How long should a referendum be binding for?

MaizieD how could anyone forget Boris Johnson and his £350 million a week message? The difference is that I didn’t believe it. The British economy is thought to be £140 billion poorer a year ? out of the EU… I read somewhere.

Funny that Horizon Payment - £2 billion in and £1 billion back. That’s not my idea of a good deal….. am I missing a trick? Growstuff

ronib

I am quite surprised that anyone thinks we have stopped paying the EU MaizieD. Strange withdrawal agreement…. then back to paying £2billion a year for Horizon. Something of a trick question?

I expect you're also aware that in the first few months since rejoining Horizon, the UK has been awarded £1 billion from the central fund. It will take some time for the UK to re-establish itself as a centre for excellence for scientific research.

Basic answer = a lot longer than blinkin' Starmer is trying to make out.

I would say the result of a national referendum should, as a rule of thumb, be deemed to last a generation (so, say, 20 years?) - ie not however long Starmer cares to make out.

ronib

How can any government allocate savings which do not exist?

You’ve clearly forgotten the message on the side of the big red bus which persuaded so many people to vote Leave in order to ‘save’ the NHS. There was no mention of the nonexistence of that sum of money. Do you think it never existed in the first place?

100% agree

How can any government allocate savings which do not exist?

ronib

£2 billion to Horizon a year.

Worth it. University research has suffered from the loss of Horizon. Not just financially, but also the opportunities for joint research with EU researchers

Of course, had all the supposed brexit savings actually been spent as promised by the brexity government universities could have been benefitting from some extra money to fund research. As it is, they are struggling.

Complaining about money about to be spent now is a bit ironic when the post brexit government did nothing to reallocate the supposed savings...

I'd still like to know, 'where did the money go?'

Which was, of course, a commitment made by the previous government when it was agreed in 2023 that the UK would rejoin Horizon.
www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-uk-eu-horizon-science-programme-b1105413.html

£2 billion to Horizon a year.

I’m surprised that you know what the U.K. is paying, as I understood that it hasn’t yet been fully decided?

We can also of course apply for funding and grants to the Horizon scheme for further research etc by our scientists.

I am quite surprised that anyone thinks we have stopped paying the EU MaizieD. Strange withdrawal agreement…. then back to paying £2billion a year for Horizon. Something of a trick question?

A referendum has no binding fact unless followed up by legislation. And a referendum usually has certain constraints, the number of people who actually answered being one of them, and the proportion in favour or against.
The number of people who actually voted at all was <50%
The difference between pro and anti was <10% All of this means the referendum was never valid in the first place, and calling it 'a major victory for leave' is arrant nonsense

That’s interesting, Avanew. I have never seen that mentioned before. Did you ever fact check it. It sounds almost too good to be true😀

I do wonder what has happened to all those £billions that Brexit was going to free up for the UK to spend on what it wanted, not what the EU wanted. Has any Leave voter tracked this and found where it has been spent and how people benefited?

avenew

Yes that is absolutely correct.

The EU provided financial support for areas of deprivation, and I know that Cornwall and Hastings were major recipients of this facility. For example the Bodmin by-pass was funded by the EU amongst other stuff. There is nowhere now that these areas can apply to for help.

My DS also applied on behalf of the EA for flood defence support. Was successful to the benefit of many homes. He also obtained support for various SSI areas in the south, to the benefit of wildlife and people.

One thing which has always puzzled me is I'm sure I remember it being said, when the referendum on EU membership was announced, that it would be advisory. In other words to give the Government advice on the people's views - at that moment in time. I don't know how or when it turned into "binding".

Also, during the very clunky debates in the run-up to the referendum, a colleague who was Polish kept grumbling that we Brits had never grasped half the advantages and opportunities that membership of the EU gave us. She said in any other country you could have gone to the equivalent of the Job Centre and arranged free training up to professional qualification level, paid for by the EU. It should have been available here, but it wasn't - the Job Centre knew nothing about it. There were all sorts of EU grants and opportunities that could have been used to make people's lives better, but the good old UK paid into central funds and never picked up on the opportunities. Our own governments' fault, it seems. No wonder we felt short changed! But was crashing out of the EU the answer?

