Brexit and a Second Referendum - Ros Altmann
  • ROS ALTMANN

    Ros is a leading authority on later life issues, including pensions,
    social care and retirement policy. Numerous major awards have recognised
    her work to demystify finance and make pensions work better for people.
    She was the UK Pensions Minister from 2015 – 16 and is a member
    of the House of Lords where she sits as Baroness Altmann of Tottenham.

  • Ros Altmann

    Ros Altmann

    Brexit and a Second Referendum

    Brexit and a Second Referendum

    • A mis-selling scandal – not pensions this time, but Brexit!
    • Referendum campaign misrepresented the impacts of leaving the EU – so people should have the right to change their mind.
    • Misleading customers is against the law in most sectors but politicians are not held accountable.

    We are told the 2016 Referendum was the biggest exercise in democracy this country has ever seen. Really?

    If democracy is all about deliberate deception, dishonesty and political spin, then the Referendum was certainly a masterful display. I readily accept that the Remain campaign was flawed, but that reinforces the case that the result is unreliable.

    Since when has our democracy been about ordering MPs to blindly obey what a majority of people supported in the past, even though it has subsequently become clear there is a risk of severe damage to the country?  MPs have a duty to protect the national interest.

    17.4million citizens (37% of the electorate and a quarter of the entire 65million+ UK population) voted to leave the EU in the advisory 2016 Referendum. This is said to justify depriving 50million fellow countrymen of their EU rights and citizenship in the name of democracy.

    With a career in pensions, I have seen many examples of mis-selling in my lifetime. But never have I seen the scale of misrepresentation, fraud or illegality that has come to light in connection with the 2016 Referendum.

    On top of the financial irregularities which were revealed in recent months, the Referendum also involved fraudulent use of large companies’ logos implying they supported Leave, false claims that Turkey – and even Iraq and Syria – would soon join the EU, false assurances that leaving would make Britain wealthier, increase free trade and provide all the benefits of membership, without the burdens or costs. None of this is true. In addition, the campaign made no mention of the risks to Northern Ireland, our services, research or medical sectors.

    If you decide to buy a pension on the basis of a false prospectus which failed to explain the risks, you would have the right to reconsider, or be compensated and those selling to you would face suspension or sanctions. However, voters who believed the misleading narrative about Brexit and based their decision on it, are denied the opportunity to change their mind.

    Of course, Parliament must respect the Referendum. But it has. Triggering Article 50, passing legislation for withdrawal, extensive negotiations with the EU trying to deliver an agreed Brexit for the British people, clearly honours the result. But the outcome is nothing like the promises many voted for. In any normal circumstances, democracy would take account of new realities.

    Many people were encouraged to vote for the first time in their lives. But we have no idea how many of them would have voted for No Deal, or Mrs. May’s agreement or even for leaving the Customs Union, Single Market or Euratom.  We also do not know how many believed they would be better off. But we do know that Brexit will make the country poorer at least in the initial years.

    Surely Members of Parliament need to know what the majority think, given these new Brexit realities. This is not an affront to democracy, it is the logical path to take.

    MPs ploughing ahead regardless is the real threat to our representative Parliamentary democracy. If citizens find out they were deceived, when it is too late to do anything about it, what faith will they then have in ‘democracy’?

    Checking the will of the people, before forcing the whole country onto a damaging path, is particularly important because Brexit is effectively irreversible. If we are not sure this is what 17.4 million voted for we should not leave now.  We would still have the option to do so in future, but would meanwhile retain our current position in the EU – – including the rebate, being outside the Euro and Shengen.  If the majority confirm they still wish to leave, I would certainly accept that but we should not give those up lightly.

    I would far rather not go through the trauma of another Brexit Vote. But it is hard to see how MPs can honestly claim to be honouring the will of the people without checking what it is. Parliament is gridlocked. Asking for voters’ informed consent is simply respecting people’s democratic right to change their mind.

    Those who oppose this are presumably frightened that the majority view has changed. Asking people to vote again is not going to overturn or ‘steal’ Brexit, as some claim, unless the British people have changed their views. But, if that is indeed the case, then Parliament has a duty to find out. And if the majority still feel the same, they can register their vote accordingly.

    Pensions cannot be sold to the public on the basis of false promises. Telling someone their pension is very low risk, when it could lead to huge losses is illegal.  Surely even stricter rules should apply to Brexit which is about so much more than pensions. As risks have turned out to be so much greater than explained in 2016 or 2017, the British people should have a chance to change their minds before an irreversible damaging outcome. Asking the people to confirm their views is the most democratic way forward.

    2 thoughts on “Brexit and a Second Referendum

    1. Surely nothing in life is certain? Even pensions. As you know better than I do, pensions for women are a fragile notion. The government understand this and are now attempting to persuade people that they need to underwrite their retirement with the value of their property. In fact it was known at least twenty years ago that investing in property was the only way to secure any sort of income in retirement.
      The people also understand that the EU will not be a safe long term investment. Even though its been a seventy year + project and will no doubt roll inexorably on, it’s structure is brittle, inflexible and unlikely to change. For this reason alone it is more likely to provoke dissent than dissipate it.
      We disagree, but I am very grateful for the good work that you have done and are continuing to do. Unfortunately despite all your good works I believe that there will be many women living in terrible poverty due to changes in working practices and the indifference of the government.

    2. Thank you so much for your views with which I entirely agree. I have written many times to my MP, delivered pro-remain leaflets, and persuaded friends and family of the folly of credit, but am now beginning to feel impotent despite my efforts.
      However, reading views such as yours, being a person with much more influence than me, fills me once again with some optimism.
      Thank you so much, and keep up the good work knowing that your efforts are truly appreciated.
      Bob Jones

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *