|
|
|
|
|
|
by flukus
2921 days ago
|
|
|
I thought this was because Britain didn't have a constitution as such so the don't have actual referendums? > An actual binding referendum against a written constitution would have to provide actual wording; rather than just a single word. I don't disagree for any philosophical reason, but this is very easy to abuse for anyone that favors the status quo. The most notable example I can think of is the republic referendum (to remove the queen as head of state) here in Australia. Deciding the form of the republic was done first and the constitutional changes to do just that was the only question put to the public, splitting the Republican vote. On the other hand the EU has a bit of a reputation for voting until the plebs get it right, so I can definitely see the case for binding referendums. |
|
|
The UK does have a constitution, it's simply not codified into a single document. Parliamentary sovereignty means that Acts of Parliament are part of the constitution, and so any referendum's result cannot be binding, which may partly explain why they weren't seen as part of UK politics up until recently - there have only ever been three national referendums, one on EC membership in 1975, on changing the voting system in 2011, and leaving the EU in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_King...