Letter: More than one way to hold a referendum - our obsession with majority voting is part of the problem
A letter from Peter Emerson:
Rachel Reeves’ recent reference to the customs union implies that maybe the Brexit referendum should have been multi-optional.
At the chosen level of complexity, there were four options: in the EU, EEA, Customs Union or WTO.
Pluralism is possible. New Zealand had a five-option referendum in 1992. Its first multi-option poll was in 1894! And majority voting should be used only if its dichotomy is a duality: e.g., ‘Shall we drive on the left- or right-hand side?’ as in Sweden’s 1955 referendum.
Alas, even in polarised societies, binary ballots predominate. In 1991, Croatians were asked, in effect, ‘Are you Serb or Croat?’ But they’re both Slav, using the same Serbo-Croat language (albeit in different scripts) and (if it mattered, which sadly it did) both mainly Christian (albeit of different denominations).
The 2014 Crimean referendum was another non-duality: in effect, ‘Are you Russian or Ukrainian?’ - no wonder the Tatars abstained. With similar polls in Donetsk, Luhansk… and Scotland, Russian separatists were using the word ’Shotlandiya’. Our obsession with majority voting is part of the problem!
So should the Belfast Agreement cater for a multi-option referendum… and at least the possibility of compromise? It might even include the late John Robb’s idea of a ‘W-I-S-E’ federation, (Wales-Ireland-Scotland-England).
Peter Emerson, The de Borda Institute, Belfast