|
|
|
|
|
|
by tom_mellior
3141 days ago
|
|
|
> As a matter of law, it seems our highest authorities accept that Parliament currently has no mechanism to legislate for a binding referendum. I don't understand what you are basing this statement on. In the AV referendum, the act basically said "if the vote comes out yes, the minister must do X; otherwise, the minister must refrain from doing X but must do Y". This is really not complicated, and as we are agreed, Parliament's acts can bind the government in such ways. > My personal view is that the best way to avoid such problems would be to have a proper written constitution that provided explicitly for binding referendums I agree, which is why I find it bizarre that in this particular case you are arguing against the importance of writing down whether a referendum is intended to be binding or not, and what consequences on the government's actions it will have. |
|
|
I realise now that you're talking about making the referendum binding on the government, so currently the May administration. I agree that it would have been better to include those kinds of provisions explicitly in the EU Referendum Act.
Just to be clear, the moral issue I'm talking about is making the referendum binding on Parliament as well. In terms of the legitimacy of our broader system of government, I believe that not even Parliament should have the power to overrule a properly conducted national referendum. I also don't believe it would be ethical for them to do so now, even if we accept that they have that power under our current legal system, unless for example there is evidence that the popular view has changed significantly and another referendum or similarly authoritative measure dictates a change of course.