WITH calls for a second vote on Britain’s membership of the EU ramping up over the weekend, it’s worth looking at would need to be happen for that to be a possibility.
HOW long would it take?
THERE would need to be new primary legislation for a second EU referendum. This, as most National readers know, is not a quick process. The legislation would spell out the legal framework, as well the date of the vote, the franchise, and, crucially, the question on the ballot paper.
READ MORE: The UK is unstable - now is the time for independence
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission also has to carry out “question testing” – making sure the question asked of voters is the best one.
But with Brexit happening in 15 weeks time, is this even feasible?
Earlier this month, academics at the constitution unit of University College London, published a report entitled The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit.
They estimate that the legislation would take 11 weeks – that includes eight weeks of question testing. There would be another week for transition, followed by a 10-week campaign.
All in all it would take at least 22 weeks for the legislation, with proper scrutiny in the preparation for the poll. So in the unlikely event the Government today went, “ach, hell mend it, let’s just go ahead and have this second referendum,” the earliest we could have a vote would be late May. And that’s if things go super speedy without a single hitch, legal challenge or defeat in the Commons.
READ MORE: Sturgeon heaps pressure on Corbyn for no-confidence vote
Last time, it took seven months for Parliament to sign off on the legislation for the 2016 referendum.
With Westminster, if anything, even more divided than it was back in those heady days of 2015, it seems almost inevitable that the legislation’s progress through the Commons and Lords will be tricky.
WOULD we have to delay Brexit?
YES. When MPs voted to trigger Article 50, the formal process for exiting the EU, back in February 2017, it started the official two year countdown to Brexit. Britain is scheduled to leave the EU March 29, 2019. It’s possible that the EU 27 leaders would, under the circumstances, allow us to halt the whole Brexit thing while we had the vote.
But what might be trickier is getting it through the UK Parliament. MPs would, at the very least, need to give their consent.
READ MORE: Downing Street deny existence of plot for second referendum
WHAT about the question on the ballot paper? What should it be?
EESH. You think there’s no consensus in Parliament on Brexit, just wait until you try and find agreement here. According to the UCL constitution boffins, there are four options; firstly, we could have a simple yes/no question, should we accept the deal or reject the deal. Secondly we could have a two option question, should we accept the deal, or should we remain in the EU.
Thirdly there’s the option of a single multi-option referendum, with voters choosing between accepting a negotiated deal or no deal or remaining in EU.
Or finally, we could even have a two question referendum, do we accept or reject negotiated deal, and if we reject the deal do we remain or leave without a deal?
The UCL say a straightforward yes/no vote on the deal would be “very ill-advised” because the meaning of a no vote would be unclear.
They also warn against binary votes between two of the three available options as it risks “alienating a significant part of the electorate who would have supported the excluded option”.
IS that it or are there any other difficulties?
YEP. We have to think about our MEPs. The next European Parliament elections are due to be held at the end of May. What do we do here? Do we elect new MEPs who may serve only for a month?
Do we not hold elections and then risk leaving the UK without any representation? According to UCL’s report, London and Brussels could potentially agree to delay the elections but “this would place the UK in breach of treaty obligations and could be open to legal challenge”.
Tricky, tricky, tricky. And, we haven’t even touched on the implications for Holyrood, and the Scottish Government.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here