How long should a referendum be binding for?

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.

It’s fact that we have all been affected at some time in our lives by Government decisions, or by the outcome of votes in which we could not take part.
How those who couldn’t vote at the time would vote now is a non sequitur.
We don’t know.
We can produce statistics and cite the results of carefully manufactured opinion polls or surveys, but they as we know don't include the whole population.

More importantly there is no proof that any of those polled would actually bother to vote if the occasion arose. Not even simple questions like “Would you vote?” would give a verifiable answer.
True or not, what purpose is served by saying things like
Well you could vote for x which affects others who couldn’t vote.

That’s as useful as the children who are now trying to sue their parents, because they say they weren’t given the choice of whether or not to be born.

In my view the outcome of any referendum may be different now that Trump has put his tariffs on imports. The threat of chlorinated chicken etc in my view is a far bigger threat than anything the EU could propose
The vote should have been given to 16 year olds at the time and not to those that decided to emigrate .
I think people voted for Brexit thinking it would be a simple process. did people actually believe that the savings would go to the NHS ?

PoliticsNerd

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?

I would guess she's a Reform member.

I thought that a parliament was free to legislate for a referendum any time, so technically Starmer's parliament could, if they wanted to, they could call for a referendum any time.

IMHO The main problem with this partcicular referendum was that there was no stipulation on size of majority. If the population are given a chance to vote in something as important as this (ie Brexit) then it needed a 2/3 majority either way

missdeke

I thought that a parliament was free to legislate for a referendum any time, so technically Starmer's parliament could, if they wanted to, they could call for a referendum any time.

Yes but what would the topic be?
How much, in these straitened times, would it cost to set up and administer.

.
And you honestly think that if we were to rejoin we'd be welcomed and treated fairly? Not a chance.

In 2017 our contribution was €7.43 BILLION. Only Germany's contribution was higher. France half as much. Others even less so (e.g. Spain and Italy).

I wonder what they'd want our contribution to be now?

No thanks. I don't expect to financially support my neighbours and I don't want our country to financially support Europe (especially loads of the poorer and dangerous countries who give nothing but receive billions).

It should have remained the EEC that it was started as.

We upset them. They won't welcome us with sincere open arms. You're very naive if you think they would.
.

Absolutely!

Mollygo....

A brilliant and erudite synopsis of the matter. Well done - and thank you.
.

We upset them. They won't welcome us with sincere open arms. You're very naive if you think they would.

Probably not, Barbadosbelle.

When we joined we had to have a certain level of economic stability. The concern about the level of GDP is not so stringent now.
Before we left we were only second to Germany in our financial contribution. The increasing number of EU members with a much lower GDP, means we are probably missed for that.

Incidentally we were rejected for membership back in 1962 because
French President Charles de Gaulle, who was concerned that British membership would weaken the French voice within Europe.

Not really related to the current topic, but I thought it was amusing, when I think about Macron.

I think that referenda are fine for big constitutional questions, such as Brexit or Scottish independence, but that they should require a 2/3 majority for change. A simple 51% isn't enough to support disrupting the status quo. It should however indicate to the government that a lot of people are unhappy and that something needs to be done.

I confess that I quite like the Swiss system of Referenda; particularly, when we have a Government that managed to get into power (with an extraordinary amount of seats) on the backs of just 32% of those who voted. Even at the local level, 2 out of 3 victors in our recent County Council elections achieved well less than 50% of the vote. ‘First Past the Post’ may be administratively simple but the result usually fails to provide us with a Government that truly represents the people. Referenda do at least mean that every voter has his/her say in any major policy decisions.

As the OP, allowing for the fact that there seems to be general agreement that referenda are merely advisory and not binding can I now nudg the discussion back towards the question to which I am seeking an answer which is for how long after a referendum should a government feel bound to take the results into consideration.

As a 'remain' voter I have no problem with our government seeking a closer working relationship with the EU. The vote was very close and such a small margin should never have been used to carry out such radical changes that have damaged our economy greatly. As others have pointed out, the electorate changes all the time and regularly revisiting the country's views is essential. Also, since the results of a referendum are not binding at the time, why should they be considered to be in future years.

JSFSRUNS

IMHO The main problem with this partcicular referendum was that there was no stipulation on size of majority. If the population are given a chance to vote in something as important as this (ie Brexit) then it needed a 2/3 majority either way

With hindsight, yes.
That rule might have actually have prompted the CBB group to go out and vote.
Let’s hope that rule is applied to any future major decisions like Brexit.

All of us who voted Remain, would surely have been more accepting of the outcome if there had been a 2/3 majority . . .

Really🤣🤣🤣

Can I have a GN poll on that?

Referenda should definitely only be advisory.

These are complex issues and Parliament should use the views of the country as guidance when they examine the whole thing in great detail. The Brexit referendum was a very basic proposition, and gave little indication of how to achieve splitting from Europe.

The world is a different place now and cooperating with our nearest neighbours in Europe seems a necessity now. Maintaining peace and having strong trading partners is more important than ever.

Also more accepting, if the 'Leave' arguments had not turned out to be so unreliable.

I agree

5 yearly elections are expensive enough, Referendums even more so and, as others have stated are not legally binding.

In response to those saying that a 2-1 vote should be necessary for a referendum :- how many of them are happy that a National Government can be elected on a 1 - 2 vote. Further, the referendum turnout was 72.2%, compared with the 59.9% for the General Election, showing that people were far more engaged with the referendum (on both sides) than with Westminster politics.

Well starmer has gone behind our backs and started doing deals without a referendum. Totally disregarded it. No wonder Scottish fisherman are clapping their hands, they never wanted to leave at all.

I don't believe Scottish fishermen are "clapping their hands" if you read reports. In fact, fishing is devolved, so making a decision about Scottish fishing grounds without consulting the Scottish government is not on

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.

A generation is considered to be 20 years

It’s referenda, not referendums. I always knew that learning Latin would be useful one day! 🤣
We need to work more closely with France to stop illegal immigration, if they’re willing. That shouldn’t mean that we have to rejoin the EU though. I still can’t see what’s wrong with settling in France… No one needs to pay to risk their lives in a small boat when they’re already in a safe country (which is incidentally much bigger than the UK). Any future referenda/elections are going to hinge on immigration, in favour of Reform UK, unless something drastic is done, e.g. sending them straight back to France!!