The 2017 Liberal Democrat manifesto boldly sets out in section 1.1 the intention to hold a second referendum on EU membership (or indeed, a first vote on the Brexit deal). As a LibDem supporter and remainer in an area which voted 70% to leave, I was simultaneously pleased and worried at the announcement.
When asked by Nick Robinson on the BBC Question Time Leaders Special about the second referendum, Tim Farron made it clear that the result of the referendum is respected, though the people ‘didn’t vote for destination’. Whether true or not, I believe that the type of Brexit that the majority of people voted for needs ratifying in some way, which one could argue a second referendum could allow.
But much more importantly, the question of overturning Brexit, in my opinion is entirely reliant on a second referendum. Polly Toynbee wrote an insightful and interesting piece for the Guardian a few days ago. She argues that a second referendum is naturally divisive, and that an ‘indefinite limbo’ could be ‘the least worst option’. Whilst I entirely agree that referenda are by their very nature divisive, particularly close ones, I disagree with the idea of a second referendum being wrong. I believe that Brexit can only be overturned by the will of the people to avoid the potential backlash over the perception that the ‘political elite’ have ignored people who feel long-forgotten by the system. The only means to avoid the backlash is to allow the will of the people to overturn the will of the people.
However, whether there is a taste for it is unclear, and what it would take for the minority Conservative government to call one is undetermined. Opinion Polls are famously unreliable at the present. One can pick and choose an opinion poll based on their opinion on a second referendum. For example, YouGov suggest that the support for a second referendum sits at 31%, whilst against sits at 58%. Conversely, Opinium suggests that the support for a second referendum is growing, now sitting at 41% compared to against at 48%.
One could of course argue that the election successes of the Liberal Democrats and Green Party, which both ran on manifestos promising a second referendum, is a sufficient barometer for the taste for a second referendum. But to do so, as many indeed do the other way around, is to overly simplify an election which became shaped much more heavily by other, polarising variables than by Brexit.
Through this miasma of attempting to understand the reason as to why people voted as they did, there is really no accurate measurement or conclusion that can be drawn about how successful a second referendum would be.
I believe that there needs to be consideration, and public declaration by the Government as to what would be the most accurate measurement as to any change in public opinion about Brexit, in order to truly reflect the evolving will of the people as the facts and complexities around the reality of leaving the European Union come to light.
* Edward Goater is a Liberal Democrat member
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
47 Comments
Brexit is damaging the country more every day. I’m not sure we have time for a second referendum. We should be spending less time talking about the difficulties of leaving, and more time selling the benefits of being in the EU
If you ask people, ‘Do you want a second referendum on brexit?’ I think many will say no. If you say to them, ‘When the government completes its brexit negotiations and we understand for the first time what brexit actually means in practice, do you think there’s a case for allowing people at that point to decide whether to go ahead with it?’ I think you’ll get a very different response from many of them. Particularly as the shambolic process unfolds – every day the nightmare is becoming more and more clear.
We should firstly advocate what we as a party and individuals think is right – and with commitment and passion.
For me there is greater economic prosperity in greater freedom to trade. And greater prosperity means more money for hospitals, schools and pensions. It seems barmy that you can move goods 30 miles in one direction with no barriers but won’t be able to move them 30 miles in the other just because it is across the channel. No matter how soft a brexit there will be a whole new layer of bureaucracy.
As the article points out it is now roughly level between those who want a second referendum and those that don’t with movement towards a referendum.
But there seems to be a strong constitutional point that should be particularly important to us as democrats. Major constitutional changes now are decided by referendums. None of us knew at the time of the referendum or knows today what the deal will involve. We should therefore have our democratic right to have our say.
Toynbee worries me more by the day. She is allowed a political debate but not it seems the masses – grow up Polly. If history teaches us any thing it is if there is one thing more divisive than democracy and referendums it is no democracy. Are we really a more divided society than during the Thatcher years? And why is engagement in the political process a bad thing?
As Churchill said democracy is the worse form of government until you consider all the others.
We need a referendum about whether to hold a second referendum on Brexit.
The second referendum appears to be a constitutionally clean way out, but has significant practical issues.
