Forum Topic

The 2016 referendum wasn't binding. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that no referendum result is binding on the government without parliament having explicitly authorised such a derogation in the Act providing for the referendum. On the basis that the 2016 referendum was only advisory, and not binding, the government of the day considered it unnecessary to require a qualified majority in favour of leaving the UK. Unfortunately, after Cameron's resignation, Teresa May took it upon herself to interpret the result as binding. Not only did this lead to the catastrophe that is Brexit, but a decision to leave based on a majority of a mere 51.9% created enormous division in the country, on top of all the rancour generated by the campaigning. MPs who accepted the case for not requiring a qualified majority were alarmed to find that the government considered the matter to have been settled by the pencil-slim difference between the leave and remain votes.Referendums on matters of high constitutional importance should never be held without requiring a qualified majority. This creates problems for remainers who would like to see the decision revisited. If in general it is sensible to require a qualified majority on any referendum, would it be acceptable, in the case of a vote to apply for re-entry to the EU, to require a majority greater than that which led to our departure? Or are referendums simply inappropriate and alien to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty? Should they never be contemplated in respect of major constitutional issues?

Robert Fish ● 2d

A couple of assertions might need to be qualified. Firstly, 'desires for independence are not about economics' and secondly 'Northern Irish Protestants would never vote to leave the UK'.

Recently I was a guest of a family in Northern Ireland for a few days. They are not Irish by birth but have made their home there for the last several decades as had many of their circle of friends. As they have not been brought up in either the nationalist or loyalist tradition they take a purely practical view of the constitutional situation largely determined by economics. The rising prosperity of Northern Ireland has brought many people there who think like this — probably about 5-10% of the population. If there was a referendum on unity they would support the side that the believed would make them wealthier.

The consensus seemed to be that unity was the better option for Northern Ireland but the trouble that would be caused by about 35,000 irreconcilables concentrated in  disadvantaged parts of East Belfast outweighed any potential economic benefits. This seems to be an increasing view point both north and south of the border.

On the other hand it would be wrong to see there still being a Protestant voting block. More people including most professions now do much more cross border business since Brexit and can see advantages in further restrictions in trade being removed. Protestant farmers  sell most of their produce into the Republic and would make more money if the borders are removed. While not all are totally reconciled to a United Ireland, very few would be joining an armed resistance against it.

Obviously a few days' visit doesn't make me an expert on this but I did learn from people who live there that this is a much more nuanced and complex situation than I appreciated.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1d