On 23rd June 2016, as we all know, the British people (or at least those who voted) voted to leave the European Union.
This was a significant and historic result, but despite the claims of some, it was hardly decisive. As we remainers are fond of saying, even Nigel Farage said a 52-48 result would not settle the matter – although he seems to have ignored this ever since 24th June.
But more importantly, how long is the result valid for?
51.9 % of votes were for leave, 48.1% for remain. A majority of 1,229,501 sound impressive, but it was less than 3 in every hundred electors. Any MP or Councillor with a majority that small is only too aware that they are in a marginal seat with a tiny majority. It only takes less than 2 in every 100 people to change their mind and the result would be different.
But even if no-one changes their mind, the electorate is ever-changing as new people join the electoral roll and others leave.
Each year around 750,000 eighteen year olds become eligible to vote – and around 600,000 people die in the UK each year. So by the first anniversary of the referendum, the total change in the electorate will be greater than the majority for leave. Now of course, not every young voter wants to stay in the EU, and not every deceased voter voted to leave. But we know that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain.
If no-one has changed their mind, then in June this year there might still be a majority for leave. But we won’t know, and can’t be sure. So when the Government claims a mandate for Brexit, it is already a mandate that is already getting close to its expiry date.
If article 50 is triggered in March this year, then negotiations will need to be more or less concluded by the end of 2018 to give time for ratification by the various parliaments. But by December 2018 there will be about 1.9 million new voters who were deemed not old enough to vote in the referendum, and about 1.5 million people (or more if you take emigration into account) will have left the electoral roll. Against those figures the 1.27 million majority in June 2016 will really be quite inadequate to claim any mandate.
Tim Farron has set out the case for a “referendum on the destination” on the basis that voters in June 2016 could not know what sort of Brexit we might end up with, but it will also be the case that without another referendum, or a general election, there will be no democratic mandate for any sort of Brexit. (Incidentally, this will be a third referendum, not a second – the first was in 1975, and at 67% for ‘yes’ it was decisive)
* Frank Hindle is chair of Gateshead Liberal Democrats (writing in a personal capacity) and a former leader of the opposition on Gateshead Council
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Peter Hirst
David Evans
34 Comments
Not convinced by this – the last mandate was good enough for 40 years so it’s a dangerous argument to make.
However if trying to make the case, you should look at the Government’s trade union bill – which requires a fresh mandate for strike action each year if industrial action is ongoing. You could suggest that each year we should be given the chance to give fresh consent for our “withdrawal of labour” from Europe!
“Each year around 750,000 eighteen year olds become eligible to vote – and around 600,000 people die in the UK each year”.
Well, that’s a great start to the day. Thanks for reminding me. Wonderful to know that the party of the individual is holding its breath for us golden oldies to pop their clogs.
But………………as a remain voter, can I be excused if the party sharpens its policy ?
Things to do, places to go, grandchildren to spoil, and even the possibility of seeing my team in the top Division for the first time since 1972.
OK – So when France held its 1992 referendum on Maastricht the outcome was 51:49 on a turnout of about 70%. Do you think they should have been rerunning that every now and then?
For that matter wouldn’t these arguments apply to the 1970s referendum on the UK remaining in the-then EEC? Or if the 23rd June result had been a marginal remain would you have been looking for re-runs?
More generally this all sounds like a rather desperate. Instead of looking for a procedural wheeze mightn’t it not be better to look at what can actually be done about LEAVE voter’s concerns? To put a bit of effort into looking at what can be done within the EU?
Whilst Farron’s idea about a further referendum on the deal is seductive all it would do is lead to referendum 3, 4 and so on.
PS You don’t look like a spring chicken, Frankie, so watch out.
Being an ex-leader of the opposition on Gateshead Council is enough of an ex without being ex-anything else.
Attention should be switched to what kind of deal Lib Dems want – Mrs May won’t say for the moment, but it seems clear that ‘control over immigration’ whatever that is, trumps everything else. Having failed to sell the benefits of the single market in the referendum campaign, it would be nice to try doing so in the two forthcoming by-elections. There is no prospect of the UK not leaving the EU. The UK will be worse off,
immigration will not fall to the tens of thousands. The question will be, who get the blame ? the people who sold a duff move, the people who negotiated a duff deal, or the EU for not acting like Santa Claus ? the prospect of the UK rejoining the EU very much depends on what happens in the EU over the next few years.
>But more importantly, how long is the result valid for?
