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? |