‘Brexit’ was unprecedented and life-changing for the United Kingdom. It not only exposed weaknesses within British Liberal Democracy, but it also saw an evolution of its more traditional principles, a necessary adaption to the needs of modern times. In reference to British Liberal Democracy, we refer to the form of government and ideology with representative democracy operating under principles of classical liberalism. Fundamental to this system of government are characteristics such as the separation of powers, the protection of human rights and freedoms, rule of law, the market economy and free, fair elections. In turn ‘Brexit’ refers to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, which was put to a national referendum in June 2016, resulting in a slim 52% simple majority of support (UK Electoral Commission). After tedious parliamentary deadlocks and negotiations for a deal, Parliament ratified the withdrawal agreement at the end of January 2020.
Brexit was unlike any general election, especially in the campaign leading up to the referendum. The way in which people receive their news in contemporary times has shifted far from the more traditional forms like print media. Brexit proved just how powerful a tool social media can be in rallying up troops, and spreading messages, without the same standards of accountability held to user. In comparison, traditional sources like journalists are bound to codes of ethics to prevent defamatory comments and the spread of falsehoods. The liberal civil liberties of free speech and press without accountability were extended further, not just by the general public, but by those leading the campaigns. Powerful figures such as United Kingdom Independence Party Member Nigel Farage and the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson perpetuated false messages repeatedly throughout the campaign without facing any legal repercussions. Traditions of British Liberal Democracy surrounding transparency and openness within campaigns and advertising were entirely abandoned within the Brexit debate. A cultural shift rooted in dissatisfaction with unemployment and a rejection of the ‘establishment’ saw voters buy into less conventional messages, even if these were not backed by evidence or openly built on lies. It is evident to say that Brexit is part of the evolution of British Liberal Democracy, swaying away from the once trusted institutions and leaders.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Mechanisms of accountability have become irrelevant in an age of so many ‘alternative truths’ and an overload of information sources. In spite of this, there was optimism in that some institutions, such as the judiciary who intervened to prevent the executive’s attempts to stagnate and limit debate. Brexit also proves the strength and stability of democratic structures such as the referendum, which although is arguably an outdated process, gave the government a strong mandate to carry out the will of the people.
The campaign for Brexit unveiled various points of exploitation within Britain’s Liberal Democracy, in particular for freedoms of speech and press. These civil liberties were exploited carelessly by leading political campaigners, who normalised the hateful rhetoric towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, with unfounded falsehoods to support these. The Remain campaign centred much of their argument around evidence from economists and experts, using more of the traditional institutions if power such as the OECD, IMF, Bank of England and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (Forss, K. & Magro, L, 2016). In comparison, the Leave campaign led with an approach based on the notion that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, as declared by Conservative MP Michael Gove. This campaign message was successful, because the ordinary Brit didn’t feel that in the past any experts or policy makers had catered their needs or addressed their issues. One main campaign message for the ‘Brexiteers’ was that 350 million pounds was going to the EU a week, only for leading Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage to take that promise back hours after the vote, but by that time it had already convinced voters that the EU was a drain on resources. (Forss, K. & Magro, L, 2016).
With these extended freedoms, we also saw the exacerbation of violence and hate speech, especially in inciting hate towards non-British citizens, in the name of British nationalism. British MP Jo Cox (an MP who opposed Brexit) was killed by a self-proclaimed “political activist”, who repeatedly sung in the streets “Britain first”. Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting told the jury it was “a premeditated murder for a political and/or ideological cause” (The Guardian, 2016), thus exemplifying the danger these types of nationalist messages carry.
Brexit is evidence that Britain has joined the US in the rise of post-truth populism in (pluralist) liberal democracies, and has now set a precedent for future general elections for the disregard for the truth in political campaigns, with limited accountable media. Brexit not only shows us the shift away from traditional mediums of news, but also the traditional institutions which make up the ‘establishment’, showing a distrust in experts, economists, scientists, banks and pollies.
