Close
During the Brexit process, some called for a second referendum on the matter. The Unit conducted research on the mechanics of a further referendum to inform such debates. The Constitution Unit had听no position on Brexit, but it recognises the importance of ensuring referendums are carefully planned and听transparently conducted, so that they听command听the maximum legitimacy.
The first report, The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit, was published in October 2018. The second report,听The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament, followed in December 2019 and offered a substantially updated analysis in the context of the 2019 general election campaign.
The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament
Many of the parties' manifestos for the 2019 election campaign promised a听further public vote on Brexit.
The Unit's second report on this matter,听The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament,听examined听the scenarios under which a further referendum might have听come about, and considered听the key questions听referendum advocates in parliament would have had to听face: what option would have been听put to voters, whether the result should have听been legally binding, and how the vote would have听been run.
The report was听written by Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Lisa James and Jess Sargeant. It formed听part of the Constitution Unit's Brexit, Parliament and the Constitution project in collaboration with .听
听
Blogposts
A preliminary version of the report's key conclusions was published as a blogpost in November 2019, and an edited version of the final chapter was published to coincide with the report's publication. Links to these posts can be found below.
In this blogpost, adapted from the report鈥檚 final chapter,听Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Lisa James and Jess Sargeant听summed up the key conclusions. They find that, though it would not be without difficulties, a vote on Johnson鈥檚 deal might have听been the quickest option and the one most likely to command public legitimacy.听
Proposals for another Brexit referendum was听at the heart of the election campaign and it was听therefore important that the viability of politicians鈥� plans were听thoroughly tested. Drawing on research on the matter,听Alan Renwick, Meg Russell听and听Lisa James听set out five key questions.听
Key links
- PDF of the report听The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit听(50听pages)
- News story marking publication of the report
The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit
Published in October 2018, the report found that a referendum would have been possible if parliament wanted it, though it would have raised a number of challenges. There were several points in the Brexit process at which such a vote could have been triggered. The report analysed听the possible timing, the referendum question, and the regulation of the ballot.
The report was written by Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick, and Meg Russell and funded by the JRSST Charitable Trust.听
Blogposts
Preliminary versions of the report's chapters were published as blogposts between August and October 2018. Links to these posts can be found below.
Two years on from the Brexit vote, the benefits of a second referendum were being hotly debated. In this post, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell identified听seven questions for听parliament to consider when it was听deciding听on whether to call for a second Brexit referendum.听
At seven months before 'exit day' one of the perceived obstacles to a second Brexit referendum was听time. Here, in the second in a series of posts on the practicalities of a second referendum, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell discussed the constraints, concluding a new referendum could have been held much more quickly than previous polls but a delay to exit day would most likely still have been needed.
At the time of writing听鈥榚xit day鈥� less than seven months away, and public debate about a second Brexit vote was live. In the third of a series of posts on this topic, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell outlined the key decision points and processes by which MPs or the government might have听chosen听to trigger a second referendum.
In the fourth of a series of posts on the mechanics of a possible second referendum on Brexit, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell considered what question might have been asked. This would have been crucial for the result of any such referendum to command legitimacy. Various models were proposed, but some were听far more credible than others.
This is the fifth in the series of posts about the practicalities of a possible second referendum. At the time of writing听鈥榚xit day鈥� was set for 29 March 2019. Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell asked whether the Article 50 period could have听been extended to allow a referendum to take place, and what the knock-on consequences would have been.
The 2018听Labour Party conference left a听further Brexit referendum firmly on the political agenda. In the sixth of a series of posts on the mechanics of such a vote, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick, and Meg Russell examined what rules and regulations should govern the referendum process, if there had been one,听and argued for important changes听to facilitate a fair and transparent campaign.
In the last of a series of posts on this topic, Meg Russell, Alan Renwick and Jess Sargeant summed up the report鈥檚 findings, focusing on how a referendum might have came about, what question could have听been asked, and the implications for referendum timing.
Key links
- PDF of the report 'The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit'听(65 pages)
- News story marking publication of the report
This project was led by听Alan Renwick听and听Meg Russell听with听Jess Sargeant听as Research Assistant.
