A week has now passed since the momentous vote in the Brexit referendum, the vote intended to resolve the long standing and vexing question of Britain’s role in Europe. Yet, the matter is not settled. It continues, with a passion. The Leave campaigners crow victory and demand Remain adherents “get on with it” - IT being the democratic decision of the majority. Still, the Remain campaigners feel betrayed, disappointed and bereft. As a petition for a second referendum surpasses 4 million signatories, there is an unspoken sentiment of “not fair” in the air. The values of fair play and the acceptance of fair outcomes is part of the British psyche. There is therefore little voicing of what appears to be a deep sense of injustice: no-one wishes to be labelled a “sore loser”, after all.
To demonstrate the concern, I suggest the referendum be considered in a different light, such as what is considered fair and just in our much scrutinised financial markets. If the referendum had been a new financial instrument issued by Leave (with a promise of a future vision), and voters had been investors in that promise (a future with repatriated wealth, freedom from immigration and Brussels domination), is there any doubt that the Issuer, Leave, would be pursued by the UK regulator, the FCA, and the law as a gregarious instigator of market abuse.
Within hours of the result, and one by one, the selling arguments of the Leave campaign have been shown to fall short of their promises. Excellent articles such as that of the FT’s Jonathan McHugh “What a British divorce from the EU would look like” (28th June, 2016 http://bit.ly/28J3G5m) and the BBC’s article “Reality Check: Have Leave campaigners changed their tune?” (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36641390) eloquently explain and show that promises voiced and implied on migration, sovereignty, EU market access, as well as “that” bus poster promise, are contradictory and in conflict, one with the other. These are now subject to expectation management adjustments, and exposed to be either misleading half-truths or simply erroneous. Would an issue whose prospectus and promises mislead, misinform and encourage confusion not be deemed to have abused its investors? Would the Leave campaign not be adjudged to have manipulated the market with rumours and deceit? Should the voter not have a right to the same protections as a financial investor?
One final thought: Most countries with a written constitution require a significant majority before instigating a constitutional reform in the order of 60 – 75%. Is an action, such as joining or deepening relationships with the EU, or of leaving it, not a decision of worthy to be considered to carry a constitutional impact? Under UK company law, there are protections laid out for minority shareholders of considerably smaller size than 48% - should the minority interest of almost half the UK population not also be protected from the “dictatorship of the majority”?
There seems to be a clear contradiction in the standards of decency and conduct expected in the financial markets, from that of our rights as voters in a democracy. Much is spoken of the perceived democratic deficit in the EU – is there not a greater danger pending, from democratic deceit in the UK?
For an excellent article on the lack of political mandate for the UK government to trigger Article 50 due to the constitutional nature of that decision see this article.