A Boycott Is the Underpriced Risk of a Second Brexit Vote

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Now that parliament has taken control of the timetable in order to hold indicative votes on various Brexit paths, one option MPs will be asked to reconsider is a second referendum. Talk of a new vote, with a Remain option on the ballot, has grown again following Saturday’s mass-scale protest march. But lost amid all the chatter about another vote is the tangible danger to British democracy lurking in such a plan.

The risk is that any attempt at what proponents call a people’s vote would likely be met with a people’s boycott. Regardless of the referendum’s final tally, an organized boycott would mean all of Britain loses.

One of the chief Brexit architects, Daniel Hannan, recently told Al Jazeera that "A second referendum would be utterly illegitimate. I would not vote in it, because we’ve just had a referendum.” Certainly, we are free to disagree with his opinions. But we cannot ignore the palpable frustration brimming in his words, nor can we avoid the conclusion that a boycott would instantly devalue a second vote and widen divisions in an already polarized society.

Consider the two claimed benefits of another ballot. The first is the idea that a re-run referendum will grant democratic “legitimacy” to whatever outcome is decided. But legitimacy is not an abstraction arbitrated by philosophers; it is in the eye of the beholder. To paraphrase Orwell, Britain only has a legitimate government because large numbers of people believe it to have a legitimate government. If there is an active boycott of a second referendum, it will be a clear signal that a significant share of voters has lost faith in the valid authority of the government. The consequences of that are hard to predict, but states lacking the patina of legitimacy are prone to political unrest and violence.

Electoral boycotts generally take place where citizens dismiss the rightful authority of the state, as in junta-era Myanmar or Russian-backed eastern Ukraine, not as a routine campaign tactic in a functioning democracy. Boycotts are not politics as usual in functioning societies; violence and disorder often follows.

The other reason proffered for a new referendum is that parliament has gridlocked on Brexit, and only the electorate can sort out the chaos. But Brexit has been a central part of the national debate ever since the first vote. Another close split in a fully contested election (regardless of the winner) paints a portrait of continued division, unsatisfying though it might be. But what could politicians divine from a ballot that was purposely sabotaged by a boycott, other than voters’ disgust?

Brexiters are not fools. A boycott’s obvious power, mixed with Leavers’ understandable anger, would make such an outcome all but inevitable. Remainers have underestimated their opponents’ strategic acumen and campaign skill once before, but there should be no doubt that the authors of “Take Back Control” could craft an equally compelling call to boycott the polls should the occasion arise. The Leave campaign, after all, won in part due to 2.8 million non-voters who decided to turn out; it wouldn’t take much to encourage them to sit on their hands this time around.

A boycott need not be total to achieve its aims. If even half of the 17.4 million Leave voters abstained from the next ballot, how could any impartial observer claim legitimacy or clarity from such a result? The government may choose to ignore that inconvenient fact, but it would easily result in a dramatic rise of the anger that fuels populist politics and sectarian grievance – or even worse.

The vast majority of those pushing a second referendum are not considering the second-order consequences on British democracy; they are likely just desperate for a chance to remain in the EU. Whatever their motives, the fact remains: desperate people do desperate things, and desperate things are rarely fully thought through.

There is no upside to any flavor of Brexit, and the original referendum was a colossal error in judgement. However, another vote seeking to reverse it would not be a wellspring of hope for a divided nation, but would more likely introduce a new kind of poison into Britain’s democratic culture. It is not a risk worth taking.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Danny Hatem is a researcher at the University of Oxford's Department of Politics and International Relations.

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.