You're correct it was advisory. A legally binding referendum would have required a 2 thirds majority. What happened? Why was it treated as a legally binding referendum? I don't know.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
2) So the govt should have said it's an advisory referendum,we'll have a national debate about this, and then have a legally binding referendum..which would then fail to get a 2 thirds majority.
Yes, that's what should have happened, but Cameron offered Farage, the ERG etc a 50/50 referendum on the new deal he was going to negotiate with the EU because he thought remain would win easily. He was a terrible strategist and didn't have an exit strategy except to resign when leave won,
Yes I remember it that way myself..but I feel there's more under the surface.It doesn't benefit us economically to be outside the EU..and the majority of Tories didn't support it.
It wasn’t. The effective legal authorisation for giving Art 50 notice was an act of Parliament, not the referendum. (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017)
I don't know.. Brexit is completely irrational.. damaging trade relations with your major trading market makes no sense. Who profited? Who is profiting?
Phil Hammond (Spreadsheet Phil) in an interview for UK in a Changing Europe tells a most revealing story of how this chapter unfolded. A long read but quite informative https://ukandeu.ac.uk/interview-pdf/?personid=42190
Comments