Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Was the Brexit referendum legitimate, and would a second one be so?

  • Debate
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article suggests that common arguments questioning the legitimacy of the first Brexit referendum prove flawed, as do certain others supporting the legitimacy of a second referendum. A different case for a second referendum is offered that would have added to the legitimacy of the first, but the opportunity for which has now passed. Nevertheless, it might be legitimate to overturn the first referendum through a normal parliamentary process should there be a significant level of Bremorse among the public, or a general election supporting a change of policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, see reactions to the Government’s defeat in the Commons on 13/12/2017 in which Parliament insisted on a vote on the Brexit deal, in which the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tells the Press the vote will not “frustrate the will of the British people”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/14/brexit-eu-summit-commons-defeat-not-going-to-stop-brexit-says-government-politics-live.

  2. For a clear account of both, although he combines the two arguments, see Grayling 2017, Appendix 1: Brexit, pp. 189–97.

  3. See too the report of the Electoral Commission, on the campaign (2016: 50–53), which rejects the need for a “truth” Commission (2016: 3).

  4. I am grateful to Philip Pettit for the formulation of this point.

  5. Long-term resident EU citizens should be able, as at present, to become citizens of their host state with relative ease. But it also is justified that unless they are prepared to make the commitment to acquire this status they should be excluded from voting in national elections. See the contributions of Bellamy and Bauböck to Bauböck et al. (2012).

References

  • Armstrong, K. 2017. Brexit time. Cambridge: Cambridge Union Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bauböck, R, P., Cayla, and C. Seth. 2012. Should EU citizens living in other member states vote there in national elections? EUI working paper RSCAS 2012/32.

  • Bauböck, R. 2015. Morphing the Demos into the right shape. Normative principles for enfranchising resident aliens and expatriate citizens. Democratization 22(5): 820–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. 2002. Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics 112(4): 689–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H.D., M. Goodwin, and P. Whitely. 2017. Brexit: Why Britain voted to leave the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Electoral Commission. 2016. The EU referendum: Report on the 23 June 2016 referendum on the UK’s Membership of the European Union. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/215279/2016-EU-referendum-report.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.

  • Grayling, A.C. 2017. Democracy and its crisis. London: Oneworld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, T. 1984. Letter to Madison of September 6, 1789. In Writings, ed. M. Petterson. New York: Library of America.

  • May, K. 1952. A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20(4): 680–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzberg, M. 2013. Counting the many: The origins and limits of supermajority rule. Cambridge: Cambridge Union Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, L. 1762. The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy Gentleman, vol. V and VI. London: T. Becket and P. A. Dehondt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, S. 2012. Constitutional referendums. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Parijs, P. 1998. The disenfranchisement of the elderly, and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27(4): 292–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 2016. Political theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, B. 2018. Brexit: Seven thoughts on a second referendum. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42651525. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for comments from participants at the Oslo ECPR EPS Panel and Conferences on Referenda at the EUI and on Brexit at the University of Exeter. Further helpful points, not all of which I have been able to address here, were raised by Chris Brooke, Steven Klein, Albert Weale, Carlos Closa, Richard Rose and Sandra Kröger.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Weber Programme, EUI, 50014, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy

    Richard Bellamy

  2. Department of Political Science, UCL, London, WC1H 9QU, UK

    Richard Bellamy

Authors
  1. Richard Bellamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Bellamy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellamy, R. Was the Brexit referendum legitimate, and would a second one be so?. Eur Polit Sci 18, 126–133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0155-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0155-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation