Professor A C Grayling

Dear MP —

I am sure – for reasons set out below – that you will not mind my writing to you again about the following:

(1) The EU referendum of 23 June 2016 was advisory, non-binding, non-mandating, and explicitly so: Briefing Note 07212 issued to you on 3 June 2016, and which you very carefully read in preparation for debating the Referendum Bill, made this crystal clear (§5). It also explicitly pointed out (§6) that if there were to be any suggestion otherwise, that a supermajority would be required because of the major degree of constitutional change, and deprivation of citizens’ rights, that would be involved in a decision to leave the EU.

By Professor A C Grayling, Master, New College of the Humanities —

It is a troubling thought that the people who run election and referendum campaigns have given up trying to spin facts, and have gone for outright untruths and distortions instead. Perhaps inadvertently, Daniel Kahneman and his like – researchers into human behaviour – have given them fresh ammunition to use in the ‘Brexit’ referendum campaign and the Trump election, by reminding them that confidently and frequently repeated untruths wrapped up in catchphrases will persuade while sober analysis and discussion will not.

Donald Trump’s election in the US, and the ‘Brexit’ referendum in the UK, are the most visible outcomes of a change in political mood across Western democracies. In the Netherlands the party of Gert Wilders leads others in polls. France’s presidential election next March between Marine le Pen and Nicolas Sarkozy could easily result in a victory for the former. The Pegida movement in Germany and across Europe is gaining support. Norbert Hofer is close to becoming Austria’s president in the re-run election in December.

Professor A C Grayling, Master, New College of the Humanities —

The government has been reminded that it is responsible to Parliament, and that the outcome of the advisory referendum of 23 June has to be debated in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

When we ask Parliament to debate whether the ‘advice’ of the advisory referendum should be taken, and when we ask Parliament to debate whether or not to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we are asking for the same thing.

I write to ask if you could very kindly advise me as to why it is that Parliament is not being given the chance to debate and vote upon the outcome of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 on the UK’s membership of the European Union, with a view to deciding whether or not to take the ‘advice’ of the advisory referendum. A decision to not take that advice would keep the UK in the EU and end the turmoil into which the country and its economy have been plunged; a decision to follow that advice would then, and only then, mandate the Government to begin considering how it will take the UK out of the EU and to find a new place as a solo entity in our complex world.

It is one thing to make a mistake, another to pretend that you did not make it and therefore to keep on making it. There have been two egregious mistakes, two terrible errors of judgment, in the UK’s recent political history that threaten the derailment of our country, and its redirection into something less – and increasingly less – than it has been for half a millennium.

To combat the kind of thinking that seems to be prevalent among some – and perhaps too many – members of Parliament, to the effect that the outcome of the EU referendum is actually or virtually ‘binding’ and mandates the UK government to take the UK out of the EU, it is important to contest the use of the cant phrases ‘the will of the people,’ ‘the people have spoken,’ ‘the democratic majority,’ and the like.

There are three great benefits in studying the humanities. One is the intrinsic fascination of what the humanities teach us about the…