Short-term: It expires on the 31st of March 2017.
As Brexit supporters like to shout down any idea that the referendum was advisory because of what politicians and specifically those in government said, by their own logic, May has put an expiry date on Brexit: either she will have invoked Article 50 by the end of March or she will consign Brexit to the waste bin. But given it is becoming obvious that May seems to be dancing to the tune of a very small group of non-entities in the mistaken belief that this will hold the Conservative party together, it is looking increasingly likely that she will go for the hardest of hard Brexit’s so as to minimise the need for negotiations. Thereby try and deliver full exit before the general election in 2020.
Long-term: the final outcome of Brexit remains valid until such time as a ‘majority’ in Westminster decide otherwise.
As Scotland has demonstrated, just because the 1707 Act of Union has been the norm, doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged and as the SNP keep reminding us, the result of the independence referendum isn’t set in stone.
But the question we should asking is perhaps, having left the EU, what sort of European relationship/joint venture do we want with Europe and thus rather promoting rejoin we should be promoting something something different.
We could be arguing that Britain would be best served by staying in the EU but that we should take the leave vote as an indication that people’s faith in the EU is low and that we therefore must seek to address those concerns.
In my view this is a poor opinion piece.
The central argument is a rehash of the false premise: older people voted leave and will die, younger people voted remain and will replace them.
It is false because, ok, some older people mostly voted leave die, younger 17yr olds turn 18 and are more likely to support remain. What get forgotten is some in the middle change from remain to leave and so on. The result is the status quo.
it is in truth some form of macabre wishful thinking that the result would be different, if given enough time , the leave voters would die off.
Not only is this (advisory) referendum approaching its sell-by date, but as a Remain supporter I would argue that it simply gives a mandate to the Leave people to negotiate a deal that gives Britain control over its borders while also maintaining tariff-free access to the Single Market, frees up an extra £350 million per week for the NHS, and maintains support for EU-funded programmes. It should not be forgotten that all of these things were offered during the referendum campaign, and our negotiators must be held to account on them. If they cannot deliver, all other options including the status quo should be back on the table.
@tpfkar
The last mandate wasn’t good enough for 40 years. It wasn’t good enough for 40 seconds. We voted overwhelmingly for a clearly expressed commitment to ever closer union and the British government never acted on it.
Benjamin Franklin said “nothing is certain except death and taxes” (was tax evasion was less developed in those days?), and I didn’t think mentioning the former would be so controversial.
I don’t make any assumptions, ethicsgradient & Little Jackie Paper, about how the electorate in 2018 (or any date after 24th June 2016) would vote in another referendum.
Having been on the losing side in three referenda, I don’t exactly relish the thought of another one. But the 2004 North East assembly referendum, and the 2011 AV referendum had decisive results. They did settle issues.
The EU referendum, by contrast, had a narrow result that told us the view of the electorate in June 2016, and little more.
And yes, we certainly (as a party, as a nation) need to address the concerns of leave voters. Alienation, neglect and disempowerment need to be tackled. I would argue that while many of our party’s policies already seek to do this, there is a need to do more – but that’s a different topic to this morning’s piece.
Ethics gradient:
What is your evidence that people change their views on Europe as they get older?
Many young people that I have spoken to have an internalionalist mindset and thing the nation state is an outmoded concept. We know that people tend to become more right wing as they get older, but I see no reason why people should become more nationalist…
There is not going to be another referendum. This is simply another bout of wishful thinking raising false hope in some quarters of the remain camp.
@Andrew McCaig
My evidence would be that if you a person were aged 18-21 when voting in the 1975 referendum you would probably have voted to remain in the common market. In the 2015 refendum the same person would be 58 to 61 and would probably have voted to leave. ( Going on general demgraphics).
I make the argument to counter this false-hope that if the demographics change by enough leave voters die then the a 2nd refendum result might be different.
I contend that it wouldn’t. So far we see people have got older and people have generally moved from being pro- to anti- EU.
The opportunity to question the nature of Brexit may come very soon and it won’t be through a referendum.
Should the Supreme Court so decide, there will be a parliamentary debate. Although MPs would thereby be empowered to impose conditions on the government prior to invoking Article 50, they almost certainly will just nod it through. However, the Lords are likely to prove much more recalcitrant.
I do not see the government accepting an ensuing year-long delay. It surely would be very tempted to call an early general election (the Fixed Parliament Act merely imposing some procedural detours).
Given that LibDems would be amongst the Lords’ prime movers and shakers, the party as a whole should anticipate this outcome and be preparing for it now.