The erosion of accountability for institutions such as the media contributed to the weaknening of British Liberal Democracy, whereby voters were misinformed as a result of deceptive, misleading campaign material. With the rise of social media as a means of communicating news, the ethical obligations that traditional sources of information (professional journalists and news reporters) are bound to (to protect civil liberties, discrimination and defamation), are non-existent in the world of social media. This allows falsehoods to spread rampantly, with disregard for the facts in attempt to push political motive. There was a complete lack of control and accountability over political messages spread acorss social media, such as suggestions that 80 million Turks would migrate to the UK if they remained in the EU (European Law Monitor, 2016). Though these claims were completely unfounded, they quickly became embedded in the minds of voters, especially those in deciding to vote to Leave. The checks and balances which are so integral to Liberal Democracy haven’t adapted quickly enough to accommodate for the drastic technological changes in the spread of news and information over the last decades.
This referendum revealed the unprecedented use of technology to strategically target voters directly via the use of social media data analysis. This shift away from ‘old press’ (print advertising, newspapers etc) has opportunity to threaten British Liberal Democracy, in its capabilities to run elections and campaigns which are ‘free and fair’. Data is now being manipulated by companies, not so you are presented with a reliable, factual representation of information, but rather the algorithm presents that information to you which can be “mined, visualised, analysed and interpreted however (these analysts) wish” (Davies, W, 2016)
In a 1774 speech, Irish MP Edmund Burke brought forward the case in opposition to referenda as an institute of change, explaining: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (McGiffen, Steve 2017). In this quote Burke is upholding the argument of trustee representation, by which the constituents delegate sovereignty to ‘trustees’ or MPs who they best see fit for decision-making on their behalf. Britain was built as a parliamentary democracy, where elected officials represent their constituents on their behalf in their best interests. Referenda and direct democracy play no part in British constitution and don’t play a prominent role in the history of the country.
Direct democracy in the form of referenda allows for the oversimplification of complex political issues to a binary matter. For the case of Brexit, the implications of this vote were too critical for it to be put open to the constituency to decide, who are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and voter disengagement as a result of the campaign, thus influencing their ability to make an informed decision. Additionally, the issue of democracy asks the question, if 52% of support is large enough of a majority to legitimise the government’s mandate to leave the EU? The other 16 million Remain voters who were left were subject to the tyranny of the slimmest majority. Perhaps a referendum model like Australia’s would have been more democratic which first requires an absolute majority of Parliament, then of the national constituency, and of the states and territories. This issue instead could have been resolved in an alternative manner such as parliamentary democracy in which the issue would have been debated in Westminster with extensive research, committees and debate, so that the country’s fate wasn’t in the hands of voters subject to an emotive campaign.
The decision made by the Supreme Court which overruled the Prime Minister Johnson’s desire to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks during Brexit negotiations sheds further light on Britain’s independent judicial arm of government holding the executive to account. The Supreme Court’s judgement was effective in blocking the government’s exploitation of executive prerogative powers and was backed by constitutional principles which limit the use of prorogation power. The prorogation was found to be unlawful because of its obstruction to the functioning of parliament without reasonable justification (Aileen McHarg, 2020). The SOP between arms of government is fundamental to liberal democracy, and to see the judiciary uphold this check and balance, is a sign of strength for British Liberal Democracy. Despite this, this decision was still met with criticism from a democratic position in particular, which opposed the ruling on the grounds that it was undemocratic having the independent judiciary make the final decision, rather than elected MPs.
In sum, Brexit tested the limits and institutions of British Liberal Democracy to the limits. Civil liberties, which are granted for the protection of citizens were turned against them, in the inciting of hate speech and falsehoods as scare mongering political tactics. When the executive acted outside of their jurisdiction, we saw the independent judiciary assert authority in granting Parliament the sovereignty to continue sitting. Brexit taught us that perhaps, Churchill was right when he said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (Priest, K, 2017). In this case as a result of unaccountable news and political material, strategic voter targeting strategy via data analysis, and deceptive campaign leaders - the average voter did not have the capacity to make an unbiased, accurately informed vote which wasn’t purely fuelled by emotion. However, that is the way of democracy, the ‘will of the people’ must be adhered to by the government, and though that ‘will’ may have been narrow, it was certainly politically legitimate.
Stuck on your essay?
