It would not be correct to say that you have ‘never smoked’. Even the most abstemious person has inhaled the exhaled smoke from a third party smoker. It is impossible not to, even with the European anti-smoking laws in place. It used to be a lot worse for non-smokers. I took a plane trip to Australia in the 1990’s when the cabin was divided between smokers and non-smokers. The row of non-smoking seats which I occupied, was directly in front of the smokers. Every exhalation sent a cloud of despair and chemicals into my lungs. The theory was that fresh air enters the cabin from the cockpit end and goes out at the back. But even if you were not enjoying the clouds coming from behind in a boundary seat, most of a plane’s air is recycled.

Smoke can even come out of your ears

If Jesus was alive, and perhaps he is, he would say, ‘smokers on the left and non-smokers on the right.’ But even his best intentions would not help non-smokers delay that long haul flight to heaven that we all eventually take.

I went to a restaurant in Southern Spain recently and chose to sit on the terrace over looking the sea. My satisfaction in finding a comfortable table was soon replaced by despair. A man came to the table next to mine, sat down, pulled out a packet of cigarettes and lit up.

I did the only thing I could do was to pick up my drink and bags and clumsily move indoors. I am a committed non-smoker, but it is not easy and the smokers rarely realise why you are moving. Smokers are generally indifferent to those who are devoted non-passive smokers. When they are the exchange goes like this, as it did last year between myself and a smoker in a restaurant.

‘Oh, you are eating. Do you mind if I sit here and smoke?’

Since the man was polite enough to ask I gave him the answer he had probably never heard.

‘Yes, I do mind.’

Despite a pronounced injury causing him to limp, to his credit, he heard me and staggered away.

I wasn’t quite sure what the eating had to do with anything. Do some people object to the carcinogenic smoke changing the taste of food. Are they really so fixed on the idea of protecting flavour from smoke rather than staying in good health?

It is not that I am unsympathetic to nicotine addicts. Despite the fact that no one is forced to smoke and most people have been and are made aware of the risks of smoking, it is not common knowledge that nicotine is probably the most addictive drug known, meaning more than heroine and cocaine.

Those with low will power and or looking for an instant ‘high’ or ‘release’ or ‘relax’ or whatever it is…are likely to experiment first with the drugs society deems legal.

Picture credit: iStock

This despite the fact that for almost one hundred years, the toxicity of cigarettes has been known. Gone today are the Marlboro adverts featuring tough cowboys seated in tough Jeeps on tough roads with tough cowgirls peering quizzically at a nonchalantly balanced cigarette on the tough lower lip of the hero. In those days girls had not attended autopsy’s and viewed the hideously blackened lungs or the tough guys. Today those girls are our Doctors and they have little time for patients who self inflict disease, unless you have private health insurance of course.

There was a time when the National Health Service of the UK spent as much on trying to cure diseases caused by smoking as the chancellor of the exchequer reaped from taxes.

The coil of smoke from a lit cigarette is like the genii who haunted Aladdin. The spirit has escaped from the bottle or lamp and once out, is never going to return. If governments banned tobacco tomorrow the whole business would pass into the criminal underworld, blowing smoke rings around law enforcement as in the days of ‘prohibition’ in New York.

Education might appear to be a better way than legislating but what effect has that had? The citizens of Europe today have had ample information about the harm smoking tobacco causes. Even the packet is defiled with a gruesome medical photograph of the innards of a being with low will power. Still the addicted reach for the packet for the uplift which a chemical is telling them they need and still the governments collect the tax revenues from sales.

It is still the passive smokers like myself I feel sorry for. Should we really have to hold our breath as we walk behind a smoker in a crowded street. Who says that ‘public places’ are just fine for indulging in a habit you wouldn’t really want your very young children to know about, let alone inhale.

On 2nd August 1934 the president of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg died. Seventeen days later Chancellor Adolf Hitler declared a referendum. The question to the people was…should the posts of president and chancellor be merged? According to Wikipedia there was intimidation of the public to obtain the vote Hitler wanted and got. It gave him absolute power and the rest as they say is history.

This is not to say that all referendums are bad. You could have one asking whether all kittens should wear pink or blue bows. I’m not suggesting you should, but you could. Switzerland for instance has four referendums a year. Direct democracy suits the Swiss, although I suspect in many countries, voters would fail to turn out on account of being ‘bored’ with referendums. This was a common complaint in the UK following the referendum in June 2016.

The fact that many politicians and civil servants distrust referendums as a route to policy decisions, is hinted at in the fact that they are only ‘advisory’. In the UK Brexit vote, the main parties promised to abide by the result in their manifestos, something they later probably regretted.

Socrates was against voting by uneducated people on the grounds that they could not possibly understand the issuesin the same way that you go to the Doctor for advice on your health, not the person sweeping the street. What we know, is different for each person and there is a concept called ‘the wisdom of the crowd’. In this the understanding comes not from the individual but the collective and on some matters it works. People en mass can get it right.

However, as the late Dr Hans Rosling has shown, even experts (15% correct) can perform worse than monkeys (30% correct) when asked questions about population growth.

Making complex decisions based on multiple variables, sources, probably outcomes, threats, subsequent strategic objectives etc can just be impossible. So hold in the back of your mind the idea that perhaps, Socrates was right.

Referendums have to follow an organised routine in order to be regarded as fair. This is why the rules of a referendum are vitally important. They must be agreed, practised precisely and officiated (the last being to make sure they are followed).

When children go to school, they are given the opportunity to play team sports. Let us take the example of cricket. The PE teacher will sit down the eager children, all dressed in their whites, and explain the rules of cricket. What will not happen for sure is that a small child at the back will lift a hand and ask, ‘why?’

The teacher will explain that these are the rules and have been for a very long time and that is just the way it is. A pretty poor answer in my view. The rules for games are, after all is considered, also only advisory and if you want to have four stumps at each end or play with a different shape bat or ball, run backwards…why not? Rules are arbitrary and exist only if they are followed.

So let us examine the rules that govern referendums.

I suggest that referendums fall into a similar category of ‘game’ with rules that are just ‘made up’. I can substantiate this proposition as follows.

1. The referendum issue can arise from a single issue party or individual with plenty of money to donate to party funds. For instance, Rupert Murdoch owns a string of UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Sun, neither of which would win prizes for balanced reporting. Sir Clive Goldsmith donated to Conservative Party funds and was a keen anti-European. His influence, I believe, got the Brexit question into the Tory manifesto. This process was not particularly democratic but followed the rules.

2. The referendum rules need careful consideration and adjustment so that the result does not split a government and a nation down the middle. In other words, democracy is not held to ransom by a minority of ‘swing voters’. Similarly, a insignificant margin in favour of one side leaves a strong minority to contest. This minority is practically the same as a half way split as both sides are constantly at war. The spirit of democracy is only served when a substantial majority of voters want the same thing. In government this may occur as a coalition. In referendum rules, this is termed a super majority and it can be a minimum of 60% or higher. The UK is currently split almost down the middle over Brexit and the lack of a requirement for a super majority, meant the infighting in the parties and the people was not solved or quietened, even after the referendum.

3. Who votes? Generally the most motivated voters are those who have strong views. They might be misguided, ill informed or ignore the question, but what counts is that they will get themselves to the voting booths, no matter what. Those who expect the vote to go one way or the other and therefore they don’t need to vote, stay at home. These are called the silent majority. Some will vote because they value their vote as a democratic right fought for in two world wars. Some will not vote because they have lived outside the UK for over 15 years and are therefore not invited to vote. Others may post a vote which is either sent out too late to be returned in time or is lost in the post.

In all of these scenarios, the democracy that is held up to the high altar by the winners, has not functioned as a true reflection of the wishes of an overwhelming majority, but a function of unregulated and random and inhibitors and motivators. Is this democracy?

4. How do voters obtain their information? In the twenty first century, the availability of information on any subject, is something undreamed of thirty years ago. Because the internet (in it’s light and dark theatres) is largely unregulated and operates outside national boundaries and legal jurisdiction, anything can be claimed by anybody, as true. If you can make the same claims in multiple virtual places and repeatedly it seemingly becomes more true. Russia, allegedly, has rooms of computer operators who are filling chat rooms and newsfeeds and social media pages with misinformation.

As Mark Twain said, ‘when Truth is putting it’s boots on, the lie is half way around the world.

Adolf Hitler was an unashamed liar knowing that the majority don’t attempt to refute. A minority might but under the rules of democracy, their views can be ignored. Activists risk recrimination from the authorities. Witness the events in Hong Kong today.

The President of the United States is a regular liar, rarely reading books and just making things up, presumably to wrong foot those wishing to have an informed debate.

In the UK referendum in June 2016, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, presented a collection of very dubious ‘facts’ to voters persuading them to vote to leave the European Union. This is corroborated in the recently published memoirs of the resigning Prime Minister, David Cameron. There were also campaigns using social media to spread unsourced information. This is not democracy

5. Why would you not vote?

The silent majority have a lot to answer for. They have the vital ability to challenge the highly motivated minority who do vote.

You will sometimes hear the view expressed that each citizen has a right vote and because this right was defended in two world wars, each person is honour bound to vote. This is a strong argument and yet the majority don’t think this way. Why not? Well here are some common ‘self justifications’.

If you believe the vote is one hundred per cent certain to go in a particular direction, you might justify not getting the car out of the garage and watch the TV instead on voting day. Certainly in the UK referendum of 2016, there was a general assumption that the Remain vote would win easily.

Some people in the UK express total distrust of politicians and the processes of parliament. They sight the expenses scandal where some MP’s were less than honest over their expenses. They say that this is the reason they don’t vote. Whether they would prefer a dictatorship, like the reinstatement of the Monarchy or a prime minister who closes down parliament, you have to ask them.

If you don’t need parliament you are cooked, you will have a dictatorship. That is what it will be

Margaret Atwood : Author

In a referendum a question is asked. Not surprisingly, considerable time is spent in deciding what this question should be. Statisticians know this is a cardinal rule of their science. Who writes the question is largely in control of what the answer will be. For instance, if the question is specifically on a lesser issue, the colour of kittens bows, the question is easier to understand and the answer specific. As the question becomes more general the scope for not understanding the issues grows. So a very general question such as whether the UK should leave the European Union is so broad that few will clearly understand the issues. The question could have been, for instance, should the UK reduce immigration? as that was the issue that many voters at the time had strong feelings and differences about.

What happened was many voted in a way that expressed their anti-establishment views. You therefore have a referendum result for one question which in a substantial number of voters minds, was another question. In school examinations pupils are reminded repeatedly to ‘answer the question’ because humans often lose track of the issues and move into emotionally driven concerns.

Referendums give irrational results for many reasons. Analysts and commentators know that on voting days when the weather is bad, fewer people will vote. Other practical reasons for not voting are not having transport, being ill, at work or living in another country. That last reason was ironically about a vote affecting those ex-pats living EU the most. If anyone should be allowed to vote it should be them, you might argue.

6. How many referendums?

There has been much debate on whether there should be another referendum following the first in the UK in June 2016. Those who argue against it say that the suggestion they did not understand the issues in full, is condescending. They are certain they did understand all the issues and they just want their wishes to be carried out. They also suggest that if there were a second referendum this would justify a third and a fourth and there is a principle that you should not keep asking a question until you get the answer you want.

On the first point, I would argue that no one really understood the issues and consequences of the question. Even politicians (who are paid to know) are divided in their views. So it is not condescending to suggest that the question was too broad.

On the second point, three parliamentary votes on the same issue, were employed by Teresa May in parliament to try to get her Withdrawal Agreement made into law. So no Tory can argue that repetition of the same question is wrong. She had three goes at this before the Speaker ruled she should change the question in some way.

A referendum is only a snapshot of public opinion on one day. The next day, the next year, the facts will have changed and opinions. To have a second referendum three and a half years after the first, with a different question is sensible. Elections are held at similar time intervals and each election replaces the government of the country in a way acceptable to most.

There is a strong argument that the terms and conditions of the question to leave, were never agreed with Europe before the vote and they should have been, as in previous referendums. For the same reason ‘thorny issues’ such as the border in Ireland should have been resolved before any referendum. These pitfalls in the method and application of the referendum have contributed hugely to the unsightly events in Parliament since.

Statisticians will be fully aware of the changes in the structure of the demography of the United Kingdom in those three years. If old people tended to vote leave, some of these good folk will have died. Their votes will be replaced by young first time voters who are estimated to be about 3 million. Most people can see that if there was a second referendum the result could swing in favour of remaining in Europe for this reason alone. Stopping these voters having their say on a matter affecting them more than the elders, is not democratic but strategic.

Finally, a second referendum would not ask the same question. It might give more options than yes or no. It might be based on national interest rather than UK interest as independence parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland have interpreted the first referendum in that way.

Overall, the above examples above describe the fact that little in the referendum process resembles democracy. This is a sad reflection on a country that prides itself on it’s unwritten constitution and parliamentary procedures as a ‘beacon of democracy’. Referendumbs have been the route to create chaos out of a kind of order.

The next step has to be ‘return to Go and collect £200’, or in other words, cancel Article 50. Then sort out the island of Ireland to make it ‘Brexit’ proof and any other issue that inhibits agreement with Europe, agree a new Agreement with Europe and then go to the people in a general election on and ask the question whether these terms of leaving are desirable.

Horse / Cart – Cart / Horse.