I think the way the last referendum has divided the nation, and paralysed proceedings in the House of Commons, will make future governments avoid holding them. Which will leave ordinary voting at General Elections and By-Elections as the only ways in which you and I can express our political points of view.
I don't say that's a wholly bad thing. A referendum is just a mass snapshot of public opinion. If decisive, it ought to be heeded, and acted upon urgently. That's the problem with the 2016 Brexit referendum result. It was a narrow but clear result - let's get out. If that decision had been put into effect by the end of 2016, the consequences would have been dealt with by now.
But time has passed - nearly three years. Things have move on somewhat. We have got better information. We appreciate the issues a little more clearly. We have watched the people who campaigned for and against in 2016 exposed for what they are.
None of this additional information will necessarily change anyone's mind about leaving the EU, if in 2016 they had thought the thing through for themselves and had come to a well-considered conclusion on how to vote. But the force of the 2016 referendum has been dissipated, and it's harder to say that it's still valid in 2019.
Harder, yes; but it's still a result that, if argued away, will let down the majority in 2016 who thought it best to get out of the EU. Most of them will feel very annoyed. Some of them might put up a legal challenge, on the basis that the 2016 vote was binding, and that a fresh vote flouts democracy as previously understood.
I imagine that most convinced Brexiteers would still vote 'out' if consulted again. And that being so, the outcome of another Brexit referendum would be another narrow victory for 'get out'. With the same problems of implementation.
In truth, nobody can say how another vote would go. Some people wouldn't bother voting this time, disgusted with a system that allows serial referendums on the same issue. Some that didn't vote first time (through inertia, or not being old enough) would vote now, but with an incalculable result. If the outcome were the reverse of the 2016 result - a narrow victory for those voting 'stay in' - it would resolve nothing. There would be just the same grumblings and arguments and divisions. The nation would not 'pull together'. It would polarise all the more. It's so very hard to imagine a really decisive result, say 70:30 in favour of either 'in' or 'out'. This is truly Grand National stuff: quite impossible to predict who might 'win'. Advocates of 'letting the people decide' should bear that in mind.
And what would the question be, anyway? In 2016 the public was asked this:
It was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
One's X to be put against either
Remain a member of the European Union
or
Leave the European Union
Perfectly clear to any voter with a reasonable command of English, and sufficient intelligence, education and knowledge of current affairs to understand the question. But arguably not the simplest language for anyone not in that category, and yet still a voter.
Would it have made a difference if the question had been put like this?
Do you want Britain to get out of Europe?
Yes
No
But even simplified like this, the 2016 referendum still didn't ask how 'get out' was to be accomplished. A gross flaw. And yet, how could the 'how' ever be boiled down to a straightforward yes/no question?
Which just goes to show what blunt instruments referendums are. You can't ask complicated questions with them. And that's another good reason why there shouldn't be a further 'People's Vote'. The answer might constitute an up-to-date snapshot, but it wouldn't make the practical way forward any clearer. You'd just be wasting more time.
