Report comment

Mr Gough, Neither the Referendum Act 1975 nor the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 was expressed to be binding, yet (so far as I recall) no one at the time seriously questioned that if they resulted in a majority for a change in the status quo then that change would be implemented. What would be the point of a referendum otherwise? Referendums in this country are never expressed as “binding”, so the absence of any such wording in the 2015 Act has no practical significance. On the contrary, the normal practice (so far as there can be said to be one) would suggest that if a referendum is intended to be “advisory”, this should be expressly stated in the enabling Act and provisions made for the mechanism whereby the people’s “advice” will be considered and the principles on which it will be either accepted or rejected. I can see possibilities there for infinitely more mystification and litigation than anything generated so far by the hardcore Remainders.

By the way, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 Act, although not really comparable to the Acts I’ve mentioned, was no exception to the general rule. What you call the “binding element” in that Act was merely a provision to bring certain practical provisions of the Act into effect (or to repeal them, depending on the referendum result) by statutory instrument. However, the legislation approving proportional representation had already been enacted in the same statute, and hence there was no question of parliament being constrained to legislate to implement the popular will. In the present case, if a discontented minority were to succeed – whether through the courts or otherwise – in blocking the clearly expressed wishes of the majority there is potential for political and social damage which would eclipse the very worst the Europhiles fear from Brexit.