Firstly, it is unclear whether anytime before March 2019 a “final” deal can be described in sufficient detail. Even if it can, the economic consequences will again be very controversially discussed. Furthermore, the ballot paper would have to reference the published contract which is unlikely to be below “tens of thousands” of pages. Is it constitutionally permissible to ask the public a question it is unable to be familiarize itself with? In analogy, also the 2016 referendum was questionable: brief but incomprehensible in its consequences. Can it therefore be right to cancel out one unconstitutional exercise with another one?
An even bigger problem lies with the EU-perspective. It would be eminently logical for Mr Barnier to ask Mr Davies: are you acting as authorized representative of a committed UK Government, or are we negotiating an option for your citizens to elect or reject? We know Mr Davies’ answer. These two scenarios are fundamentally different games.
Having a possible public rejection of the negotiating result visibly in the UK political debate is good in terms of derailing Mr Davies’ efforts, but at some point, the EU will require clarification about the UK gameplan.
Now let’s assume a second referendum becomes a majority view and the official UK Government position (and that all 27 EU members accept this game). Now Mr Barnier will ask two questions: 1. If the UK public accepts our negotiation result, are all subsequent steps crystal-clear? – We cannot go back negotiating after that. 2. If the UK public rejects our negotiation result, can you guarantee me that the UK will be a constructive and loyal member for the forseeable future (meaning at least 20 years)? What would Mr Davies say?
What would happen if the UK public accepts, but then the European Parliament or any memberstate says no?
My conclusion is: MPs will have to do what they are elected and paid for: decide on the fate of the United Kingdom (by necessity in informal alignment with EU institutions and Governments), and convince the public of the wisdom of their decision.
For a clarity the yougov poll referred to in the article is a year old cattied out a week after the referendum and there has subsequently been a recent survation poll ( the most accurate pollster at the general election) showing 53% for a second referendum and 47% against http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html
This ‘indefinite limbo’ sounds like considering. You can argue that YOU GOV(even if it is an old poll) has its vested interests in aiming for one outlook and OPINIUM for another. The result they aim for can depend on the the wording of the question asked to answer. Also the sort of public they ask ie over the phone, on the net or the sort of people asked on the street,countless scenarios that could go anywhere. As far as polls are concerned they will all have to show figures over, for example, 60% to decide on a clear outcome. The position is changing as people see the consequences of Brexit.
@ Arnold Kiel
I think you are overcomplicating things!
Clearly Davis and the British Government are operating as representatives of British people as they always do internationally and the deals negiotated after to be ratified in some form by Britain and the British people.
This deal will have to be agreed by the British people. It is a question whether it should be 650 people in Parliament or 60 million in the country.
We have before taken decisions about Europe by the people as a whole.
Clearly the British people can overturn their previous decisions – they are sovereign – just as they did last year.
@ David evershed
Surely we need a referendum on whether to have a referendum about whether to hold a second referendum on Brexit :)!
If a second referendum was held and we narrowly voted to remain this country would be torn apart. The issues of why we voted to leave the EU will not go away and kicking the can further down the road is a recipe for disaster.
The general public shouldn’t be so fickle. We have a government who are carrying out the will of the majority of people who voted for Brexit. I for one wouldn’t vote in a second referendum out of principal, and that would be that we don’t have true democracy so voting becomes irrelevant. Stop whinging and get behind the government and get on with making Brexit work. By the way, you won’t know what Brexit looks like until we are totally out of the EU.
@nigel hunter
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=884qXhIqsKU
And what the EU is really about
@ Yvette
“The general public shouldn’t be so fickle”
Absolutely it should never have changed its mind about the 1976 referendum
Stop whinging and get behind the government and get on with making Brexit work”
@yvette
(Continued – sorry pressed the wrong button)
“Stop whinging and get behind the government and get on with making Brexit work”
Absolutely it was outrageous that UKIP and Nigel Farage didn’t get behind the government and make our EU membership work.
When I last looked the British liked a good whinge – still I am sure there is some EU directive that will ban it when we decide to remain.
I believe we have freedom of speech in this country that allows us to point out when we think our leaders and fellow citizens have got it wrong – or do leavers want us to become North Korea when we leave?
Would UKIP and Nigel Farage have been silent if they had lost? Of course not!!!
I keep hearing this mantra that the result of the referendum has to be respected.
Does that mean that i have to respect its architects: Farage, Johnson, Gove, Leadsom et al.? Sorry, no can do.
Measuring the evolving will of the people is fundamentally impossible, as there is no such thing.
