for 600,000 people; small for the USA but fairly significant for the UK. Let’s be frank about Representative Democracy, this is the preferred Democracy for big business; by big business I mean the 1% that hold 50% of the worlds wealth [3]. (I wonder how many like to source their leadership from Harvard University? [4] ). Why is Representative Democracy preferred by the ‘1%’? In short, influence: Ask yourself this, how is it so many politicians go into the political arena with limited funds but come out the other side multi-millionaires [5]. Interesting that Kenneth refers to Athenian Democracy. The Greek historian Polybius’s work on ‘How Democracy Arises and Degenerates’, details how, if it is allowed to be corrupted, it degenerates back to oligarchy. To quote Polybius, “long association weaken their value for equality and freedom, and some seek to become more powerful than ordinary citizens; and the most liable to this temptation are the rich.” [6] Further study will also bring you to the works of Robert Michels who, in 1911 via his publication ‘Political Parties’, criticised Representative Democracy and its tendency to decline back into oligarchy or particracy. [7]. This brings me to this conclusion: When you read an article on the internet, in social media or in a newspaper – try to ascertain which version of Democracy is being espoused? Perhaps, instead, avoid the mainstream polemic media and seek out more reticent, but accurate, information sources like www.fullfact.org (A fact checking charity with no political bias). Unfortunately it won’t make for exciting reading!
[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/explore-600-national-votes_how-direct-democracy-has-grown-over-the-decades/41481992
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report
[4] http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/05/14/where-the-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-school
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/09/tony-blair-net-worth-earnings-middle-east_n_7031670.html
[6]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0543,001:6:9
[7] http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Gard Jun 28, 2016

Given voter turnout of the 2015 general election of 66% and the Conservatives won by 39%, this meant that the Tory Government won with only 25% of eligible voters backing it.
Welcome to democracy my friend!!
But I do thank you for pointing out the fact that the UK is more united in leaving the EU than with our elected Government.

Democracy is great when it goes our way is it not? May I suggest that you may prefer living in Afghanistan or Libya.

If we want to shove democracy onto other countries through our foreign policies then suck it up , embrace the change and move on.

Is Germany worried about their status and power in the EU? Of course.....
Germany entered the Euro project in a bid to bind itself into Europe so that no European country would ever again fear the country's power. Yeah right.... But now Germany is more powerful economically and politically than it was when the euro was adopted.
I believe we have just put a dent in their armour
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jagan Rampal Jun 28, 2016

Rosalynn Carter once said, “A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”

There are a third kind of leaders. They take their people to where they neither ‘wanted them to go’, nor they ‘ought to be’.

That is Brexit for you.

A representative democracy (that UK is) assigns political and governance responsibilities to their elected representatives (parliament and elected Prime Minister); who are supposedly more experienced, capable, wise and qualified to run the affairs of the state better than lesser mortals that voters are. Strategic planning, International relationships, Security matters, economic development, social uplift and much more is the exotic stuff that is left to these worthies to think about and execute.

Granted, once or twice in the history of every nation, a ‘do or die’ choice may non-plus our chosen representatives and they may consult outsiders for advice. In the worst case, they may go back to the people directly and ask for their advice by means of a referendum (or plebiscite).
But there is a problem here. A referendum assumes two things,
Firstly that the nation’s leadership (with all the faith we put in their statesmanship, capability, qualification and wisdom) are unable to take a decision on this complicated matter at hand.
Secondly, the populace (whose capability for being as wise as the chosen few is severely limited) is able to decide on the same convoluted issues that the wise politicians failed on.
The first seems like dereliction of duty and the second a fond populist dream.

To cautions us on the pros and cons of referendums, Chris Patten once said,
"I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchlev used to say that—not very surprisingly—they were the favorite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak."
Some other critics argue that voters in a referendum are more likely to be driven by transient whims than by careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by propaganda, strong personalities, and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the “Tyranny of the majority”.
(Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum)
Even more ominously, referendums are likely to be considered the last resort. The result of a referendum is then THE final verdict. Evidently, it must be applied only when there is a constitutional crisis or a serious threat to the survival of a society. It should not be used by the ruling elite as a convenient alternative instead of taking tough decisions; or as a tool for dirty politicking.
52% and 48% support for ‘Out’ and ‘In’ also shows that UK is split right in the middle. So to translate this vote to a clear decision is illogical. You can choose a government with this kind of vote split, because there is no earth shaking difference between Labor and Tories. And in any case voters can change their minds five years on. But divorce with the continent is going to suck for all times to come.
This is a tragedy of immense proportions. The worst part is that weeping and wailing is yet to come.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Quilty Jun 28, 2016