@ethicsgradient
I think people’s view of the Common Market in 1975 and the modern EU are very different. In 1975 most opposition came from the political left and regional nationalists whilst modern Leave voters are more likely to be on the political right.
I’ve heard many older Leave voters complain that they “only want to trade” with the EU. They haven’t changed their minds on free trade, they just think the EU has evolved into something other than what they voted for. I suspect if returning to the 1975 arrangement was offered on a ballot then it would have won outright.
In contrast most of the people of my generation are internationalist having grown up with the internet and low cost air travel. I know my concept of “foreign” is different to that of many older people.
You could also say the media has switched sides. The right wing media supported the vote to remain in 1975 but was in majority support of Leave in 2016.
Andrew T never a truer word – “the media has switched sides”. Your other comments may have less validity – older leave voters saying “they only want to trade”. Chris (upthread) comment that the British Government never implemented what was in the 1975 (and 1973 ) package. UKIP and others have been desperate to rewrite history – that the 1973 / 75 package was about “trade”, not about a “political Europe”. It was about a political Europe, in contrast to remaining in EFTA as we were previously. This was always argued, and many people understood that. I think the international media realised they could not control a multinational political structure as well as they could influence national governments, and the same applied to corporate business, so set about to undermine the EU, certainly in its post- Maastricht format. That has brought us to where we are now.
Ethicsgradient
I know anecdotal evidence on small samples doesn’t really cut it, but I and many friends in my generation (baby boom, I am 69) voted to stay in 1975, and are equally enthusiastic remain voters now. Equally my grandson, who just missed out on a vote this time, and is an A Level Politics student (Corbynista, actually) tells me that something over half of his politics group – living in the SE of England were in support of Leave – he was a strong Remain supporter, along, I have to say with pretty well all my close family (not for us these hurtful family wrangles!!)
@Tim13
Hi, I get what your saying and I’m not trying to make assumptions how various generations or individuals in generations might vote.
What I am arguing is that this article is trying to do this trying to do exactly that. Just as I cannot make assumptions I think it is also a bit rich to construct an argument based on leaving enough time for enough leave voters to die to change the outcome of a future referendum.
Ethicsgradient
I also see your point, and I think many political wishful thinking ideas, in particular about hoping less people will vote Tory, as the old ‘uns die off, have turned out to be just that – wishful thinking!
The 20 year olds of 1970 are now approaching 67, people’s views change over time. However Theresa May can no longer be trusted with Brexit. I’ve supported the idea that if the EU offer us a bad deal we should go for a “hard” brexit, but a hard brexit seems to be Theresa May’s first choice!
PS, to be clear, Theresa May should still unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU migrants in Britain.
@Eddie
Re. hard Brexit being Theresa May’s first choice. Perhaps it is, I don’t know, but two observations are relevant here. First, the EU (inasmuch as Donald Tusk can be said to speak for it) has already told us that hard Brexit is the ONLY choice (apart from no Brexit, which has already been rejected), so you could say May is simply being realistic. Second, as one of the authors of today’s Policy Exchange report said on the radio this morning, you should never enter any negotiations you are not prepared to walk away from; meaning that May would be in a weak position indeed if she did not at least give the impression that she was prepared to cut the UK completely adrift. (One hopes Tusk is taking the same approach and the two will meet in the middle.)
If Tim Farron were in charge of our negotiations, he’d already have told the EU that he was desperate to retain as many aspects of our membership as possible – which would put us in an horrendously weak position.
Most commentators from all sides have now accepted that the game is up and Brexit is definitely going to happen, and probably quite a clean one at that. I’d prefer it if the Lib Dems stopped acting like Canute and bowed to the inevitable. Their time would be much better spent engaging with groups like the new “Brexit together” bunch, trying to make the post-Brexit UK as fair and liberal and possible.
@ethicsgradient – where does my article suggest waiting for people to die? I am arguing for a recognition that the thin majority in June coupled with the inevitable changes in the electorate mean that we should not be beholden to the referendum result for all time.
@Andrew T and Tim13 – I think the media switching sides (in the 1980s?) and the failure of ministers and governments to make the positive case for the EU changed the public mood, but the 1975 debate was never just about trade – both sides (pace Peter Shore, Enoch Powell, Tony Benn vs the “better to lose a little sovereignty than a son or daughter” poster).
