A referendum was held in the United Kingdom in June of 2016, asking the voting public a single question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? ”  Two choices were allowed in response to that question; either ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’.  Despite the fact that this was the only question asked, and those the only two answers a large number of UK politicians continue to make claims about what the public really wanted and for what the public really voted.  They also seem to think that they are entitled to determine whether or not the result remains valid.

More than 2 years later, this weekend saw a protest in London of more than 1 million people requesting the right (via referendum again) of final say over the question of Brexit.  In parallel to this an online petition which requests Parliament to revoke Article 50 (which would mean that the United Kingdom remains part of the EU) has gained more that 5.8m signatures.  Yet in light (or perhaps despite) of both of these public expressions of opinion, the government remains unmoved and maintains that the referendum result should be respected.  Indeed, earlier this year the Prime Minister stated that she believes a second referendum would represent “undermining faith in our democracy”.

Yet, even an anecdotal examination of (recent) past political events would seem to suggest that there is a long line of policies and decisions (fracking, austerity, religious travel bans, nuclear weapons, the monarchy…) which have never formally and specifically been put to the voters, but which politicians or governments undertake under the guise of doing ‘what the public wants’ – is that not ‘undermining faith in democracy’?

Irrespective of the outcome of that referendum, the result has been and (by some) continues to be,  held up as a valid measure of public opinion in the United Kingdom.  Certainly, the referendum did indeed provide a quantifiable result concerning the one question that was asked and as such, that test of public opinion cannot be challenged unless and until the same question is put to the same demographic again. There is an exception: because the minimum age for voting in the referendum was 18 years of age, we can fairly reasonably conclude that in the year 2100 everyone who voted in the referendum will no longer be alive – at which point it would be difficult to contend that public opinion was unchanged!

Since then, the referendum question has not been put to the same demographic since 2016, there is no empirical way of knowing whether or not public opinion remains the same as it was then.  Does it seem reasonable then that we should assume that it does?  Or perhaps that we should wait a century before challenging it?  Who should decide this?

Although there exist agencies and institutions who are employed to survey public opinion, the only formal recognition of this at a national level can come from a referendum; and such can only be called by the government of the day.  This effectively means that the public is only allowed to express themselves when authorised by the government – sure, you can speak out if you like, but unless this is officially recognised by the government of the day, it holds no weight.  (It may be argued that elections represent a similar opportunity, but in a constituency-based voting system, this is not equivalent to a referendum; and in any case, this is also controlled by the government.)

This seems to me to be a dangerous proposition, not least because if we only permit public opinion to be quantified and assessed by those in power, then it is a possibility that public opinion will only be measured and quoted when it is supportive of the views held by those who govern.  Are we comfortable relying upon the honesty and purity of the motivations of those that govern..?

The current political and societal landscape is one in which there is clear and recent evidence of ‘gaslighting‘ and ‘fake news‘, both practices which involve or can result in, the misrepresentation of public opinion.  When this is combined with the trend of modern 24-hour news channels to inter-weave their news programmes with editorial and commentary; we have a media environment which permits organisations to blur the lines between actual events and opinion.  Should they choose to so do, they can present themselves as being reputable news agencies when in fact they are nothing more than propaganda machines for a certain way of thinking.  Nevertheless, whether this relates to  a malevolent propaganda machine or a simple desire to doggedly follow a specific path – perhaps it is possible to resolve the problems presented by both by simply maintaining a regular, open and public forum for opinion on a regular basis…

Were we to establish a mechanism/ forums for the regular and formal gathering of opinion in our societies, then we would have a simple and effective way of dispassionately measuring public opinion.  Such a forum would not necessarily have to require or request that any listen to it…  there is a clear distinction to be made between allowing an opinion to be heard and the heeding of that opinion.  In point of fact, the purpose of this would not be to create a political ‘weathervane’, but rather the dual purpose of allowing a society to fully understand the mindset of itself whilst at the same time preventing the suborning of ‘public opinion’ as a justification for actions taken by those that govern.

Society is an ever-changing organism, both in terms of its component members and of the characteristics of each of those component members.  This could lead one to conclude that if both society and its surrounding environment are subject to continual change, then perhaps the perceptions and opinions of any given society must also be subject to continual change.  Assuming this logic stands-up, then it seems to me to be common sense that we should monitor that change – rather than make assumptions.