Andrew Blick outlines some of the constitutional issues to which the question of a second EU referendum gives rise. He writes that unless these matters are given serious consideration in advance of such a decision, the repetition of the exercise is unlikely to improve matters and might even aggravate them.
The idea of a second EU referendum of some kind, though highly controversial, is now a prominent part of public debate in the UK. Whatever view one takes of the first vote, it is hard to argue that the UK political system, or indeed the country as a whole, was fully prepared for its consequences. At present, since the government is firmly opposed to a further referendum, the Civil Service is unable to prepare for the eventuality of a further popular vote. Parliament too, whatever the private views may be of majorities in both Houses, is not seriously examining what it might mean in practice.
Part of the problem is that the debate is a proxy for the continuing division on the fundamental issue of EU membership. Even to countenance the possibility of a further vote (though Nigel Farage seemed recently to entertain this idea) could be depicted as a concession to the ‘remain’ side and its efforts to frustrate the popular will. Yet to rule out another referendum at this point would be as irresponsible as it was to assume that there would be no ‘leave’ majority on 23 June 2016.
It is possible to conceive of circumstances in which the force for a second public vote becomes irresistible. If it does, implementation of this change of course will be far from straightforward. In particular, a series of constitutional issues arise, that it is proper to consider.
A first matter is the precise circumstance in which a decision to hold a second referendum could take place. Would it take place before or after a final agreement was arrived at? Perhaps after a breakdown in talks, if one occurs? Might it follow evidence of a decisive swing in public opinion against Brexit, or the particular course that negotiations had taken (perhaps not even leading to a deal), or at least in favour of a second direct consultation with the public? Could some wider public emergency or external event act as a trigger? Might it come through an amendment to a bill secured because of a rebellion in the Commons? Following a defeat for the government in one or both Houses of Parliament in the vote that has been promised on a final deal? Or because a government decided to hold a referendum? Would it accompany the resignation of the Prime Minister, and the forming of another Conservative administration, or one of another party or combination of parties? Might yet another General Election be involved? All of these possibilities would have important implications for the precise context in which the referendum, were it held, took place. They would be crucial to shaping the nature of the decision that the electorate faced.
Second is the precise choice that might be on offer to the public. The possible permutations are numerous. If a binary referendum, would it be between a deal and remaining; or between no-deal (if talks do not succeed) and remaining; or between a deal or exit without a deal? Might one of the options on offer be to return to negotiations, perhaps to seek more palatable terms (or if no agreement had been reached, to give the government a new, more flexible, mandate)? If multiple options were presented to the public – presumably remaining, leaving with a deal, or leaving without a deal, and perhaps returning to negotiations – how would the result be calculated?
Third, attention should be given to who would vote and how the result would be interpreted. What would the franchise be – would it include 16- and 17-year-olds? Or would there be immense pressure to use the same electorate as in 2016? Might there be a supermajority requirement or threshold of some kind? Would there be special consideration given to particular results in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? Again, it might be difficult to justify rules that differed from those applied in the previous vote, particularly if it appeared broadly to be a re-staging of the previous contest, offering a binary ‘remain’ or ‘leave’ option. Furthermore, were a supermajority required, to which option or options would it apply?
Fourth involves the management of the referendum. If the government made a recommendation to vote in a particular direction, how would Civil Service impartiality during the pre-referendum period be enforced? Would an opt-out from collective responsibility for dissenting ministers be available, and if so how would it be managed? When, exactly, would the referendum take place? Given emerging suspicions, still shrouded in uncertainty, about campaign irregularities during the last referendum, how could the authorities, including the Electoral Commission, ensure the integrity of the next contest?
A fifth set of issues relates to the result and its outcome. Would the government possess the necessary legal authority to act upon the vote? Might we anticipate legal complications similar to those that manifested themselves with the Miller case? Would the legislation providing for the vote also seek to make the result legally binding, or would it be technically advisory, as was the previous referendum? If the logic of a result was that the UK should seek to revoke Article 50, would it be able to do so unilaterally? Might an opinion on this subject need to be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union in advance of a second referendum?
The strict legal issues will not be wholly decisive in themselves. Ultimately, Parliament cannot bind itself and would probably only give the referendum result the force of law if the political environment was judged conducive to the passing of such a provision. After all, in theory, a UK government, backed by Parliament, could reverse the Brexit policy without any further referendum. Yet opponents of leaving do not advocate this course. Their tactical decision to press for a second referendum arises because of a widely held judgement among political protagonists (and seemingly shared by a significant portion of the wider public). They believe that, whether they like it or not, and regardless of its formal status being only advisory, they are obliged to implement the ‘leave’ result.