One of the best speeches for Yes in 1975 was by none other than Margaret Thatcher (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102675)
Stuart, I don’t see how it is a strong position to say that we don’t really care for any of the benefits of membership of the EU that we might be able to retain. If that is the case then what are we negotiating for at all?
The problem here is that there is little to be gained and a great deal to be lost, whatever brexit package might be agreed. It is perverse to go into a negotiation in order to achieve a worse deal that you have already, but that is what this country has decided to do. We have to sit down and make proposals for how to share out the pain. So, yes, give us the platitude that you have to be prepared to walk away. Walking away from the whole business is the only rational course but that is not an option the government is considering.
Putting the gun to your own head and threatening to pull the trigger may seem like strong, ballsy brinkmanship to some. It will seem like the kind of lunacy you should never give in to, to others.
Now we shouldn’t assume that the bravado and braggadocio on either side necessarily reflects an intended strategy, and there may well be – there ought to be – hidden willingness on both sides to minimise the damage. Indeed the leavers promised us that this would be the case before the vote. If they are right now, they were lying then, and either way there is no mandate for hard brexit.
@Frank Hindle
I accept that the result for the referendum should not then hold for all time. Mainstream support does change over time, however it does not tend to change quickly.
The decision of the last European referendum held good for 30 to 40 years. With a significant rise in dissatisfaction with the EU since the turn of the millennium resulting in a demand for a referendum on the UK continued membership (yes it was done to help conservative party management, but it would not have happened if there had not been a significant public demos wanting it. If the Tories had not called the referendum, a referendum would have been called in the next 10 years anyhow because more sovereignty would have been ceded to the EU) . So should we the first as a guide line for public changes ( I think not, if there is a significant change in public sentiment happens then a 2nd referendum would be legitimate).
The inevitable changes in the electorate you mention is the dying off of leave voters. I just don’t think the will change the result for the reasons I express in my previous comment.
Change to the result might happen if there is really significant economic damage. That, in my view is the only thing which might change the referendum result. I personally think we will get a workable trade deal with the EU though.
all the best and I hope I did not come over too strong in my first comment.
Thanks Stuart. I agree the Brexit Together group look very sensible for various reasons. They seem to support the things I want, but at the same time the EU would probably call that solution “have cake and eat it”. Or as the French say “vouloir le beurre et l’argent du beurre” (to want the butter and the butter money).
Old Mother Hubbard
Went to the cupboard,
To give the poor dog a bone;
When she came there,
The cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.
Frank
@ethicsgradient – where does my article suggest waiting for people to die? I am arguing for a recognition that the thin majority in June coupled with the inevitable changes in the electorate mean that we should not be beholden to the referendum result for all time.
A reasonable person might feel that the quote from your article below strongly implies that that is what you mean.
Each year around 750,000 eighteen year olds become eligible to vote – and around 600,000 people die in the UK each year. So by the first anniversary of the referendum, the total change in the electorate will be greater than the majority for leave. Now of course, not every young voter wants to stay in the EU, and not every deceased voter voted to leave. But we know that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain.
Joe Many people do not accept that leaving the EU will be detrimental to our economy. They may be wrong but they might also be right. The fact that the consensus of conventional economists is that leaving is bad overall would carry more weight if wrong about the 2008 crash, wrong about the use of low interest rates to lead to a speedy recovery and in particular wrong in predicting an immediate adverse effect on our economy if we voted to leave.
Otten – ‘The problem here is that there is little to be gained and a great deal to be lost.’
But isn’t that the exact problem that the referendum showed up? That to some people there is a great benefit out of the EU, but to others that benefit is, to say the very least, rather theoretical? Yes, indeed if you are mobile, propertied and easy-living then the EU is wonderful. But that’s not everyone.
Indeed, I put this graphic on another thread, but I think it illustrates the point well.
http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf
You say, ‘We have to sit down and make proposals for how to share out the pain.’ The problem you have there is that to an awful lot of people the economy crashed years before the referendum and the pain was very much shared in that direction. The threat of more economic pain probably doesn’t mean that much in context. I am continually astonished at just how many remainers (of ALL parties) seem to take the view that they don’t need to address concerns that did not suddenly materialise on the first day of the referendum campaign. No one ever said that the EU was permanent and if the public wish to make a value judgment at the ballot box then they are free to do so and use whatever yardsticks they see fit. There are things that could be done within the EU to address those concerns, but I don’t think the REMAIN campaign (LDP included) talked about them.
