UK: The Question Of A Second EU Referendum-Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?

Last Updated: 2 August 2016
Article by Kieran Laird

Before the EU referendum, there was a great deal of speculation around the possibility of a second referendum. Is this option still (legally) on the table?

Interest in the notion of a second referendum has certainly not abated following 23 June 2016. A debate was held in the House of Lords on 7 July 2016 on a question put forward by Baroness King of Bow asking the government if it had made an assessment of the case for holding a second referendum. There will also be debate in the Commons on the day it returns from summer recess (5 September 2016) following a petition which has been used as a vehicle to call for a second referendum and was signed by 4.1 million people (and several automated bots, leading to the removal of 77,000 signatures). In addition, Owen Smith has stated as part of his bid for the Labour leadership that he supports another referendum.

Legally there is no bar to a second referendum. This is because the government is not constrained by the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016. When passing the European Union Referendum Act 2015 (EURA 2015), Parliament decided that the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016 is not legally binding.

In the Conservative manifesto prior to the 2015 general election-and at numerous points during the passage of EURA 2015 and the referendum campaign-the government made clear that the result of the referendum would be respected. However, such statements have no force in law and the courts would be unwilling to hold the government to them (see Caroline Lucas MP v Security Service [2015] UKIPTrib 14_79-CH, [2015] All ER (D) 104 (Oct)). The government can therefore hold a second referendum, which, depending on the form it takes, could potentially overturn the result of the first.

It should be noted that although there is no legal restriction on a second referendum, nor is there any legal requirement for one to be held, there have been some suggestions that a further referendum may be required under the European Union Act 2011 (EUA 2011). These are not persuasive, however, as EUA 2011 requires referendums on proposals to amend or replace the EU Treaties only in the context of the UK's continued membership of the EU.

With no legal bar and no legal requirement, whether a second referendum is held will be an entirely political question.

What would be the arguments for and against the idea of another referendum?

There are four forms that a second referendum could take, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

The first option is that advocated by those who wish the same question to be put to voters again on the basis of the slim nature of the majority for leave, as against the importance of the constitutional issues at stake and the suggestion that leave voters were misled by statements made by representatives of the 'Leave' campaign. This seems unattractive as it seems like an attempt to undo an inconvenient result by going back and asking for the 'right answer'. It would be different were there to be some real and significant change in circumstances in the short time since 23 June 2016, which would suggest that the result is not still valid. There has not been any such change, however.

A second option is that floated by Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson who previously suggested that a leave vote could be used by the UK to negotiate better terms of continued membership with the EU, which could then be put to voters in a further referendum. There are two issues with that position:

  • firstly, the majority of voters on 23 June 2016 expressed a preference to leave the EU. They did not vote for a renegotiation of the UK's terms of membership as that was not the question on the ballot paper. To read a mandate for renegotiation into the result would risk going against the expressed wishes of voters.
  • secondly, EU leaders have been clear-both before and after the referendum-that there will be no renegotiation of the deal secured by Mr Cameron prior to the referendum. The public statements from Brussels and other Member States, as well as the UK government's explicit gearing up for Brexit, make a renegotiation look increasingly unlikely.

A third option for a further referendum would be to ask voters to express a preference between the broad options for the UK's relationship with the EU following Brexit, such as:

  • joining the European Economic Area
  • opting for a Canada-like free-trade agreement with the EU, or
  • relying on the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) rules

The result could then be considered by the government prior to the commencement of negotiations. Given the complexities of the various options, the information given to voters would need to be very clear in order to allow choices to be made between them. Expectations would also need to be very carefully managed by making clear the advisory nature of such a referendum as the government would need a free hand to change its position as negotiations developed.

As an alternative, the final option would be to have a further referendum on the deal negotiated by the government once it is finalised. This is the option that seems to have the greatest currency at present. It formed the basis for debate in the House of Lords on 7 July 2016 and is the option advocated by Smith. However, careful thought needs to be given to what would be presented to voters as the alternative position should they reject the deal.

In similar vein to the Cummings and Johnson option, could such a rejection be used as leverage to gain a better deal? It is difficult to see what incentive the remaining EU Member States would have to grant anything further-if no better terms were offered following the rejection of David Cameron's settlement to keep the UK in the EU, why would better terms be offered following a rejection of the terms on which we leave? It may be remembered that in July 2015 Greek voters rejected a bail out deal in the hope of securing a better one, only for the original deal to be signed seven days later once the Greek government realised that it had no leverage to overcome the intransigence of the EU institutions.

This poses the important question of what happens if the voters rejected the deal with no prospect of a better one, and it is here that legal considerations re-enter the picture. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)-which sets out the process for leaving the EU-contains a two-year timeframe within which to negotiate a deal. Although that timeframe can be extended, there is no requirement under Article 50 TEU for a deal to be done and if voters reject what is on the table, or time runs out, the UK will simply exit the EU without anything in place. This means that we would revert to trading with the EU on the WTO's most favoured nation tariffs.