You can ask whether someone agrees or not with a proposition and then tally up the totals in favour and against, and in some cases that’s a legitimate way of making a democratic decision, but if you go behind that to ask people what they think about the issue it will always be complex, diverse and often contradictory. Individuals will have their own interpretations about the proposition, what it means to them and what limits and expectations they have for how it will be implemented. You simply can’t extrapolate what people want in detail from how they voted, which is, of course, exactly what this government (and its various factions) and the Labour Party have done with the referendum. It’s deceitful: e.g. no-one knows even whether a majority of people want additional controls on immigration, let alone what controls they want and for whom. In some cases (e.g. future engagement with the European Court of Justice) a democratic mandate is claimed from the referendum for which there is simply no evidence.
This is part of the problem of alienation in our politics. Politicians who win power impose detailed ideologies which people never really supported, even if they preferred that party’s candidate to represent them. The general election is a case in point. Theresa May sought a mandate for her Lancaster House Speech approach to Brexit. That mandate was simply not given, but we have not seen any significant change in approach or rhetoric. The Tories have more problems getting things through Parliament (thank goodness) but have not chosen to see “the will of the people” in the election result.
Does that mean that i have to respect its architects
All seventeen and a half million of them? You could give it a try.
Arnold Kiel 21st Jul ’17 – 11:52am
You can’t just throw around the word “unconstitutional” to mean “thing I don’t agree with” or “thing I don’t think will work”. Whether one regards the unwritten British constitution as a thing of glorious flexibility or hopeless obscurity (of course it’s a bit of both), some things are quite clear: it is absolutely constitutionally permitted to hold a referendum on any darn thing you like, so long as it’s been authorised by an Act of Parliament.
That said, I think you’re absolutely right about the consequences for the Brexit negotiations if the Lib Dem position on a second/new referendum ever became government policy, or were even suspected of being likely to become so. That’s precisely why I’ve described it before now as dishonest and why I couldn’t support the party in the last election.
I can see only two approaches that are politically honest and democratically acceptable, given where we are now: (1) accept that Brexit is happening and get on with arguing about what sort of a future relationship we should seek with the EU and what sort of a Britain we want to create in the colder climate of “independence”; (2) hold an upfront, think-again, “Did you really mean it?” second referendum on the basic question now and promise to abide by the result.
In practice, I don’t think anyone has the stomach for option (2).
Malcolm Todd 21st Jul ’17 – 5:18pm
I don’t think there’s anything dishonest about doing the right thing. Asking people to support (or not) a new set of treaties defining our future relationship with the EU is at least as legitimate as asking them “in or out” in the first place. As for the effect on the negotiations: it’s unlikely to be anything like as powerful as the overt civil war being waged between Cabinet ministers now.
“I don’t think there’s anything dishonest about doing the right thing.”
Well, let’s not be silly. Obviously if you think it’s the right thing you don’t think it’s dishonest. If you agreed that it was dishonest, you’d agree that it was the right thing.
I believe it’s dishonest because it is almost never explained whether the alternative to voting yes to the deal in such a referendum is staying in the EU (which it’s hardly in the power of the British government to offer now) or crashing out with no deal (even the government has finally more or less admitted that it’s hard to imagine any deal which would not be preferable to that).
It’s dishonest because it completely ignores the impossible position that negotiators would be put in if their opposite numbers know that they are only negotiating a provisional deal, as Arnold well describes. (You believe that it wouldn’t be as bad as the “civil war” in the Cabinet now. Not only do I think you’re just wrong about that – I’m sure we’ll have to agree to differ there – but you overlook the fact that nothing about the second-referendum proposal would stop the civil war from continuing, so it would be X-plus-Y not X-instead-of-Y; so it makes no difference whether X is bigger or smaller than Y!)
And it’s dishonest (though this is more debatable because based on inference) because I don’t think those who promote the policy have any intention of supporting a deal that takes us out of the EU at all: they just don’t dare call for a second referendum per se, so they pretend it’s about asking a different question.
To be clear, I don’t think there would be anything wrong in principle with having a second referendum – it was, after all, a very close result and it’s a hugely significant question. But let’s be honest about what it is (and about what is possible).
Ouch. Typo in second para. Should read:
“If you agreed that it was dishonest, you’d agree that it *wasn’t* the right thing.”
