Report comment

Dear Mr Fearnley,

As Lord Tennyson pointed out, the British system is famously based on precedent. There have been some 40-odd referendums held during the last 40 years (most of them by courtesy of Mr Anthony Blair). In every case, so far as I know, the government has abided by the popular verdict, even in such trivial matters as whether there should be a Lord Mayor for Hartlepool or something called a “Mayor” of London. Precedent would therefore seem to suggest that referendums in this country are binding. Whether that means legally binding or politically binding appears to be a distinction of relatively little importance. No British referendum has ever been treated as merely “an exercise in gathering the collective view of the voting population”. Certainly the 1975 referendum was not. The government of the day made clear in advance that it would regard the people’s vote as decisive, as indeed did Mr Cameron and the other party leaders on the present occasion. What would be the point of a referendum otherwise?

In 2015 Parliament decided by a huge majority to commit the ultimate decision on EU membership to the people. It didn’t have to do so. It could have stated in the legislation that such a vote was only “advisory” (whatever that might mean in practice) but it did not. The referendum on proportional representation a few years ago was no exception to the general rule, because in that case Parliament had voted for PR in advance but had made its implementation dependent upon ratification by the people, which was not forthcoming. What in your view would have been the chances of securing a parliamentary majority, now or ever, for exiting the European Union?

Regards.

MM