How long should a referendum be binding for?

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?

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!

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?

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.

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?

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

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’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.

£2 billion to Horizon a year.

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

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?'

How can any government allocate savings which do not exist?

100% agree

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?

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

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.

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

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.

ronib

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.

You may not have believed it, ronib, but thousands did.

ronib

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

Missing a trick? I think you are, ronib.

There's a multiplier effect in there, too.

It’s good to be optimistic MaizieD

CariadAgain

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.

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.

That would require legislation. Prior to the referendum. As well as a decisive majority number.

The Leave / Remain referendum was not legally binding, so there is no time limit.

I don't believe Starmer has any intention of campaigning to rejoin. He wants a better relationship with the EU / Europe, and that is not at all the same thing.

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?

They are not binding; the Brexit vote was not taken with set margins agreed and was barely legitimate. If a government wants to go back on Brexit then there is nothing to stop them. Maybe they can negotiate terms better than those we had before.

In fact I would go so far as to say that the government was obliged to revisit the entire fiasco, because we have suffered both economically and societally from the effects of a completely bodged job based on a barely legitimate result. In fact didn’t the courts rule that it was in effect illegitimate?

Written into the 2015 EU Referendum Act, there should have been a clause that if Leave won, there would be a second referendum - for Leave voters (and others) to approve (or not) the specific terms of leaving.

This would have prevented all the claims that Brexit was "not implemented / 'done' properly".