Malcolm Todd
It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the Lib Dem policy on another referendum but it was 100% clear in the manifesto and in every statement made by Tim Farron that the two options on the ballot would be leaving on whatever terms the government managed to negotiate, or Remaining in the EU.
There may have been other ideas introduced by other people but this is a Lib Dem discussion board so I think you should stick to discussing Lib Dem policy!
Putting this into practice would require agreement from the EU 27. Personally I think that would be forthcoming.. But since the question has not been asked, we do not know…
Andrew McCaig
Fair enough, the choice is clear in the manifesto. I don’t think it was clear in every interview that Tim Farron gave, but that may be a matter of interpretation.
As far as I can see, the manifesto doesn’t, however, give even a nod of acknowledgement of the fact that staying in the EU is no longer in the UK government’s gift, or that it would inevitably involve a further negotiation with the EU27 on the terms on which we might stay. (Would there be another referendum on those terms?) So I stand by my description of the policy as dishonest.
Dav (21 July 5:15pm) – if the Leave Project has 17.5 m architects I would respectfully suggest that it is suffering from a top-heavy management structure.
@Malcolm Todd
I understand that the term unconstitutional is problematic in the UK system. But in essence I stand by it. There are some commonly accepted rules about referenda, all of which were violated here: 1. ask for yes/no on an action with clearly understandable consequences (materially, not conceptually). 2. Properly inform the voters about these. 3. Do not lie. 4. Have a proper quorum for change (i.e. leave) like 60% or 2/3. 5., most importantly, as a politician, be clear about the question you are pushing down to your people yourself. 6. Do not abuse referenda for party-internal disputes…
I do not think these defects can be healed by repeating such exercise, even if partially improved. 3. would happen again, 4. cannot be fixed now for reasons of referenda-symmetry.
Ah the irony of the brave Brexiteers coming onto the site and urging us to get behind the government, when the government is swinging behind Lib Dem policies. Their government now accepts we can’t leave the EU in March 2019, no we need two years, three years, four years maybe more years to transition to the sunlit uplands, if the EU would be so kind. Of cause in-case the EU are not kind, well we have to start tightening our belts, no new investment in the railways, no money for public services, no new factories in Ulverston, but as the brace Brexiteers would say a price worth paying. Of cause one might feel when the price starts to affect them they will squeal this is wrong, this is because it isn’t the type of Brexit I want, but you don’t get the Brexit you want my brave Brexiteers you’ll get the Brexit you are given.
Meanwhile if you want Brexit in March 2019 you better talk to the brave Brexiteers leaders running away from that date, even Liam Fox has Foxtrotted off on that date. Transition is their new catch phrase so keep up and start using it, bit blurry on the dates though, you could all be long dead before it happens.
York Yokel,
If they are architects i suspect they come from the school that designed the Titanic and that tower in Pisa.
Arnold Kiel 21st Jul ’17 – 7:46pm
I don’t recognise any of these “commonly accepted rules about referenda”. What’s your source?
A referendum on the terms of any deal negotiated by the Government would require at least three options: accept terms, reject terms and leave without deal, reject terms and stay in EU. I do not know of any major national referendum which wasn’t a binary choice (which is one reason I’m no great fan of referenda). I’m not too sure what Barnier & co would make of it either.
Some people, including our new leader, are beginning to suggest that we may in the end (in the changed circumstances) avoid Brexit altogether. Probably still a long shot, but in that case wouldn’t a straight rerun of last year’s referendum be necessary for reasons of democratic legitimacy?
Arnold Kiel – I have to admit to being baffled by a lot of your comments. Among others:
‘it is unclear whether anytime before March 2019 a “final” deal can be described in sufficient detail.’
Of course it can – the EEA IN EU OUT option is there and has been there for decades. It’s there in detail, good to go, right now. I’d vote for it.
‘the ballot paper would have to reference the published contract which is unlikely to be below “tens of thousands” of pages.’
I assume then that you don’t think that ballots that approved of the EU were OK then given that they referenced long documents?
‘at some point, the EU will require clarification about the UK gameplan.’
Article 50 requires no such thing. If you want to change A50 that’s another matter.
‘…If the UK public rejects our negotiation result, can you guarantee me that the UK will be a constructive and loyal member for the forseeable future (meaning at least 20 years)? What would Mr Davies say?’
I’d hope he’d say, ‘don’t ask such a stupid question you idiot. No one can pre-empt the future.’
