How long should a referendum be binding for?

Referenda should be banned from now on. We are a representative democracy and we get to fire or hire every few years if we don't think the decisions made in your name.

Cameron only agreed to the 2016 referendum because he wasn't to stop the leakage to UKIP. What a plonker- see how that worked out.

Personally I would now vote for anyone who says they will pass a law banning referenda unless the rules of voting proportion are laid down.

keepingquiet

Referenda should be banned from now on. We are a representative democracy and we get to fire or hire every few years if we don't think the decisions made in your name.

Cameron only agreed to the 2016 referendum because he wasn't to stop the leakage to UKIP. What a plonker- see how that worked out.

Personally I would now vote for anyone who says they will pass a law banning referenda unless the rules of voting proportion are laid down.

Yes

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to have referendums every 10 years, they are not legally binding and this could and should be made clear to the “voting” public.

However, what the result re the EE we will never get reasonable terms and we simply cannot afford it, despite not saving any ££££ by leaving!

I don’t think referendums are binding?

Lathyrus3

I don’t think referendums are binding?

No they aren’t. But for some weird reason the U.K. treated the Brexit vote as such.

Frankly all they achieve is division.

My answer to your question would be 'I don't know', MOnica.

I think if you were going to have a referendum on something as radical as leaving the EU, or changing our system of voting, then it would seem wrong for the decision to be revisited in a relatively short time. All the upheaval that would be caused by a changed decision would be damaging to the economy, to our standing internationally and to our unity as a nation.

While this might look like an argument for persisting with Brexit, I would qualify it by saying that any future referendum should be properly run. The EU referendum was incredibly shoddily carried out; there are many lessons in 'how not to run a referendum' that could be learned from it.

I was only pointing out that,by the reasoning of the poster I was responding to, the 1975 referendum result should still stand. I wasn't seriously suggesting that it should, just trying to show the absurdity of the 'inviolable referendum result' argument.

I think they could achieve something.

You probably won’t agree with me but I think a cool analytical look at the distribution of votes re Brexit could have told a sensible Parliament that there were areas of the country who were not doing well in the EU, we’re deeply unhappy and that they needed to be given extra support.

I also think they could be the voice of ordinary people when politicians appear to be captured by a vociferous minority and are making extreme decisions that affect everyone just to please a few.

A litmus paper perhaps? But not binding. I don’t think they should be.

David Cameron spoke of a once in a generation opportunity to hold a referendum so is the question how many years make a generation? Ten ?

Areas of the U.K. were/are not doing well because of our eu membership.

Areas are not doing well because of the structure of our society snd economy.

Not quite sure what you mean?

I agree with those who say referenda are not binding, so I will put the question another way.

For how long should any government feel bound to respect the wishes of the electorate as revealed in a referendum. When should they be free to make decisions about the governance of this country, including international treaties, without regard to a past referendum results?

Always I would say.

I don’t think referendums should be held to decide action, only to assess public opinion as a factor in reaching a decision.

Oh that could be misread. I was hasty.

It was in answer to your second question “When should they be free to make decisions about governance…….

I would say Referendums last as long as someone as self-serving, mendacious and duplicitous as Keir Starmer gains power.

M0nica

I agree with those who say referenda are not binding, so I will put the question another way.

For how long should any government feel bound to respect the wishes of the electorate as revealed in a referendum. When should they be free to make decisions about the governance of this country, including international treaties, without regard to a past referendum results?

I think that manifestos are the instruments by which future policies are indicated and on which we vote.

So if a political party says in its manifesto that the referendum is now redundant and we should seek closer union with the EU, people can vote for or against that as they wish.

Or they could just say “sod it - Brexit is rubbish, it isn’t working, let’s try closer working and see if our economy benefits”

Referendums are not binding on Parliament which is sovereign. They are advisory. Cameron foolishly said the Tory government would abide by the Brexit result.

Schrödinger referendum. Scottish referendum- the result is permanently binding. Brexit referendum - we can revisit it after ten years or whatever.
I don't think a referendum is any way to decide the future of a country be it independence or Brexit. Both recent referendums caused such division and the country hasn't recovered from either.

Grantanow

Referendums are not binding on Parliament which is sovereign. They are advisory. Cameron foolishly said the Tory government would abide by the Brexit result.

Yes

The Common Market, originally the European Economic Community (EEC), was established in 1957. After being rejected by De Gaulle, we finally joined in 1973.

It aimed to create a single market by eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers between member states.

The referendum under Labour in 1975 was to see if we should stay in the EEC.

The EU later evolved from the EEC and expanded its scope beyond economics, encompassing political, social, and legal aspects.

The reasons for the referendum to leave the EU were more to do with things that had been brought into the EEC that the 1975 referendum didn’t cover.

Bearing in mind that I voted remain and am not happy about some of the outcomes of leaving, nor about some of the dealings that are going on now, I wonder how another referendum would help.

So, having established that a referendum isn’t binding, the questions are;
If there was another referendum now, what would the focus be?
What majority would those on the losing side consider to be acceptable and should it be based on the number of actual voters, rather than a percentage?
1,000,000+ majority wasn’t acceptable after Brexit, so how big a majority of voters would be acceptable?

WWM2 is right that referenda are divisive. How can they not be when there are only 2 sides.?

Until the next one.
I dont see how it can be anything else. Personally.

I think the people on the left no longer want one, is because they would lose again.

Immigration is now such a hot topic. And it is not being sorted.

I wouldn't want another referendum in the near future but not against further referenda in the future.
Closer ties with Europe are being sought so will see how that goes.

eazybee

I would say Referendums last as long as someone as self-serving, mendacious and duplicitous as Keir Starmer gains power.

Really?