On 09-Oct-17 10:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result
legally binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always
unmake any legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn
the result of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be set
up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give
over.

My question was what practical difference would it make if the result
were legally binding? No UK government has ever failed to abide by the
result of a referendum.


--
--

Colin Bignell