Much of the problem with brexit was that its meaning was extremely unclear: people didn’t know what they were voting for until years after they actually voted. Most probably didn’t get what they thought they had voted for, despite winning the vote. Some might have voted if they had understood what would happen. Some might withdraw their vote in hindsight, if they could.
I believe there should be a requirement that all referenda MUST a) explain exactly what problem they are aiming to address (i.e., what will happen if “no change” is selected"; b) explain exactly what the proposed solution meant to do; c) give the full, precise change to the letter of the law that will be made as a result of each option on the ballot; d) make extremely clear which option is for “no change”.
I agree in principle, but what do you want to do about it? Should it just be our position that any referenda we launch should be like this? Parliament cannot bind itself, and you could enshrine this into law, but the Act that creates the referenda after this becomes law would implicitly repeal this Act.
I believe that Parliament could certainly codify requirements for how referendums are to be conducted, just as they can codify how elections are to be conducted. It would not need to be entrenched, binding future parliaments; if a future parliament chooses to repeal a law that referendums should be clear, that very much shows their agenda, or their incompetence, which in and of itself, would help the public to decide on that government’s referendums.
I don’t see why a refendum that complies with this as law would implicitly repeal this, unless it was a referendum on this topic?
