How long should a referendum be binding for?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

eazybee

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

Really?

I wouldn't want another referendum in the near future but not against further referenda in the future.
Closer ties with Europe are being sought so will see how that goes.

I think the people on the left no longer want one, is because they would lose again.

Immigration is now such a hot topic. And it is not being sorted.

Until the next one.
I dont see how it can be anything else. Personally.

The Common Market, originally the European Economic Community (EEC), was established in 1957. After being rejected by De Gaulle, we finally joined in 1973.

It aimed to create a single market by eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers between member states.

The referendum under Labour in 1975 was to see if we should stay in the EEC.

The EU later evolved from the EEC and expanded its scope beyond economics, encompassing political, social, and legal aspects.

The reasons for the referendum to leave the EU were more to do with things that had been brought into the EEC that the 1975 referendum didn’t cover.

Bearing in mind that I voted remain and am not happy about some of the outcomes of leaving, nor about some of the dealings that are going on now, I wonder how another referendum would help.

So, having established that a referendum isn’t binding, the questions are;
If there was another referendum now, what would the focus be?
What majority would those on the losing side consider to be acceptable and should it be based on the number of actual voters, rather than a percentage?
1,000,000+ majority wasn’t acceptable after Brexit, so how big a majority of voters would be acceptable?

WWM2 is right that referenda are divisive. How can they not be when there are only 2 sides.?

Grantanow

Referendums are not binding on Parliament which is sovereign. They are advisory. Cameron foolishly said the Tory government would abide by the Brexit result.

Yes

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.