As a distant observer of the Brexit who has many close ties with Britain I'd say this. Looks like I know more older disaffected people than I realised😉. For those who don't know this a result of 25 years resentment..sometimes rational often not, at policies seemingly favouring external groups, a perceived inequality of opportunity for the British, a sense of disempowerment to an alien centralised government in Brussels. The mistake Cameron made was to actually give the people a say, a choice. They have just voted with their feet! This is truly a lesson for democracy / freedom of speech/ rights in several senses. Many people young and old still value a sense of nationality national identity and cultural difference. For decades the British authorities have told people, especially the English that they have no right to national pride. The flag of St George has become a battleground of marketing...is it an emblem of national representation or a rallying point for racists? Personally, I think it is neither but see it as an area where English people feel treated unfairly. While a United States of Europe may in theory have many attractions ultimately its institutions were just one more layer of bureaucracy and self interest...a multi-lingual gravy train😐
In the short term Brexit has delivered worldwide financial market volatility...George Soros and his boys surely at the scene of the crime. In the longer term markets will adjust and accommodate...that is what they do. Britain will need to sign a series of bi-lateral trade agreements just as Australia has done. Good ideas and implementation will still bring rewards post-EU. Seriously a lower pound will make goods and services exports more competitive. If Britain has anything worth trading they will survive. Let's move on to the next stage....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doe Jun 28, 2016

This is spot on. Democracy for the sake of pure democracy is inherently stupid. You can draw simple parallels to sound scientific research, among other things, that go directly in the face of simple majority voting on such important decisions.

Would you approve medical treatments with life or death consequences whose tests were carried out a single time, whose results were 50.00001% positive, and for which this illness had other viable treatments with much less risk?

Of course not. It is common sense that such important decisions should see exhaustive testing and research, weighing risk/reward appropriately. In the case of this referendum, it would mean not a simple majority, but rather a majority defined with respect to viable outcomes based on real research and modeling. It would mean holding several votes to ensure they weren't a fluke and that the people really do feel that way. It would mean having exhaustive plans for both outcomes ready to go as to avoid chaos.

Instead they did a simple majority vote of a history-books level decision with an obviously uninformed public and without any real planning for the outcome.

This vote will quite possibly go down as one of the most careless gambles in modern UK history. They pretty much woke up and said, "I feel like leaving the EU today. How hard could it be? I'm sure we'll just figure it out as we go."
- Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016
  
  Meanwhile most of the countries were never consulted if they wanted to fo into the EU or to sign the Lisbon treaty.
  
  With the process you are proposing there wouldn't be a EU in the first place.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Morris Jun 28, 2016

If there is any "perversion of the term" it lies in the use of "democratic" to refer to the corrupt system of non-democratic, elite-dominated "elective" government. This perversion may be traced back to the 1790s and Jefferson's "Democratic Republican Party".

Until that time "democratic" had been used as a term of abuse, as we may see in the repeated condemnation of "Democracy" by Hamilton, Madison and others involved in drafting the US Constitution.

But within 11 years the word had changed it meaning entirely. Jefferson's Federalist opponents (the elitists of the day) branded Jefferson’s "Republican Party" the “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution. But the Republicans - realising there was no risk of actual Democracy - saw the public appeal of the term and adopted it.

This strategy has been used ever since. The "German Democratic Republic" (the former East Germany) was in fact a police state. Likewise, to this day the brutal North Korean dictatorship chooses to style itself “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Not to mention the EU and its member states.

Just because a regime chooses to style itself "democratic" doesn't mean it is democratic.

True Democracy rests upon the demonstrable consent of the People, something that elective government cannot achieve.

But ultimately, anti-democratic elitists are not really interested in the consent of the People. They are interested only in ruling.
- Stephen Morris Jun 29, 2016
  
  @ Harvey Ellams. As discussed in the comments to Mark Leonard's article (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-direct-democracy-destroys-europe-by-mark-leonard-2016-06) the use of the term "representative" in relation to purely "elective" government is a Semantic Fallacy. It does not correspond to any definition of "representative" other than the tautological one of "the thing that elective government is".
  
