How long should a referendum be binding for?

I agree

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mollygo....

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

Absolutely!

.
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.
.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.