How long should a referendum be binding for?

That for some was the issue Mollgo. The EEC morphed into the EU and the ensuing political, social and legal aspects that encompassed were never agreed too with the original referendum for EEC membership.

It was therefore right IMO that another referendum was held. If you join a club, and the rules and expectations of membership far exceed the ones that were in place when you joined, why is it wrong to review that membership and have the opportunity to decide whether you want to remain?

There are always comments about how the younger generation have and will be affected by Brexit because they were unable to vote in the referendum but that will always be the case.

I couldn't vote in 1975.

Mollygo Most countries seem to require a 2/3rds vote before making any constitutional changes, whether that is a vote in the legislature or a referendum, or a combination of both.

The combinations of different measures is complex, but the least likely choice seems to be a simple majority, either in a referendum or in the legislature.

I don't think there can be any limit. If further information means you need the opportunity to change the day after the vote it should be possible (although unlikely).

However, if we expect our government to follow the outcome of a referendum then it surely must have to have a super-majority. As has been said, we put a government into power to make decisions. Overriding this must be seen as exception in order to maintain democracy.

I would suggest that at least 60% of voters have to have voted, but in the case of such a fundamental change to our way of life as Brexit perhaps it should be 75%.

Also either a three-fifths majority (60%), two-thirds majority (66.67%), or three-fourths majority (75%) should be needed to make the change a necessity of the government. That can be decided by government at the time of a referendum.

eazybee

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

What, exactly, is the point of that post?

Grandmabatty

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.

Well, of course the Scottish, always a rule unto themselves. I do not see how in any way there referendum can be said to be permanently binding and indeed, until other more pressing personal matters intervened Nicola Sturgeon was pressing for a new referendum, almost before the results of the first one had been announced.

It is all very well for many to say that, legally, a referendum is not binding, but if a country has decided that the support for an issue was going to be tested by referendum - and then afterwards said they were going to ignore the result, they would probably get lynched, they certainly would soon be out of office - and for a long time.

Fancythat you say a referendum is binding until the next one. But if people did not want another referendum, would it still have to be binding 100 years later? Even though the issue is now a hindrance and the whole population alive when it was held have died? What if a law stopping further referendum has been passed?

Whitewavemark2

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

Yes, and yes.

I’d say bindings for 5 years max.

A further great problem with the Brexit referendum was the failure to specify the majority required for something so momentous. After the 52-48 result Teresa May made things much worse by declaring the result the decisive voice of the British people and refusing to consider the concerns of the No voters.

Monica unfortunately we Scots are not a 'rule unto ourselves '(to paraphrase) because the majority have consistently voted against Tories and also mainly voted to stay in Europe but were taken out by said Tories. Your sneery attitude is exactly why I said referendums are divisive

Lathyrus3

Not quite sure what you mean?

I know just what WwMk2 means.

The policies foisted on us by Thatcher, small state, deindustrialised free market economy destroyed communities by taking away their sources of employment and putting nothing in their place, just the belief that entrepreneurs would rush in to fill the gaps. Her one inspirational policy was the formation of the EU Single Market, which helped to improve some trade and brought some industry to places such as Sunderland in the NE, but it was never enough for all the areas that had suffered loss of industry.

The years of Labour government made some improvements, such as increased investment in the NHS and Education but while they continued with the same neoliberal economic theory which advantaged the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population the areas already devastated by Thatcherism didn't see much in it for them.

Then along come the Cameron government with Osborne's ridiculous 'austerity' which saw further swingeing cuts to state expenditure and made the lives of the poorer in society even worse.

No wonder the siren voices which told them that they would be much better off outside the EU were listened to. Just as we are experiencing now, people voted for change in the expectation that it would improve their lives. It wouldn't and hasn't, but there's always hope.

While ever political belief in 'the markets' and that elusive 'growth', thought to be the result of increased marketisation is paramount nothing will change.