‘ask for yes/no on an action with clearly understandable consequences’
Can you please tell me what the consequences of being in the EU over two decades will be please? In detail?
‘Have a proper quorum for change’
So you think France should not have implemented Maastricht on a 51:49 vote?
‘Do not abuse referenda for party-internal disputes’
If you can’t see that grave reservations extended well beyond the Conservative right then you are either blind or Guy Verhofstadt.
There is, of course, a way around all this which is to remove A50. That might run into problems with the Vienna Convention but leave that aside. Do you think that the EU should be a no way out deal?
Malcolm Todd – I agree. A big impulse, to my mind, behind the LEAVE vote was the perception (fair or not) that politicians had a habit of sticking two fingers up at a lot of people. All a second referendum would do is reinforce the perception – people are to vote until they get it right. I don’t know how to square that circle.
Though I would add that there is a strong body of opinion that says A50 notice can be withdrawn unilaterally. Tim Farron appeared to take that view – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38240121.
Yeovil Yokel 21st Jul ’17 – 6:30pm
“Dav (21 July 5:15pm) – if the Leave Project has 17.5 m architects I would respectfully suggest that it is suffering from a top-heavy management structure.”
And no wonder it’s such a dog’s breakfast!
Before any “referendum on the deal” it would be necessary for the 27 to agree that any decision by the British people to support the option of remaining in the EU would be honoured. While this would be quite an ask and would cause much annoyance at what the UK had instigated in the first place I reckon the importance of keeping such a major player as the UK in the Union might make it possible to secure such an undertaking.
May I just repeat the post I have recently put on the Christine Jardine thread as I realise it is really more suitable for this one? –
“I have no doubt now that it will in the end be considered necessary for the electorate to be given the final say and Vince et al must stick to that policy. However it is crucial for this to take place only when the outcome we face is sufficiently clear. Otherwise the same combination of project fear allegations and unrealistic pledges may well defeat us again. I suggest that our leadership now concentrates on detailed disclosures as to the complex problems that face the UK negotiators and what we would do to tackle them rather than the continuing demand for a final referendum. No-one is in any doubt about our referendum policy and the time will come to bring that back to the forefront.”
Finally, as an Ulsterman I must take Frankie to task for his insulting reference to the Titanic. As the doughty workers in Harland & Wolff shipyard said “It was all right when it left here!”
Denis,
I believe the build of the Titanic was never an issue, the design however was.
Frankie
I think the design of the Titanic was fine, but the description of the ship as “unsinkable” and a desire to set a record for crossing the Atlantic led to criminal folly on the part of the owners and captain.. Apparently if the captain had sailed straight into the iceberg instead of trying to avoid it, the ship would almost certainly have survived…
I am speaking from memory of various conversations with my Naval Architect daughter..
Little Jackie Paper,
EEA-membership is currently not pursued by your Government. You are right, I am generally against referenda, but not competent in assessing different countries’ constitutional requirements. A quorum can, in a binary choice, only go one way (naturally creating the extra-hurdle for the less known discontinuity-option) to avoid an impasse. We might even agree that most leavers’ understandable grievances expressed in the referendum were completely unrelated to EU-membership. The Torys cultivated this scapegoat.
I think some of our differences of opinion are based on different understandings of EU membership: you seem to believe that it can be handled like a transaction between businesspeople. I believe it underpins a lasting mutual committment among likeminded societies and requires mutual trust. Depending on perspective, we are both right.
@ Malcolm Todd,
common sense. Just take the opposite of these principles and ask yourself whether you would like them to be applied to answering fundamental questions.
Just to point out that the 1975 referendum was about remaining in the Common Market not joining the European Union, a very different animal.
David Evershed should not fall for the Eurosceptic myth about the 1975 referendum – the geo-political context and political imperative of the European project was clear then.
Brexiters should not pretend the 2016 EU referendum was the beginning or end of the people expressing their will on our European relationship. Since 1970 there have been 12 pro-European governments, one minority Brexit government, one referendum voting 66:34 to remain and one referendum voting 52:48 to leave.
Hi,
I’ve not posted for a while (It would have been wrong of me to post during the election as I am not a lib dem member and you all need to be fully focused. Afterwards well its all been a little bit crazy and felt no need to comment on LDV).
Reading through the hopes posted on here of a 2nd referendum or moving to stop brexit; I would like to offer an outsiders council on this.
