BIB, you mean Vote Remain don't you?.

I think it's more a case that we don't do them often enough, so the few we've had tend to become a way of protesting against something the referendum isn't strictly about.

Plus you'd expect the government (local or otherwise) to be better at wording them and planning for all possible outcomes if they had more practice. Of course I'm assuming here a level of competence that this government has never demonstrated ever, but I'm optimistic like that.

Even Old Etonians must retain some capacity to learn from their mistakes? Though it's unlikely they really have the willingness to clear up after themselves, as Cameron and Osborne so aptly demonstrated.

No she "thinks" she's a dictator... she got slapped down on that

Even I'll admit that they were useless at convincing people to go their way, but not scandalously bad.

At least they weren't pushing for a terrible outcome based on absolute lies and spin.

And before that too. Thatcher centralised a lot of things that had previously been done at the local level in her fight against left-wing politics

Really? What liberties have you lost?

You can't do that though. Because what we get is decided by the Eu not us . Do you want A or B can't be asked - when we will be denied B, and given X.

the factual documents are the same expert projections that Leave rubbished - as they showed the downside to going.

You can't even ask the current issue what should take priority - immigration control or free access to markets in Europe - because its a matter of how much of both you can get .

Well theres the snoopers charter, if they decide to use what they've got on you they must lie so the fact that its been discovered via snooping is not revealed and if it is you cannot use it legally as part of your own defense etc.

If you cannot challenge your accuser then pretty much its a system where the state can rule by defacto power.


Just got to hope a few judges will be not impressed and actually make some sort of pain for the government but thats a long hope really

I'm not sure about hanging specifically, but I'd hate to see the death penalty put to a referendum, as there's a decent chance a majority would be in favour. The most recent figures showed 48% in favour, and that's before any referendum campaign...!

Countries like Ireland and Switzerland who regularly hold referendums would never put something as vast as EU membership on a ballot paper as a 'yes' or 'no' option. They would instinctively know it was a recipe for disaster and something that could do serious longterm damage to their country. Repealing one law by referendum is fine, but not thousands of laws and directives in one fell swoop.

But a dictator definition also includes those who override constitutional precedents and procedures and the rule of law in order to force through their policies - getting to the end never justifies the means. May's been trying to play fast and loose with the British Constitution and as a result her government has now ended up in the Supreme Court.

Great thread. It's tricky what to conclude from it, anything you conclude is biased by what you think of the Brexit result. For instance, my view is possibly that the referendum ought to have had clear 'victory' conditions. I know the result was 52:48 but it could equally have been 50.9:49.1. And then what do you do? The population is a schizophrenic snake, insufficient to dictate one way or another the result. That's why Scotland's referendum might have the right idea of putting it at 55% the result to start the actions of making Scotland independent.

Yeah, I meant that if we were going to have a referendum in the future on a different issue it should be on a proposition that was fully costed and clearly explained. The EU one showed that if you just go with a "vote on your feelings not the facts" referendum it causes major problems.

And actually, why couldn't we have had a referendum on the actual outcome of leaving the EU? If the government had triggered Article 50, negotiated all the terms and then put it to the vote, we would have been voting for or against the planned outcome not the unplanned consequences. People keep citing Switzerland, but I doubt that the Swiss would put a nebulous proposition to the vote the way our government did.

And I think you'll have a lot of people agreeing with that! A clearly defined margin to determine what would constitute a decision, whether or not it was binding, and maybe even some form of timescale on government action/response.
And maybe a better question, or clear stated 'what it will mean' published before the event to save us all from the 'yes but what flavour'...

This one was so deficient - and everyone who voted it through parliament (and/or failed to submit/support corrective amendments) takes a share of that blame, regardless of why it came into being.

That might well be an argument for having referendums more often. Had these happened here and across Europe whilst the EEC developed from a common market to full-blown political union that few were consulted on, then we might have avoided the current problems. The electorate would either have been persuaded in favour or have put a stop to it.

The lesson to the body politic is perhaps that they must either completely suppress democratic choice (the preferred policy of the EU and British governments heretofore) or they should aim to bring the electorate with them. The sudden venting of the political head of steam after 40 years (since the last referendum on Europe) was almost bound to burn fingers.

I think it pointed up just what a lying lot politicians are.
The referendum lies, threats and promises (from both sides) should be put on advertising hoardings at every election as a reminder to the electorate of just how utterly contemptible politicians as a breed are.

Good points. I voted for Brexit. Nevertheless I think that results of referendums should be required to reach some agreed set of thresholds to be deemed valid. It could be something like: at least 50% of the electorate need to vote, and of the 50% who voted at least 60% of them must have voted for or against the proposed motion. If these thresholds are not met then the issue would be deemed undecided.

Well, in reality it was mixed bag wasn't it. There were various dubious claims touted on both sides. The were also well reasoned and honest views expressed from both sides too. But that's just the nature of the electoral process. We as voters are required to apply critical thinking to the various choices on offer.

Maybe all hoardings and broadcasts should have massive "health" warnings like cigarette packets.
Something along the lines of "Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth."

If it's deemed undecided, what happens then? Another referendum in five years, perhaps?

If it's a major and irreversible change, then I think a 55% threshold of those voting for the change would be sensible, otherwise we stick with the status quo for the time being. I wouldn't insist that a majority of the electorate have to vote for it to be valid though.

In an election, yes, but should views (as opposed to facts) form the bulk of the data supplied to voters in a referendum?

I suppose it partly would be expected by a country not very well versed in referendums(as opposed to Switzerland), but yes those are the definitely some of the key lessons from it.


I agree

We need both. "Facts" in this context are perhaps better described as "claims". We need to be aware that claims might even be true but also that they will have been selected, spun, interpreted to suit the argument of the claimant. Again this comes back to the requirement of critical assessment on the part of the voter.

It's interesting that many Remainers seem to feel cheated in that they believe many people voted Brexit on the basis of lies they were spun. Now, I don't know how many other brexiters feel this way, but I felt perfectly aware when politicians on my side of the argument were being less than truthful. But just because people make fallacious arguments in favour of some particular point of view doesn't necessarily negate the validity of that argument.

The point being that in a referendum, the proposition should be fully detailed and costed, so the "claims" can be verified. Or that the proposition should be a matter of law that is not being voted on for its economic implications. An example would be the votes on legalising marijuana in various US states - I doubt that many people are now bickering about the potential cost of legal marijuana, it's the fact that it's legal that matters.

In other words, don't have referendums on issues that will result in more arguments after than before.