Does Brexit prove that some issues should not be discussed by referendum?

On 23 June 2016, 51.89% of the British people voted in favour of leaving the European Union. Originally, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron had planned for the referendum to stabilize his and his party’s position, responding to increasing Euroskeptic tendencies in Britain. The nationalist party UKIP had managed to attract disaffected citizens and began to pose a real threat to long-established centrist parties. Cameron tried to win back lost votes by giving the citizens the chance to decide on a controversial, heated issue, apparently without considering the possible consequences.  The outcome of the referendum seems to be an almost ironical turn of events, but more importantly, it has revealed some crucial facts about the referendum as a device of government.

During the campaign that preceded the election day it became obvious that it was not solely about Britain leaving the EU. Instead of fulfilling the democratic duty that was placed on them, the people rather used the opportunity to express their general disaffection with British policies, while politicians, especially right-wing populists, fueled the debate. However, the media probably had the most significant impact on events. Clearly driven by a constant hunger for sensation, British broadcasters did not hesitate to give loud populists the chance to appear on various shows, thus allowing them to continuously spread their opinions. In this atmosphere of hate, fear and hysteria, the British citizen was supposed to make a decision that had an enormous effect on both economy and society.

It is appropriate to say that Brexit serves as a perfect example of why it is not advisable to let some issues be discussed by referendum. Due to the influence of media, it is inevitable that people will be caught up in a propaganda battle. Eventually, this will lead to a country even more divided and unstable than before. Apart from that, the complex decision on whether or not to leave the EU requires a substantial knowledge of economics, trade and foreign policies that most people do not possess. Therefore, we, the citizens, elect politicians: They are entrusted with the task to acquire that knowledge in order to decide on a certain topic. It is unlikely that these decisions please every single person. Nevertheless, I believe that in this way democracy and peace are served best.

Some issues should not be decided by referendum

Agree or disagree with the following statement: Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum.

I agree with the statement, because it is easy to manipulate people into voting for one cause or the other. It could be argued that some politicians try to stoke fears in the society to get them on their side, and people tend to let fears influence them without checking for facts first. Another important reason to consider is the possibility that people who are allowed to vote in a referendum do not know what they are deciding about. They might not be interested in the topic at all or do not inform themselves on the topic and it is reasonable to assume that they vote on a gut feeling. A further aspect may be that in every election based decision there certainly are protest voters and people who do not go to vote at all, because they might think that thier vote will not make a difference anyways.

Does the marketplace of ideas and media leave us overwhelmed and disaffected?

Humankind’s fight for freedom of expression and information has been hard and persistent. In medieval Europe, for example, people’s sources for knowledge were rather limited, as the church was the only institution possessing the power to multiply texts. Thus, the range of ideas and opinions was limited. However, the invention of the printing press in the 15^th century marked the beginning of a revolutionary development. It enabled people to spread and receive information unregulated by the church and helped to bring on further events, most notably of which is the so called democratization of knowledge.   

Nowadays, the values our ancestors fought for represent an inherent part of human rights laws, such as the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, we have the omnipotent and ideal platform to enable a vast number of people to receive essays, articles, comments, pictures, videos, ideas and opinions published by a vast number of people: the Internet. Funnily enough, we, unlike our ancestors, are flooded by all different kinds of information. One might have hoped that this would bring full enlightenment and awareness. Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to gather all the existing data, even harder to analyse and understand it all, which is why we rely on the media filtering it for us.

This leads to a big dilemma. Every person can spread their thoughts, which also includes right-wing populists, while the media seems to show a very one-sided view on things. Current events in Britain and in the USA clearly illustrate that people are not content with the way the media comments on certain topics and feel misunderstood. Meanwhile, populists use the numerous possibilities the Internet provides to reach out to those people. The concept of free speech is supposed to work in a self-correcting way, however, at this stage, it is difficult to keep track of everything that is happening and one can only try to have an open mind about it.