David49

Starmer got modest improvements a the expense of continuing the fishing agreement, we have accept their food standards in return for not needing health certificates. Passport relaxation helps both sides, I guess we still need visas soon ( unless someone knows different).

As I expected we had to accept their rules.

Surely even you understand that if you want to take part in a club, you usually agree to keep to the clubs rules!

Dickens

JudyBloom

The result of the Referendum to leave the EU back in 2016 has never been fully implemented, that has been the problem ever since. Someone should be made accountable for the betrayal of the majority of the British people.

The result of the Referendum to leave the EU back in 2016 has never been fully implemented...

That implies that you were given options on the ballot paper to implement Brexit properly.

You weren't, it was simply Leave or Remain. Even high profile Brexit campaigners couldn't agree.

I’ve never yet seen a post on Gnet that tells us what a ‘fully implemented brexit would look like.

Perhaps JudyBloom would make it a first and tell us exactly what she means?

Starmer got modest improvements a the expense of continuing the fishing agreement, we have accept their food standards in return for not needing health certificates. Passport relaxation helps both sides, I guess we still need visas soon ( unless someone knows different).

As I expected we had to accept their rules.

Something needs to be done and Keir Starmer is attempting to sort some of the mess out. Reform are not happy in case he manages to succeed. They thrive on disgruntled voters.

Deedaa

Cameron's biggest blunder - apart from holding the referendum at all - was to say that they would act on the result. It should have been used to give a picture of how "The People" felt, and to form a basis for discussion about what direction our membership of the EU should take. If he was determined to act on the wishes of the majority then he should have stipulated what that majority would be. 52/48% was ridiculous. How small a majority would they have accepted? 1%? 2,000? 500? My local council demands a 60/40% majority public vote to change parking restrictions, surely the future of the country is slightly more important?

It should have been used to give a picture of how "The People" felt, and to form a basis for discussion about what direction our membership of the EU should take.

Exactly.

That would have been the most politically astute thing to have done.

... and he failed to make an effective case for remaining in the EU. Nor did he address the public's concerns.

Apparently, he was once asked why he decided to stand as a candidate for PM, he said (allegedly) he thought he "would be rather good at it".

Cameron's biggest blunder - apart from holding the referendum at all - was to say that they would act on the result. It should have been used to give a picture of how "The People" felt, and to form a basis for discussion about what direction our membership of the EU should take. If he was determined to act on the wishes of the majority then he should have stipulated what that majority would be. 52/48% was ridiculous. How small a majority would they have accepted? 1%? 2,000? 500? My local council demands a 60/40% majority public vote to change parking restrictions, surely the future of the country is slightly more important?

JudyBloom

The result of the Referendum to leave the EU back in 2016 has never been fully implemented, that has been the problem ever since. Someone should be made accountable for the betrayal of the majority of the British people.

The result of the Referendum to leave the EU back in 2016 has never been fully implemented...

That implies that you were given options on the ballot paper to implement Brexit properly.

You weren't, it was simply Leave or Remain. Even high profile Brexit campaigners couldn't agree.

M0nica
It’s an impossible question if the outcome of the referendum cannot be undone.
Scotland’s vote for independence achieved nothing irrevocable by way of change.
Another independence referendum could take place as soon as the will is there and the finances to run it are provided.

Joining the EEC could and was undone in the next referendum.

BUT
What do the claims of not being binding mean in that situation, when joining committed us to certain things, even those things that weren’t on the original agenda and we were bound to cooperate whilst we remained in there?

We obviously weren’t bound to remain in there, and the decision to leave didn’t need the permission of the other EU members.

However, there was another referendum and this time it moved us out of the EU.

That referendum is binding in so much as others have the ability to prevent our rejoining, or to only allow us to rejoin on their terms.

I know you’ve decided that the responses you’ve had are unsatisfactory so you’re leaving. but . . .

How long do you think the results of a referendum, any referendum, should be honoured by the government
or should be binding M0nica?

2507C0

I think Cameron was pig headed and was convinced that the result would be to stay and when it wasn't, after putting this massive and complicated decision to the public, he packed his bags and left.

All the referendums I can think of, I think the government definitely knew the outcome they wanted & were fairly sure the referendum would support them. They seem to me a tool for quelling dissenting voices by using "the voice of the people".

But sometimes things don't go to plan.