Be wary once again of echo chambers. Brexit is starting to hit choppy waters as the real separation talk have now started.
Do not though confuse uncertainties as leading to a wholesale change in the public opinion or voting intention if a second referendum were to happen.
If a second referendum is forced then nearly all those who voted to leave would vote to do so again and do so with twice as much determination. Also a significant portion of those who voted to remain but are lukewarm on the EU would be disgusted that the referendum result was effectively ignored and would move to vote to leave. It is remembered well the EU’s policy of making countries vote again until they vote the ‘right’ way.
I am certain that if another referendum were called the result would be to leave once more.
Beware the echo chamber.
Arnold Kiel 22nd Jul ’17 – 6:58pm
“@ Malcolm Todd,
common sense.”
Right, so as I thought then – not “commonly accepted rules” at all, but just what Arnold Kiel thinks should be commonly accepted. As with “unconstitutional” before, you are inaccurately using language that has quite a clear meaning in order to give your personal opinions a veneer of objectivity. (I realise English isn’t your first language, but I don’t think these are subtle distinctions that you are missing.)
To consider the implications of just one of your “common sense” rules (the only one, in fact, which is meaningful as a “rule” since none of the others is objectively verifiable:
* As someone pointed out above, France voted by 51% to accept the Maastricht treaty. In Denmark, even the second referendum received only 56% approval. As adopting the treaty was clearly a change away from the status quo and did not receive your “common sense” 60% approval, do you believe that referendum result was illegitimate and that the treaty should therefore never have been implemented?
* Sweden in 1994 voted by only 52% to join the EU. Is its membership illegitimate?
* France’s constitution requires any treaty of enlargement to be submitted to a referendum. Should this be subject to veto by 41% of French voters?
In a second referendum on leaving the EU, would Mr Corbyn support ‘remain’ again?
If so I expect his attitude would clinch the result.
The policy of Theresa May is that Brexit will happen. Whilst presentation by ministers may be inconsistent or nonsensical, and we can talk about it all year, Brexit will be the only option. It may be close to the worst exit strategy. Nevertheless, it will be backed willingly by most Conservative MPs and many Labour MPs will slyly give them a hand.
As Lib Dems discovered at the general election, Remain is not a strongly held conviction, even amongst those who see what a mess is being created. The Brexit group have also been very clever at closing down debate. There is no scope for nuanced argument in parliament (and consequently most media discussion) and Lib Dems have to recognise the fact.
It still makes sense to develop rational policies about Brexit and to argue for them, if only to argue “we told you so” in the future. Consideration of such policies might help Lib Dems develop their role as an internationalist UK political party outside the EU.
But there is no clever argument to be won which might stop Brexit. The people who want it will believe they are holding a ball of wool when the last strand has unravelled at their feet.
Phil Beesley 24th Jul ’17 – 11:41am
‘if only to argue “we told you so” in the future’
Has that ever been a successful strategy? It seems unlikely, given everything we know about human nature. “I told you so” is often bitterly satisfying for the teller, but it doesn’t endear you to the hearer. If you actually want them to vote for you in the future, pointing out how stupid they were not to vote for you last time ain’t gonna win them over.
There is little point in holding a confirmatory referendum until the electorate knows what it is being asked to confirm. Also, it is best to delay it so that it comes to a unified position. It is beginning to look like we will have a softer Brexit. If opinion polls show an overwhelming support for it, we should still argue for another referendum to complete the process and show we respect the result. There are many who argue that we should just campaign to remain in the EU. They will have to accept this is not going to happen if it isn’t. Much depends on what stance Labour will take as the process continues.
Most referendums effectively have an in-built threshold in the form of status quo bias. This is the disproportionate propensity for people to vote for things to stay the same…
‘Status Quo Bias in Decision Making’:
https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v1y1988i1p7-59.html
‘The Status Quo Bias in Direct Democracy: Empirical Results for Switzerland, 1981 – 1999’:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255596026_The_Status_Quo_Bias_in_Direct_Democracy_Empirical_Results_for_Switzerland_1981_-_1999
The effect of status quo bias on a (then prospective) EU referendum has been considered before on LDV…
‘How referendums are the most effective way to maintain the status quo & what it means for Lords reform’ [May 2012]:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/referendums-status-quo-house-of-lords-reform-28667.html