Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
A referendum is always advisory in our constitution, even if it’s set up to automatically trigger legislation to come in to effect (which this one wasn’t), because Parliament can’t bind its successors and a future Parliament can always repeal something done by a predecessor. Referendums lean on precedent for their authority, which in the few cases they have been used in our constitution, means that Parliament enacts the result of the referendum (or does not, in the case of status quo).
It is undemocratic to hold a second referendum because it contravenes both precedent and the specific undertaking that the result would be enacted. It undermines public trust in the process and automatically dilutes the authority of any future referendum result, on whatever issue.*
It is not undemocratic to hold repeated general elections because that is the customary means (established by centuries of precedent) by which our constitution deals with a situation where a government cannot get its business through Parliament.
* To drag this back on topic, Sturgeon is playing a very risky hand by voicing support for a second referendum. If she ever manages to win one in Scotland, her words will return to haunt the entire Nat movement.
|
What if the question is different ? i.e accept or reject a proposed deal ?
As for Scotland, it's just a matter of time. Brexit probably brings the timetable forward.