Referendum woes

In the words of David Allen Green, a referendum can either be democratic or irreversible. But not both.

Which is why a referendum was such a silly idea, especially under the circumstances the one in 2016 took place under.

Another genius line from DAG today:

A second referendum is being pushed by those who lost the first referendum but expected to win.

And a second referendum is being resisted by those who won the first referendum but expected to lose.

The Brexiteers expect to lose a potential second referendum, and remainers expect to win it. The same mistake both made in the first one.

As a referendum got the UK into this mess, it is unlikely that another will get us out of it.

The only way out of the mess would have been for May to have confronted the result by stating it was advisory, and having published impact assessments decided it was lunacy. But she backed it, backed with rhetoric and promising the undeliverable, and still does. That gap between what was achievable and what was promised was never addressed or admitted to, and indeed both May, the Brexiteers and Corbyn pretend they can deliver something they cannot. And are nearly out of time.

The chance of there being honesty in the domestic Brexit debate is less than zero, as still, even when there is evidence to the contrary, Brexiteers still claim there is a project fear, even when as the value of the pound drops further, energy and imports get more expensive, yet all will be fine. Even without a plan. Or accepting reality.

And then there is how to deal with the result of a further referendum; everyone assumes that remain would win, but they all did last time, and there is no guarantee of a reman victory. Even if it were to prevail, is the voice of the people now negate the earlier voice of the people? Would there have to be further referendum until the end of time? The first wasn't legally binding, should the second?

And what if leave were to win again, what then? Carry on regardless? Would that result be advisary or not?

To decide on whether the result is legally enforceable, and that would require stronger secondary legislation, something we can agree was too weak for the first. That and whether there should be a super majority, what the rules should be, definition of the official leave and remain campaigns, spending limits, what can be said and what can't, and the punishments for breaking the terms of that legislation. And in order for all that to be sorted, there would need to be time, lots of time, and the Government of the day able to get the legislation through Parliament. And as it stands, the Conservative Party won't even allow fringe events at its September conference to push for another referendum.

Time would be needed to get the primary and secondary legislation through both Houses. The legislation for the 2016 took about 11 months, and clearly wasn't good enough, so more time would be needed. At the moment there is just seven months and one week left, and neither the Government or opposition think one is needed. Yet.

And in my next post, I will explain as to why I think a no deal is by far the most likely outcome. Sadly.