  The most significant thing about Swiss democracy (and indeed all genuine Democracy) is that it demonstrates the ongoing consent of the governed in a way that purely elective government cannot: if those being governed disagreed with it as a system, then it is an easy matter to call a referendum to have it modified or repealed. In practice, the People never do this. When they have democratic rights, they hold onto them tight.
  
  In light of this, the anti-democrats have a hard task explaining why the People of non-democratic countries are not permitted a free choice on which system of government they prefer.
  
  It is, after all, THEIR country, not the Elite's.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- harvey ellams Jun 28, 2016
  
  Britain’s Democratic FailureJUN 28, 2016
  So which form of Democracy is Kenneth talking about? There are 2 primary types of Democracy: Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Much of the world follows Representative Democracy whereas Switzerland espouses, in the main, Direct Democracy. For Example, between January 1995 and June 2005, people in Switzerland where able to vote 31 times on 103 federal questions [1] How many referendums did the UK have in the same time period? To quote Kenneth’s article, “Given voter turnout of 70%”. Actually, the turnout was 72 %, significantly more than last years UK general election. This equates to over 30 million people voting. [2]. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but the 2% Kenneth omitted accounts for 600,000 people; small for the USA but fairly significant for the UK. Let’s be frank about Representative Democracy, this is the preferred Democracy for big business; by big business I mean the 1% that hold 50% of the worlds wealth [3]. (I wonder how many like to source their leadership from Harvard University? [4] ). Why is Representative Democracy preferred by the ‘1%’? In short, influence: Ask yourself this, how is it so many politicians go into the political arena with limited funds but come out the other side multi-millionaires [5]. Interesting that Kenneth refers to Athenian Democracy. The Greek historian Polybius’s work on ‘How Democracy Arises and Degenerates’, details how, if it is allowed to be corrupted, it degenerates back to oligarchy. To quote Polybius, “long association weaken their value for equality and freedom, and some seek to become more powerful than ordinary citizens; and the most liable to this temptation are the rich.” [6] Further study will also bring you to the works of Robert Michels who, in 1911 via his publication ‘Political Parties’, criticised Representative Democracy and its tendency to decline back into oligarchy or particracy. [7]. This brings me to this conclusion: When you read an article on the internet, in social media or in a newspaper – try to ascertain which version of Democracy is being espoused? Perhaps, instead, avoid the mainstream polemic media and seek out more reticent, but accurate, information sources like www.fullfact.org (A fact checking charity with no political bias). Unfortunately it won’t make for exciting reading!
  [1] http://www.swissinfo.ch/…/explore-600-national-vot…/41481992
  [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028
  [3] https://www.theguardian.com/…/half-world-wealth-in-hands-po…
  [4] http://www.usnews.com/…/where-the-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-…
  [5] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/…/tony-blair-net-worth-earn…
  [6]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text…
  [7] http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/…/3…/michels/polipart.pdf
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Chambers Jun 27, 2016

A considerably smaller number voted to remain and that is all that counts. They did not demand a supermajority because they were arrogant enough to think they didn't need one. Had the result been 50.01% Remain vs 49.99% Leave, there would be no such calls for a retrial. The Elite called for the referendum and got a well deserved black eye. Now let them go and f*** themselves.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Terje Isaksen Jun 27, 2016

The UK entered the European Economic Community, also known as the Common Market, 1st January 1973 without even having a referendum. A referendum over whether to stay or leave the EEC, like the one held this year, was held 5th June 1975. Why was a simple majority good enough then? Although the remain side won by 67% the turnout was a mere 64.4%, which would be only about 43% of the electorate.

As for the younger generation saying the oldies have ruined their lives, they knew it all too at their age, but actually they have only themselves to blame by not voting.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sandie Greed Jun 27, 2016

I don't think any of this small majority was mentioned when the referendum was held in 1975 to remain in the EEC
Yes 52.1%
No 47.9%
There was no fuss as I remember about majorities then nor did we NO voters insult and condemn the Yes voters no we didn't, the world has changed and not always for the better.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Georges Makhtouf Jun 27, 2016

"Any action to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote."

Really? Is that what European voters were told when voting for the EU Constitution or the Maastricht Treaty? Will there really be an upcoming second referendum on Maastricht any time soon?

