A couple of days ago in one of my articles I said if MPs in the UK Parliament didn’t respected the will of the referendum, which is not binding, that would be immoral. Actually I rethink that one, and in this article I will try to explain why a call to MPs to respect the will of referendum doesn’t make too much sense, and why I think the Remain MPs should hit that hardest controversy, and vote to revoke Article 50, the invoking for which many of them shouldn’t vote in the first place. The argument that Remainers should respect the will of referendum, makes no sense. Why any kind of minority should “respect” the will of majority? What is the point of politics than? UK is parliamentary democracy, which means if you don’t like your MP, vote him/her out. If they don’t support your desire for Brexit, vote them out! But they don’t need to respect the will of referendum. Giving the moral imperative to this question, made political quagmire in Britain just deeper. None of Remain MPs shouldn’t vote for invoking Article 50. Anyone who voted for invoking Article 50, should be considered being Brexiteer. If people in UK don’t like the stance of their MPs, than vote them out! Vote for Boris, vote for Farage! The imperative that the will of referendum in Britain should be respected just pacify UK politicians to act as politicians, to act as representatives. If Remain MP is elected to agitate for Remain, he/she should do that in full force, regardless of the will of referendum. Brexit is political struggle, so why Remainers should respect the will of referendum? It makes no sense. How they can represent their voters who, by some unwritten rules should “give consent” as defeated camp? This logic created political vacuum in which demagogues like Nigel Farage flourish. If Brexiteers don’t like their representatives, vote them out! But I didn’t see too many of them cheering for general election before No-deal as a default happen. 

Remainers don’t need to respect the will of referendum. The will of majority don’t need to be respected. This is the biggest hoax. Hoax which affected our way of thinking, because “democracy” shouldn’t be undermined whatsoever. Wrong! Majority has legal ways to push for Brexiteers in legislature, as Remainers have the right to oppose them.  

This is the discussion which is lacking in this Brexit quagmire, the discussion which is needed the most: Brexit question was legally illogical. If you want legislative role, you need to vote for legit proposition, and the Brexit question wasn’t the one which makes sense legally speaking. 

I will give my experience with referendums in Serbia, where referendums are binding! I remember two referendums in Serbia: one in 2006 when we voted for the new Constitution, and one, for some local issue in my town. One of the reasons why we vote in referendums for the new Constitutions is because we need two thirds majority (like in US) in the Parliament in order to change the Constitution, and from time to time even forming simple majority in the Parliament is a challenge. (That’s probably the reason why US, where federal referendums are not allowed, didn’t changed its Constitution for over 200 years.) That’s saying, when representatives and political parties in Serbia fail, when representatives can’t find the way out to sort certain question (like in Britain today), referendum is the last instance to sort things out. In Britain it’s upside down, and the reason why is that, is because Britain don’t have experience with referendums. That’s why the British don’t know how to organize them. 

In a way referendums in Serbia are just a vote for some law directly, instead of the Parliament doing so. And regarding Brexit, the Parliament in Britain these days doesn’t just expressing desires, it needs to vote for laws, something which people in Britain fail to do so on referendum which was expression of desire only, and desire can be pretty much anything. In Serbia the Parliament can change the Constitution, but, preferably, we like to do that on referendums. In that way we voted for the current Constitution in 2006. But it was a vote not just of desire, but a vote for concrete proposition, already prepared legislation. The Brexit wasn’t!

Make binding referendums, but then you will find out that you can’t send this kind of Brexit referendum on ballot boxes. With the logic of hard Brexiteers you can ask for referendum on removing Earth from the Solar System, and then yell on MPs to do so (legally speaking, that kind of referendum would be equally valid as Brexit). But that’s nothing more than just a wish which doesn’t have substance in material reality. Make binding referendums, but than people can’t just express some kind of desire, no, in the case of binding referendums you are voting for law! Not desire! Push for binding referendum, and you will find out very fast that this kind of referendum, which was implemented in Britain, would be illegal. So if you want to implement Brexit referendum, you need a law, which could be withdrawal agreement, or No-deal, or anything else which is law. Make binding referendum and put No-deal on ballot boxes. Referendum in Britain was legally illogical. In Britain today it seems like people want to express desire, but don’t want to take responsibility for that. 

This quagmire is of course the result of mistakes by politicians first. Two main parties were populist, both, Labour and Tory party. They both promised they will respect the will of referendum, don’t even bother to inspect the nature of this kind of referendum. This is the point, the crux, from which all evil emit. Referendums in UK are bad, stupid, legally illogical, which is not surprising exactly because they are not binding. But that’s why they are dangerous! If you want binding referendums, you need to make them legally logical, the replacement of Parliament needs to be feasible. And referendums are exactly that, the replacement of Parliament. This is the crux which is lacking in Brexit debate from the very start, the lacking from which all evil emit and creating this quagmire. 

If you want binding referendums, you don’t need Parliament for that specific law. That’s why many countries (like Serbia and Switzerland) have referendums: to replace Parliament, when Parliament fail, or if there are concerns that Parliament doesn’t represent the will of the people (hot topic in Britain today), so Parliament is giving the decision to the people directly. That’s the point of referendums. 

That being said, in order for the first referendum to work, another one with concrete legislation needs to follow, if you want to make the logic of the first one. It’s good that Labour pushed for the second referendum, but they shouldn’t vote for invoking Article 50 in the first place, something they should try to reverse. The desire to leave EU didn’t created this mess, but the way Brexit referendum is implemented.