By Steve Brawner, © 2019 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.
In a democracy, any discussion of “Should we do something?” should also answer “How will we do it?” Otherwise, we start looking like Great Britain does now.
That country didn’t answer both questions regarding “Brexit,” and now it’s a mess.
On June 23, 2016, British voters were asked simply, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” Fifty-two percent said “Leave.”
Several factors played into the result. Voters wanted to maintain British sovereignty and identity in a country that never adopted the euro. Many opposed the EU’s open borders and immigration policies. The older the voters were, the more likely they were to support Brexit.
You might say they wanted to make Britain great again.
I probably would have voted “Remain,” but I don’t fault the “Leave” voters.
This column is about the fact that there apparently was no exit strategy to go along with the exit, and now the UK makes our Congress look like a well-oiled machine. It now has its third prime minister since the referendum occurred three years ago, counting David Cameron who called for the vote (hoping it would fail) and then resigned shortly afterwards. For three years, Theresa May (who also originally opposed Brexit) tried and failed to work out a deal blessed by both the EU and Parliament, and then she resigned.
That led to the ascendance of the current prime minister, Boris Johnson.
Johnson is a hardcore Brexiteer who has vowed to complete the divorce, with or without a deal, by the EU’s current deadline of Oct. 31. Previously it was April 12, but that was extended. He even got the queen to send Parliament home so he could limit the debate. But now a coalition of opposition Labor Party members and members of Johnson’s own ruling Conservative Party have passed a bill to force him to request another delay to Jan. 31, 2020. By the time you read this, the situation might have changed again.
If the UK ever does leave the EU, it will regain its independence and sovereignty. It will be freer to negotiate its own deals, including potentially with the United States. That’s the good part.
The bad part is, Brexit will disrupt multinational supply chains that have developed over decades since the UK joined the European Economic Area in 1973. The UK likely will fall into a recession and could even face temporary shortages of necessities. Thorny issues have not been settled. We still don’t know what the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland will be. And Scotland, which covers the northern half of the main British Isle, wants to stay in the EU.
Meanwhile, the current uncertainty is hurting the British economy. Businesses that can’t forecast the future freeze up and wait to act. If the divorce happens Oct. 31, it will affect every economy everywhere, including ours. The same is true the longer it drags out.
The lesson learned for us is not, “Don’t change.” It’s “Approach change thoughtfully and with a plan.” All of us have ways we’d change the United States, perhaps radically and perhaps suddenly. But every change has consequences, often unintended. So let’s be careful with any sentence that begins with “We oughta …”
We don’t have national referenda here, but we do have them statewide in Arkansas. In 2020, Arkansans will vote on legislative referrals regarding highway taxes, altering legislative term limits, and changing the referendum and initiative process itself. Arkansas voters also can initiate their own acts and constitutional amendments. In recent years, it’s been done to legalize medical marijuana, increase the minimum wage, and legalize casino gambling.
It’s good that we have that ability, even if I don’t always agree with the results. Direct democracy can be a valuable, appropriate tool in a state whose motto is “Regnat populus,” or Latin for “The people rule.” Voters should have their say, and they need to be able to directly and forcefully direct the political class when it becomes unresponsive, entrenched or arrogant. In fact, the threat of doing so can be valuable by itself.
But it’s a tool that should be used carefully, and only when it answers not only “Should we?” but also “How?” Otherwise, we end up like Great Britain, which is caught in a situation it can’t figure out how to exit.