Despite months of media discussion, I am still confused about this, as we seem to hear nothing else nowadays from all sides other than that the Will of the People must be obeyed. I thought that Parliament had sovereignty in these matters, but that even if Brexit had been legally binding, once a new government and PM were appointed, they were entitled to cancel (or postpone) the referendum vote, the most incompetent political policy of all time. What is wrong with this considered opinion from The Guardian?
Is the EU referendum legally binding?
Parliament is sovereign and, if Brexit wins, Cameron will not be legally obliged to invoke the Lisbon treaty to start an EU exit
Haroon Siddique
Thursday 23 June 2016 14.52 BST Last modified on Friday 17 February 2017 11.52 GMT
The simple answer to the question as to whether the EU referendum is legally binding is “no”. In theory, in the event of a vote to leave the EU, David Cameron, who opposes Brexit, could decide to ignore the will of the people and put the question to MPs banking on a majority deciding to remain.
This is because parliament is sovereign and referendums are generally not binding in the UK."
As far as I know very few countries have referendums that are legally binding. Of course one must consider what would happen with the political parties whome organise the referendum if they would ignore the results. Especialy when they tell people that they will stand down when the referendum is accepted/denied. This is what happend to Cameron.
Not to mention that any result of referendums and whatever they imply have to be endorsed in the democratic houses of parlement.
Referendums are not legally binding, however I'd argue that they hold a quasi binding nature. They are politically binding, so although they hold no actual need to be legally realised they require the government that proposed the referendum to enforce the results.
"They are politically binding, so although they hold no actual need to be legally realised they require the government that proposed the referendum to enforce the results."
I understand this with respect to the Cameron government that initiated the referendum and may have given some sort of promise to implement the vote. But surely this is not binding in any way on the new government and PM once he had resigned?
"As far as I know very few countries have referendums that are legally binding."
Could someone please elaborate on this, with details? If not binding, why are they done?
If we want to know what the people think, organise an Opinion Poll. With respect to Brexit, I think at least a dozen questions on a large random population sample would have been needed (and would have been far cheaper) to elucidate what people understood and wanted about the EU and Brexit. What we got was a single question that did not even ask if we wanted to leave the Single Market.
"Not to mention that any result of referendums and whatever they imply have to be endorsed in the democratic houses of parlement."
The UK HoP have held up the white flag against their better judgement, terrified of the populace and the tabloid press. All we hear is that The People have spoken, and that they, not parliament, have the last word. Democracy nowadays, as in some countries in the past, lies with those who shout loudest.
"I understand this with respect to the Cameron government that initiated the referendum and may have given some sort of promise to implement the vote. But surely this is not binding in any way on the new government and PM once he had resigned?"
Unfortunately the electorate granted the Cons the mandate deliver this referendum, regardless of Party leader the Party is obliged to follow.
"Unfortunately the electorate granted the Cons the mandate deliver this referendum, regardless of Party leader the Party is obliged to follow."
The mandate was surely to the last PM, not to the Cons party, which is why he resigned. There was nothing in their last election manifesto to say they wanted out of the Single Market.
My understanding is that the mandate is granted to the government as opposed to solely the HOG. I know there was a reshuffle, however as Theresa May was part of the Cameron government she saw it fit to carry out this mandate
The referendum is not legally binding for any UK government. There are some countries, where certain changes in the political system (i.e. constitutional changes of significant matter) or new important international obligations had to be agreed in national referendum. Exact details are usually specified in constitutional law. For example, some EU countries have to hold legally binding referendum in case of adopting new treaty, whether in others only approaving parliamentary vote is necessary. However, in the UK such powers are vested with the government and the Parliament.
Justo add one more thing, in my point of view the referendum over Brexit was to give or not give the UK's government higher level of legitimacy to stay or withdraw from the EU.
On certain matters French referendums are legally binding. But there has been much debate about whether they must be nation wide, given the fact of the French unitary state. In the case of the New Caledonian Matignon referendum, which implied that the N Caledonians were a people not a region, I think that was illegal though morally right. This is because le peuple is a political concept not an ethnic one. It seems France is slowly adopting some of the federal nature of the IVth Republic despite its unitary Constitution.
Referendum is not legally binding.The bill has to be presented in Parliament.However,l do believe that it has moral strength.
Yes but the UK is a representative democracy not a direct democracy. Capital punishment would never have gone had it not been for Parliament. Trouble is Cameron's promise... the UK is hopelessly divided, into social classes as well as nations, with a history of opposing alliances until quite recently. .True of India too , while Oz has its appalling treatment of its First Peoples. Ireland has binding refs. Wikipedia tells us what EUro states are direct / rep. democracies I think.
"Capital punishment would never have gone had it not been for Parliament."
In fact, is there any example of progressive legislation over the centuries that was approved by a majority of the populace but a minority of politicians?
How would we know without opinion polls and the universal vote? Slaves did not vote. In Rome only extreme cruelty towards slaves was sanctioned.
In 18th c Europe when homosexuals, secret Jews and blasphemers were still burnt alive , one can guess who opposed and who supported such practices. In general the Catholic Church was not tolerant of deviance of any kind- we all know that. The Russian Revolutionaries did fight Czarist treatment of serfs, and one may surmise that the serfs and workers rebelled while the aristos and middle classes did not. Is that an example? Yet women revolutionaries were squashed by the male Lenin types. What is progressive?
"In Rome only extreme cruelty towards slaves was sanctioned."
I thought some slaves became Roman Citizens, or even Emperors. Spartacus and Lenin advocated violence and revolution. I was thinking of more recent examples of 'progressive' social movements where law change was implemented from the bottom up rather than the top down.
More clarity, or continued confusion?
