It’s not because we believe in philosopher-kings that we’ve asked thinkers – from philosophers to law professors – what is the democratic solution to the Brexit impasse. Rather, it’s because Brexit has challenged representative democracy as we’ve known it, antagonising the government and the electorate, and dividing parties to an unprecedented level. This is not an article arguing for Remaining or Leaving – although the majority (but not all) of the thinkers below argue for a second referendum. Still, this is a piece about the constructive and democratic way out of a paralysing crisis. To get the answers to this question, we went to those who have studied political ideas, their power, their limitations and the history of their abuses. The responses vary, and they are deeply entrenched in the current political climate, refuting the myth that philosophy and academia are far removed from the 'real' life. In times of crisis, we are all part of the political turmoil, and at its mercy.

___

Quentin Skinner

___

Quentin Skinner is one of the founders of the Cambridge school of the history of political thought, and author of 'Vision of Politics'. 

To answer the question, it seems to me, we first need to recall two principles of our political system.  One is that we operate not a direct but a representative form of democracy.  The other is that MPs are not delegates; they are not elected to do whatever their constituents ask, but rather to deliberate together with the aim of arriving at policies that serve the common good.  Under this system, the only democratic way to solve the Brexit crisis is for the House of Commons to discover what proposed solution commands a majority in the House.  Since the Prime Minister has been negotiating while leading a party that lacks such a majority, it is arguable that this was at all times the only proper way to proceed.  Given, however, that the process began with a Referendum, this procedure cannot be enough.  For full legitimacy, Parliament would then need to put its proposal to the people.  The question on the ballot paper would have to ask whether the electorate wishes to endorse Parliament’s plan, or prefers the country to remain in the European Union.  It is of course possible that Parliament will find itself unable to agree on any proposed solution at all.  But if it fails in this way, then there will be no alternative but to leave it to the people to decide.

___

Katherine Hawley

___

Katherine Hawley is the author of 'Trust: A Very Short Introduction', and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Saint Andrews.

29^th March 2019: Liam Fox warns that failure to leave the EU will create a ‘chasm of distrust’ between voters and the political system.  The same message is central to Theresa May’s pleas on behalf of her doomed deal: abandoning Brexit would be ‘a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy’.  Parliament asked the people for instructions; the people spoke; now Parliament must act, or forever forfeit the people’s trust.

This urgent concern with public trust comes very late in the day.  Politicians were among the least trusted professionals even before 2016.  And however this sorry story ends, the chaos, cowardice and careerism displayed in Westminster since 2016 will linger in the collective memory for decades.  Trust is earned by demonstrating trustworthiness, and this demands both competence and moral discipline.