Does Britain need a Net Zero referendum or would another binary referendum be deeply polarising? asks Jack Faulkner.
After the result of the 2016 Brexit vote that left Britain embittered and divided, would another binary referendum on another divisive issue have similar consequences for British politics?
Green policy and the climate change debate is already a huge bone of contention in Britain; one which has been streamlined into a binary discourse, leaving little room for somewhere in ‘the middle’ – much like Brexit.
On one side are the Gen-Z Instagram activists, progressive politician-influencers and the classic ‘eco-warriors’ often found blocking ambulances from entering hospitals or sitting in the middle of the road on the M25 in ‘protest’ of the government’s supposed lack of action on climate change.
On the opposite side are those who make the case that green policies like aiming for Net Zero carbon emissions, encouraging homes to be retrofitted and persuading consumers that they must switch to electric cars in order to ‘save the planet’ are pushed by metropolitan, middle-class socialists onto working-class people and families – those who would feel the economic effects of such policies the most.
Going green – or perhaps going greener – is a debate that must be had. But is the solution another binary referendum that deeply polarises Britain?
Going green – or perhaps going greener – is a debate that must be had. But is the solution another binary referendum that deeply polarises Britain? And are referenda the best and most effective way to decide political divisions? It is clear that Brexit has set a precedent for the way in which major political decisions can, in theory, be decided for the UK. But are they really of benefit, and do they succeed in bringing about change to the political landscape? In the case of Brexit, the successful campaign to leave the European Union resulted in exactly this; but it also had a catastrophic impact on politics and discourse too.
The problem is that British politics has become increasingly binary; one is either on one ‘side’ or the other, and those in the middle have been cast aside or criticised for not declaring to whom they belong.
The Brexit vote has intensified this. But this is not to say that the referendum was not one that needed to be had, because campaigns to leave the European Union were being fought well before 2016. Arguably, what brought these sentiments to a boiling point in 2016 was the rise of Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party and the right-wing populist movement.
The point is that on Britain’s EU membership, the debate had to be resolved, and David Cameron saw his “In-Out referendum” as the solution – but, seven years on, Remain voters are still arguing the toss on the result. Whether leaving the EU was a good or bad idea, now, is irrelevant because the outcome won’t be reversed. Yet, the intense discourse on whether or not Britain should re-join still rages.
Scotland’s 2014 independence vote is another clear example of this. It was Nicola Sturgeon herself who said at the time that it was a “once in a generation” vote – and nine years later she was still fighting the cause for another chance at the ballot box because the previous result wasn’t the one the minority wanted. The outcome, much like that after 2016, has been a deep-rooted political division between voters, and no indication of acceptance of the result by those who voted for independence. And what the Brexit and Scottish independence referenda also have in common is that it is the majority left-wing Remain (now ‘Re-join’) and independence campaigns that continue to fan the flames of the division (not to present the issue as binary).
Years later in 2019, the Labour Party proposed that Britain painfully endures another In-Out referendum, then if the result was another Leave win, hold another referendum on the deal Jeremy Corbyn would have negotiated from his “neutral” position. Even now, there are deeply-held sentiments both within the Parliamentary Labour Party and the party more widely that Britain should re-join the EU, and that it is Labour who should lead this movement.
This division is a consequence of holding a referenda on controversial and polarised issues, as it would be to hold a vote on pursuing a Net Zero carbon emissions target. If those who vote ‘No’ to having a referendum lose and the argument is (probably) that ‘we shouldn’t need to hold a referendum on Net Zero because we should be pursuing it anyway’, the Noes will be the new Remainers. And in the years to come, Britain will still be fighting over whether the result was the ‘right’ one, and no doubt the losers will be demanding a do-over.
Additionally, reaching the Net Zero target by 2050 was in Boris Johnson’s 2019 manifesto, so those opposed to the policy or in favour of holding a referendum on the matter cannot argue that it is a policy that the people ‘didn’t vote for’. Therefore, is the proposal for a referendum on Net Zero theoretically illegitimate if a general election is to provide a mandate to govern? And if not, what is the point in holding one every five years?
Arguably, referenda are the best way to exercise democracy and for a country to collectively decide government policy – but, then again, that’s what general elections are for.
Arguably, referenda are the best way to exercise democracy and for a country to collectively decide government policy – but, then again, that’s what general elections are for. However, the use of holding votes on such policies could be easily overused or abused. Unfortunately, the Brexit vote has set a precedent for deciding major political issues ‘once and for all’ (except it hasn’t).
What is also a danger is deciding everything by holding nationwide votes on government policy. Switzerland frequently hold votes of a similar nature, and on ridiculous matters such as the legalisation of gay marriage and whether or not to ban the burka garment worn by Muslim women; the former should have already been legal, and the latter is a direct infringement on freedom of expression. It would be equally ridiculous for Britain to adopt a similar approach to trivial ‘issues’ such as that of religious clothing and an individual’s choice to wear it.
There a more important issues for both the Establishment and the electorate to be concerned with at the moment. Holding referenda serves as a means to win a political objective – but if that objective fails, the losers will almost certainly demand a do-over at the expense of nationwide political stability and peace. This is obvious when observing the ongoing arguments on Scottish independence and Brexit. If that objective is successful in the short-term, as with Brexit, the long-term repercussions of disunity and instability are immeasurably damaging to discourse and democracy.
By Jack Faulkner.