"One points out to them that only 37% of the electorate voted to leave; that the referendum was "advisory"; and that, when he feared he was going to lose by a narrow margin, the egregious Nigel Farage stated that, in the event of a close vote, there should be another referendum. The narrowness of the result does not, sad to say, prevent distinguished BBC interviewers who ought to know better from prefacing questions with preambles such as "we know the nation voted to take back control, but..." The nation? Well, a small proportion of it. Control? Alas, one fear that many Brexiters had only the vaguest understanding of what that actually meant."
William Keegan The Observer July 30 2017 p 41
Hi all,
out of my point of view results of a referendum should never be legally binding...
The way populists can influence the outcome are incredulous (in times of alternative facts and robots that are influencing social media)....
It may be interesting to have a look in Germany's history because we tried to have more legally binding referendums in the Waimar republic between 1920 and 1933 which lead to the rise of the nazis and Hitler's Machtergreifung in March 1933...
Best Carsten
Dear friends, good day. Democracy based on majority rule usually leads to normal democratic comes, one majority view beats the previous majority view or the same majority view remains in power...
BREXIT in the UK/2016 and USEXIT in the USA/2016 are extreme democratic outcomes that take place under full true majority complacency, which is maximized by manufactured chaos, and this explains the after the fact social discontent that takes place after what seems to be impossible happens..BREXIT and USEXIT...
Under majority rule based democracy, the democratic outcome must be respected, be it normal or extreme to mantain the credibility of the democratic system....and that is behind the respect of the BREXIT result,,,,
You may find the following article interesting and you can use it as food for thoughts:
Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.
Article Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory:...
The EU referendum is not legally binding. The population of the UK do not make law, parliament is the legislature. The governmnet have decided t be bound by the result of the referendum but only parliament can repeal the Treaty of European Union on the UK's behalf.
The referendum was a cheap trick to save the Conservative party from imploding, it did not work and this shambles continues to stumble from catastrophe to catastrophe.
"The population of the UK do not make law, parliament is the legislature."
There seems to be genuine confusion from the Prime Minister down as to who has the last word, the people or Parliament. We constantly hear the mantra that the Will of the People is paramount.
See my RG question on whether we live in a representative democracy, and what that means. Where does sovereignty lie?
The 'will of the people' is a political concept rather than a legal one, in other words largely BS. The UK is a representative democracy, our legislators are not delegates and they make the laws. The people rarely get their wishes.
When Jeremy Corbyn wins the next election (a result of Brexit) the very socialism that the hard Brexiteers thought that the EU threatened will land on us big style. What a delicious irony that that too will be 'The Will of the People'
"The UK is a representative democracy, our legislators are not delegates and they make the laws. "
I always thought this was the case, but it is not just the Brexiteers who seem to have abandoned this concept in favour of populism. How many UK MPs will publicly support this fundamental principle?
- MICHAEL DEACON PARLIAMENTARY SKETCHWRITER📷
14 DECEMBER 2017 • 2:38PM
...📷David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, pictured after the Government lost a key vote in the Commons on Brexit ...
I feel for David Davis. He did warn everyone it would turn out like this. In fact, he warned them years ago. Years before an EU referendum was even on offer.
The following quotes may seem too good to be true, but I promise they’re genuine. On November 26, 2002 – during a debate about creating regional assemblies – Mr Davis warned MPs that referendums could be “dangerous” if “not done properly”.
They should be held, he explained, only if voters were told “exactly what they’re voting for… We shouldn’t ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper, and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards.”
Fifteen years later, Mr Davis finds himself trapped in precisely the nightmare he foretold.
The Telegraph website
Parliament has just voted against the Government and forced it to publish a legal opinion re Brexit. However, it still has a long way to go before it gets a grip and reestablishes its authority on the present Brexit chaos before the country descends into mob rule and violence. Instructions should come from parliament, advice from the people:
"Vernon Bogdanor on Brexit: “the people should own it…if the people still want it”
ISABELLA POJUNER 1 WEEK AGO...
Vernon Bogdanor is largely regarded as the UK’s foremost constitutional expert and is a Research Professor at King’s College London. Isabella Pojuner, News Editor at The Beaver, interviewed him on the UK’s current constitutional crisis: Brexit, before the Prime Minister offered up a deal a few weeks ago.
You wrote in your recent Guardian article that “the sovereignty of the people is coming to trump the sovereignty of parliament.” What I meant was that for the first time in British history Parliament is enacting a policy in which it does not believe. The majority of MPs and peers are Remainers. So also are the majority of members of the Cabinet. They believe that they have been instructed by the British people. The sovereignty of the people, therefore, has overcome the sovereignty of Parliament – a very significant constitutional event!"
The PM has just been on the BBC Today programme stating she is obeying the instructions of the British people. The Nazis though it a good idea to circumvent parliament and go over the heads of politicians and appeal directly to the people. Despite having overwhelming support from referendums, this led to predictable disaster.
The Referendum was not binding but it has Been accepted by most parties and the general public.
Brexit will happen at 31/1/2020. Its legislation is finally completed in the UK...
And on 24/1/2020 the EU has signed the Withdrawl agreement which now must (and will) pass through the European Parliament on 29/1/2020...
The referendum vote is not the legal mechanism by which the UK leaves the EU. Art.50 and Parliaments triggerring of it was.
There is no longer any question of the legality of the UK leaving the EU.
It is absolutely legal.
It is legal. No question.
Another question raised on RG and elsewhere is wheather Brexit is the biggest own goal in history...
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/brexit-biggest-own-goal-in-our-peacetime-economic-historyno-matter-how-much-it-is-dressed-up-as-a-patriotic-act-gordon-brown/09/09/
https://www.ft.com/content/ff475478-4d1e-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493
- Badges
- Science topic