Out of interest Mr Otten, and to be clear here I’m not getting at you, if you could do the referendum campaign over again would you, if you had your way, do things differently? If so what would you say/offer to the voters?
For what it’s worth I think that you are right that outside of the media madhouse there is a willingness to work together. But for UK remainers the realisation does at some point need to dawn that this was a vote against Business As Usual and that the EU is Business As Usual just as much as is Westminster.
LJP
I suppose it could also be argued that the referendum, along with the 2015 GE, were votes against political coalitions? It is fairly well-known in Britain that most of the rest of Europe often relies on coalitions, as, of course does the European Parliament. And, possibly for that reason, June’s vote was another hammer blow at Lib Dem principles?
It is all very well “voting against business as usual”, but that involves throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as no doubt Empress Treeza’s speech will show today. At least she appears to be publicly acknowledging that yet another cliche (“cake and eat it”) is NOT possible here. The room for “negotiation” with others and institutions in the EU is vanishingly small.
In answer to your question to Joe Otten, debate in Britain keeps missing the spot by NOT emphasising the political aspects and advantages of working together, and leading people to believe that in all areas of life we can “have our cake and eat it”. The idea that we can work together to achieve joint working and better overall results should enthuse us – we should not be thinking what more can (selfish little “we”) get out of it, and throwing our toys out of the pram when we can’t get that.
A clear understanding that it is political trends in this country (exemplified and copied by and from Thatcher) that have led to pauperisation, NOT the EU, should be campaigned on. Trends in Labour and more recently in the Lib Dems have caused problems in this way.
I could rant on, but some “political education” is called for, and we need to be less mealy-mouthed.
The Brexit mandate is valid until such time as the British people show a clear majority who regret it. At the moment there has been a tiny opinion shift away from the Leave position, so the mandate is still valid.
The Brexiteers fear that this will not last. Therefore their strategy is to rush through an irrevocable break with Europe before reality bites and regret sets in. Sadly it is odds-on that they will succeed with that strategy, though it is not inevitable that they will.
The “clean Brexit” chimera needs to be shown up for what it is – a rather desperate attempt to bounce Britain irrevocably out of Europe before events change people’s minds. It makes no sense whatsoever in negotiating terms.
It’s like you are on a stroll across the North Pole. You feel bored with the clothes you are wearing. So you rip them all off, burn them, and then stand nakedly negotiating with the garment manufacturers. As you shiver and freeze, you merrily cry “Who will negotiate a favourable new trade deal with me, and sell me a cheap overcoat?!”
“Clean” Brexit is a terrible way to negotiate. It makes sense only as a bounce tactic by Brexiteers, who are all too aware that they could soon be rumbled as snake oil peddlers.
Tim13; “The idea that we can work together and achieve joint working and better overall results” is a good point. It should remind all people of the dangers of falling for the idea of every nation for itself, regardless of other nations and regardless of the effects of events around the world. This applies to economics as well as other fundamental issues. It does, however, require in my view, some reform of the EU with regard to movement of people and for the EU to emphasise nations working together and not looking forward to a reduction in sense of national identity. It is written in to EU treaties that decisions should be made as near as possible to the people; unfortunately the EU has not paid enough attention to that, even though the extent to which they have ignored it has been exaggerated by the Brexiteers.
The author of the article, Frank Hindle, asks:
” But more importantly, how long is the result valid for?”
The referendum to join the Common Market was in 1975 and lasted until 2015.
On this basis the 2015 referendum will last 40 years.
Tim13 – ‘we should not be thinking what more can (selfish little “we”) get out of it, and throwing our toys out of the pram when we can’t get that.’
You might do very well to remember that the UK has long been a net EU contributor and opened up in full on day 1 following A8 accession. That’s rather more than can be said for a lot of the states currently handing out lectures on the European Ideal.
On the rest, I’m not in any way averse to much of what you say. I have said on here previously that there are things that successive UK governments could/should have done. I make three observations.
1 – You are, of course, correct that the politics of the EU are one of the better arguments for remaining. But ultimately in a democracy politics have to be exposed to the ballot box and people get a say. I do think it is something of a stretch to see, ‘working together,’ as, ‘giving 500+m an open-ended right of establishment.’
2 – If the argument was that things would be done differently and better within the EU then that’s not an argument I remember any REMAINers making during the referendum, still less setting out a proposal.
3 – At some point the EU does need to understand the difference between politics and government. Looking at recent events, most notably TTIP and the refugee debacle it’s not at all clear to me that the Commission in particular understands that difference.