It seems that for the most part people voted to leave the EU because of immigration and because they believed their lives would be improved. It was as much a protest vote against government as votes for Reform are now. I think it had very little to do with the realities of being in the EU.

I’d say bindings for 5 years max.

Sounds good, but I couldn't see something like the EU being particularly enamoured of a state that hoped in and out of its membership every five years on the whim of voters.

No referendum is binding for ever, another referendum could be held to reverse the decision

At least the we would know what the conditions were, the leave vote was a leap into the darkness.

Fair point MaizieD. Though I wasn’t assuming that referendums should always be rerun after 5 years. Just that I’m not sure I agree that they’re always bad provided something like a two-thirds majority is required. Otherwise the result is considered null and void.

MaizieD

^I’d say bindings for 5 years max.^

Sounds good, but I couldn't see something like the EU being particularly enamoured of a state that hoped in and out of its membership every five years on the whim of voters.

They wouldn’t. And exactly the same as now, they would change the rules, demands, or criteria for rejoining and it wouldn’t be to the benefit of those who left.

Grandmabatty

Monica unfortunately we Scots are not a 'rule unto ourselves '(to paraphrase) because the majority have consistently voted against Tories and also mainly voted to stay in Europe but were taken out by said Tories. Your sneery attitude is exactly why I said referendums are divisive

Nothing sneery in my post, and I have no interest in how they vote, but while in Britain as a whole, the result of a very marginal referendum is held up as immutable and to bind for all time (sorry, is that sneery?), the Scots started the campaign for the next referendum almost before the results of the first one was announced. If that is not being a rule to themselves, what is - and why is that phrase considered sneery?

Oh, and I am proud of my own Scottish inheritance.

We should not use referenda as we are a representative democracy but I imagine no government would overrule Brexit without another referendum, which is just a snapshot of views at one time. Our MPs are meant to study deeply and learn and reflect when they take decisions, which maybe not every voter did before voting either way.

Smileless2012

There are always comments about how the younger generation have and will be affected by Brexit because they were unable to vote in the referendum but that will always be the case.

I couldn't vote in 1975.

So you have now had the opportunity to do so. Why you and not the young of today?

David49

No referendum is binding for ever, another referendum could be held to reverse the decision

At least the we would know what the conditions were, the leave vote was a leap into the darkness.

Exactly.

David49

No referendum is binding for ever, another referendum could be held to reverse the decision

At least the we would know what the conditions were, the leave vote was a leap into the darkness.

Agreed.

It only became divisive when the remainders lost the vote and started complaining..

Never mind the referendum KS and his band don't even think their own manifesto was binding

I think I am right in saying that the EU decided that any country that leaves it, cannot re-apply for a certain number of years, and that this legal point was made very clear to British politicians during the whole process of Brexit.

So, whatever you decide about the validity of a referendum, if it is brexit you are still talking about is irrelevant.

And don't come trying to tell Denmark, please that the referendum of 1920 by which we got about half of the territory back that had been German since the war of 1864 has to be redone any time soon, or suggest to the French that they should hand Alsace-Lorraine over to Germany again, will you?

Live with the results of the referendum on Brexit. It was a democratic process whether you care for the result or not.

Surely it will only change when a government has enough support to call for a new referendum..Other than that, the original result from voters stands..…

I agree that opinion has changed. My husband and I would change our vote to remain if we could go back in time and I know many others who feel the same. Also the 2016 referendum was so close, 52/48, hardly a huge majority. I would welcome the opportunity to rectify our mistake. I think though that we will end up like Norway or Switzerland, which will be sufficient. The Putin situation and the madness in the USA means we need to cleave together in Europe.

It wasn't binding at all, legally. The party promised they'd abide by the result but that wasn't binding on them. And although the current government said they wouldn't take us back into the EU, even that promise isn't legally binding. What they are expected to do however is do the best for the country. If that means breaking every promise they ever made, that is what they have to do. However I don't think they have any intention of rejoining the EU. If Farage's party gets in, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the EU - Farage was far too disruptive and we need the EU to be strong for our sake.