Clearly, departure from the EU could potentially take place in a range of different ways. One possibility would be to maximise continuity, remaining within one or both of the Single Market (or parts of it) and the Customs Union, but exiting institutions such as the European Parliament, European Commission, European Court of Justice and so on. Some would regard this outcome as a travesty of the referendum result, but it would still arise from a basic desire to be seen to fulfil – albeit in a minimalist sense – the result of June 2016. There remains a powerful political assumption that this referendum overrides any other type of democratic mandate. It is for this reason that supporters of leave are hostile to the idea of a second vote, while advocates of remain see it at present as the only plausible means of achieving their goal (assuming ‘remain’ is on the ballot paper in some way).
To hold a second EU referendum might be seen as a tacit acknowledgement not only that the first has failed to settle the issue of membership, but has created new problems. Given such an assessment of the use of this political mechanism, how can we be sure that a repetition of this exercise will improve matters, rather than making no difference, or perhaps even aggravating the position? If ‘remain’ were not made available as a possibility in a referendum, many would challenge its democratic credibility. Yet if to seek continued membership were offered to voters and won, opponents of this outcome – who (and notwithstanding the recent comments by Nigel Farage) already portray the second referendum idea as improper – might deny the legitimacy of the result, depicting it as the outcome of elite manipulation.
Moreover, as we now know, even if a referendum choice is binary, there are many different kinds of result. Different divisions: between age cohorts, social groups and, perhaps most importantly, territories of the UK, all have an impact on the way in which the overall vote is perceived. So too do the overall margin of victory and the turnout. What would be the response, for instance, if ‘remain’ won by a larger percentage than had ‘leave’ in 2016, but with a smaller absolute vote than either ‘leave’ or ‘remain’ had received on this previous occasion? Any of these variables might have an influence on the potential for a second referendum, not only to reverse (or confirm) the previous vote, but also to provide some kind of political resolution (though the policy complications that will follow in any eventuality would be great). The decisions made in relation to the various constitutional issues raised above, therefore, could matter greatly. It is advisable to begin closely considering the options now.
Note: this is a shorter version of an article that first appeared on the Constitution Society blog.
Andrew Blick is Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History at King’s College London, and Director of History & Policy.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: Pixabay (Public Domain).
I think this is an interesting article that raises lots of good questions. There is a risk of over-intellectualising it. While we should not be as inattentive as we were before 2016 one can overthink things too. At one level it comes down to a simple question: now you know what Brexit means, do you wish to go ahead with it or Remain in the EU?
If you will forgive me for pointing people to links I have tried to address some of these issues in a series of posts on the London4Europe forum, including
The basic case for a referendum on the terms
Why it won’t be best of three
How clear will the “terms” be?
Addressing the criticism that “the EU always re-runs referenda until it gets the answer it wants”
Posts scheduled for the next couple of weeks include whether to have a three-way choice on the ballot paper and how fixed the “terms” will be.
If only we’d been this considerate before calling the first referendum.
I wonder if its too much to ask why, 24 hours after I ‘commented’, my comment has not been published?
For various reasons you identify it would be an advantage for the referendum on the terms of the deal to be quite different from the June 2016 referendum.
Perhaps any new referendum should take place at the same time as a General Election, and be
i inherently advisory/informative – non binding on Parliament / Government
ii multi choice – It is not a simple black and white issue
The referendum choices could be
1 The Deal as proposed by the Government
2 A ‘No deal’/WTO exit.
3 Further negotiations with Brussels
4 No Brexit (ie remain on current terms)
No complicated voting would be required. A simple cross in the box for your preferred outcome would suffice. Since votes would be spread across the various options, there would be no winning/losing side, only interpretation.
Whatever the outcome, the full referendum results would give the new Government/Parliament the evidence to justify a policy change, and the people would have been consulted. Parliamentary sovereignty would be maintained.
‘No winners/ losers’ would subsequently help to bring people together. It might also ease the rift between the four home nations.
The government along with the mass media and indeed the eu were certain remain would win, not many people vote for change. Should the vocal minority and the democratically deficient eu get their way surely a remain vote should lead to a third or fourth etc referendum as there will always be one side upset at the result, we could call this either the eu or sturgeon principle as both think we should keep voting till they get the result they want, think France Spain Ireland and referenda and Scotland wanting another one.
There is a simple and widely known English idiom to cover all of this:’Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.’
Also, there is a legal challenge to the ‘triggering’ of the Article 50 notice currently underway.
Meanwhile back at the ranch…
Might it help to consider – as I do, that the idea was to bring about Brexit from the very start? [A plan that very nearly failed.]
The legal challenge mentioned above may be the best bet of rescuing MPs and their Partys, but as they are also the very Turkeys that voted for this Brexit Christmas – & that they are secure where they are in any case, they may again settle for ‘muddling-along’. [As this is the fundamental wrong:The superimposition of Party-Politics over what little Democracy there was until June 2016]
– In short: Ref2 will risk all for no discernible benefit.