Would the choice at the referendum therefore be between the deal on the table and the WTO's rules? The only alternative would be for voters to choose between the deal on offer and the prospect of staying within the EU.

If voters rejected a deal could the UK legally halt the withdrawal process under Article 50 TEU and remain in the EU?

Under Article 50 TEU, a Member State that wishes to withdraw from the EU first makes a decision to that effect and then notifies that decision to the European Council. That notification acts as the starting gun for the process of negotiating terms of exit and the withdrawing a Member State's ongoing relationship with the EU. The withdrawing Member State then leaves the EU either when the deal it has negotiated takes effect, or two years after the date of the notice (or any extended period)-whichever is earlier.

Article 50 TEU does not explicitly address the possibility that, having issued a notice and initiated the process of withdrawal, a Member State could cancel that notice before it had left the EU. It is certainly arguable from the construction of Article 50 TEU and the position in international law that a Member State's right to change its mind before it has left can be implied.

However, in the absence of an express provision allowing for a change of heart, such an interpretation by implication could never safely form a basis for action-the UK should not trigger Article 50 TEU on the basis that it could later change its mind. If all other Member States consented to a reversal out of withdrawal there is unlikely to be any problem, but in the absence of consent the matter could end up before the Court of Justice of the European Union. If that happens the outcome would be difficult to predict given the flexible approach to interpretation taken by that court.

Even if, in law, the UK can unilaterally halt the Article 50 TEU process, the political ramifications of doing so would be immense. It would be extraordinary for the UK to force the EU institutions and the other 27 Member States to undertake intense negotiations spanning a period of years only to announce at the end of it all that it wished to go back to the way things were at the beginning. It is difficult to envisage the other Member States being happy to carry on as if the intervening years of negotiations had simply never happened-particularly if those negotiations prove tense-and it is all the more difficult to see how the UK could go back to the position of influence it enjoyed in shaping EU policy. If consent was forthcoming, it is likely to be offered only on the basis of concessions on the UK side, such as the loss of the rebate.

In this scenario we could therefore be in the position that if we had voted to remain on 23 June 2016 we would have improved our position in the EU through the deal negotiated by David Cameron but having voted to leave and rejected the deal negotiated under Article 50 TEU we ended up remaining on worse terms than previously.

On the basis that there is no legal bar to a second referendum, what legal steps would be required for one to take place?

Any form of second referendum will require fresh legislation to be passed by Parliament as EURA 2015 made provision only for the referendum held on 23 June 2016. This does of course mean that there will need to be political support for the idea. Thus far, this seems to be lacking on the government side.

In its response to the petition signed by over 4.1 million people the government repeated David Cameron's statement that 23 June 2016 was 'a once in a generation vote'.

In her response on behalf of the government during the debate in the Lords on the case for a second referendum on a final deal, Baroness Anelay pointed out some of the problems mentioned above. Previously, in her concluding remarks to the more general debate on the referendum result held on 5 and 6 July 2016, she reiterated David Cameron's assertion that there should not be a second referendum because that would break faith with the decision made by the public on 23 June 2016.

However, it is not Mr Cameron's views that now matter, but those of Mrs May. In her speech on 11 July 2016, setting out her case for the Tory leadership, Theresa May stated that 'Brexit means Brexit'-there would be 'no attempts to remain inside the EU' and 'no second referendum'. Upon taking up the reins as Prime Minister, she has quickly translated these sentiments into action with the creation of a fully-fledged department headed by the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis and a new Department for International Trade headed by Liam Fox. Two new ministries premised on the idea of Brexit is surely a strong indication of the new Prime Minister's intent to see it through.

The government's current position is that it can use the royal prerogative to trigger the process of withdrawal under Article 50 TEU without recourse to Parliament. Its power to do so is currently the subject of litigation, which seeks to establish that the decision to trigger lies with Parliament. Entrusting the decision to Parliament will leave the pro-EU majority of MPs with a potentially difficult choice-to either vote in line with their view of what is best for the UK (as the Supreme Court has indicated that they should (Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2014] All ER (D) 186 (Dec))) or give effect to the view expressed by their constituents.

In the face of the choice between conscience and re-election, the option of putting the matter back in the hands of the people through a second referendum may seem attractive.

Notwithstanding the government's response to the recent petition-and the fact that it was framed before the 23 June 2016 and actually called for amendments to be made to the rules governing the referendum which has already taken place-the number of signatures has led the Petition Committee to schedule a debate on 5 September 2016. That debate-which will take place at a suitable remove from heated initial responses to the leave result-will be an interesting test of the possibility of a second referendum in whatever form that may take.

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Public Law analysis on 27 July 2016. Click for a free trial of Lexis®PSL.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.