Forum Topic

The first rule of referenda - if you don't get the result you want, agitate for another until you do, and then refuse to have another which might reverse the decision. Wales and Scotland both voted against devolved government first time round, then had another go and got it. No-one has offered a referendum to undo those results. London marginally voted in favour of a mayor, and again no-one has offered another vote to see if we still want one. Off-hand I think Quebec has had two referenda so far, and those who want to secede from Canada would like to have another go when they think they might have a chance of getting the result they want. Meanwhile, the SNP do their best to make people forget their poor record in government by agitating for secession, despite that being rejected in a vote that they themselves said would be once in a generation. After Edward Heath took the UK into what was then the Common Market under a false prospectus, we were then granted a referendum after the event (mainly to try and paste over the cracks in Harold Wilson's Labour Party) when leaders of the main parties glossed over the constitutional impact and just suggested that we had joined a free trade grouping. They then failed to consult the electorate while signing more and more integrationist treaties (Maastricht and Lisbon) despite the Labour Party's manifesto pledge not to sign the latter without putting it to a vote. I used to think that having referenda was a good idea in a democratic country, but after seeing the results in the past half-century I am not at all sure they are. The film "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" (1970) eerily forecast much of what has happened since - I wonder why it never seems to be shown on TV nowadays ?

Richard Greenhough ● 489d