For EU elites it seems that the first time the vote goes their way is final, otherwise the people have to keep voting until they go the way their EU masters would like. Seems like a fine way to run a quasi-dictatorship like Luxembourg but not for the nation that invented modern parliamentary democracy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 27, 2016

Kenneth Rogoff is right about the necessity to "require a 'supermajority' for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%" as in the case of Britain's referendum on its EU membership. He says, "the real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it."
Unlike the rest of the world, Switzerland has a strong tradition of referendums, giving its citizens an extraodinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination. This form of "direct democracy" is quite close to the ancient Greek model, but more inclusive. In Britain, a referendum is a democratic instrument, but rarely used. It explains why its result is neither binding nor legally forceful. The word “sovereignty” that has contantly been used in the "Leave" campaign, is a much misunderstood word. Sovereignty doesn't reside with the people, but with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with members of parliament (MPs), elected by the people. They alone can decide on existential issues like this one, and only their peers can block them.
The Leavers have not thought about the legal side of Brexit. MPs will need first to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which took Britain into the Euorpean Economic Community (EEC) in the first place, before the government can activate article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. According article 50 “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament. And the MPs still have the final word, and they have every right, and indeed a duty to think whether it serves Britain's best interest to leave the bloc.
The first referendum in the UK was held in 1975, three years after the Parliament voted to join the EEC in 1972. But the referendum was held to settle the dispute in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of Britain's membership. The "Remain" camp won a supermajority - 67%. In Switzerland the outcomes of crucial referendums require the "supermajority" of the electorate, and of the "kantons" - which correspond to federal states in the US - to be deemed democratic.
History shows that many democratic countries do not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum, which should be seen as advisory. Representatives of the people and the parliament make complex decisions together. An elected government acts on behalf of the country, accountable to the parliament and other mechanisms of checks and balances. Democracy has never meant to be the tyranny of the simple majority, And a country "should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion."
Indeed, the Brexit referendum has thrown the country and Europe "into turmoil." The world has reacted negatively and it is up to the British government "to reconstitute itself". Rogoff is right that any decision "to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote. The current international norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen, a formula for chaos." Britain should have learned from Switzerland, before holding this referendum.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Merrifield Jun 27, 2016

What gobbledegook!

The easy vote was the status quo and the question clearly designed to get that outcome. The arguments put by the Remain side were defening and doom laden. Despite that bias 4% more people to leave.

The real issue is why the political establishment has lost touch with the population and that extends in particular to the parliamentary Labour party.

One man, one vote works. Political elites don't.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jun 27, 2016

I believe this translates into let's hold the vote over and over until we get the result we the "elites" want. So much for the democratic/republican form of government.
- John Brian Shannon Jun 27, 2016
  
  Hi Stephen,
  
  +1
  
  Cheers, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Van Kessel Jun 27, 2016

Interesting but hardly relevant. Exactly what conditions states attach to referenda are up to the states concerned. Professor Rogoff's argumentation reflects his belief. Fine and well but clearly he is out of step with the U.K. It appears that the British will take the results seriously, referendum a meaning ful exercise. This is in strong contrast to the meaningless referenda in France and the Netherlands rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. Which is the better and truer, even if imperfect, exercise in democracy and which is less likely to diminish the credibility of democracy? And why does this have to be any more than a refusal to buy into the political centralization of Europe without abandoning very close economic relations (as in the case of NAFTA)?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Zolnai Jun 27, 2016

Isn't there a parliamentary check&balance in Arcticle 50?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-cant-leave-eu-without-140423176.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Jun 27, 2016

Britain in her history sometimes committed historic blunders when dealing with lives and future of other nations during her imperial rule. They simply did not spend enough time to thoroughly analyse the situation. Withdrawal from India and dumping the problem onto the hands of India was the classical example. So many lives would been saved. But let us forget it now. But why didn't the Brits spend enough time now to analyse and get the people involve in the discussion of such a serious issue? This is a serious failure of leadership.

Could this result in really the sun set of "the British Empire"?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/Mi4hGBM/zh;

英国的民主失败

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Looking Back at 100

A Vote for Populists Is a Vote for Putin

Putting Africa’s Secondary Cities First

A Referendum on the EU Experiment?

In Defense of Europe

Robo-Apocalypse? Not in Your Lifetime

Austria and the Plot Against Europe

Voter Turnout Will Decide Europe’s Fate

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register