IN all the brouhaha of the ongoing Brexit crisis, very few people have pointed out that a second referendum, the so-called people’s vote, is not exceptional in a European context.
Only one entire state, however, has had a referendum about leaving the European Union (EU) or its predecessor body, the European Community (EC), better known back then as the common market. That state is the UK, and it has had two such referendums, in 1975 and 2016.
In case anyone has forgotten, the first and supposedly final referendum saw 67.2% of those who voted indicate they wanted to say in the EC. In 2016, the second and supposedly final referendum saw 51.9% vote to leave the EU – the only time a state has voted to do so.
WHICH NATIONS HAVE HAD MORE THAN ONE MEMBERSHIP-RELATED REFERENDUMS?
GREENLAND, then an autonomous nation within Denmark, voted by 53% to 47% to leave in 1982. In 1972, Greenland had also voted against EC membership, but was forced in as Denmark as a whole voted 63.3% to join on a turnout of 90.1% – the second-largest turnout figure for any European-related referendum. Malta’s joining referendum in 2003 recorded a figure of 90.9%.
Only one country has twice rejected the chance to join the EC/EU. Norway voted 53.5% against joining in 1972 on a turnout of 79%. The second membership referendum in Norway in 1984 saw 89% of the electorate voting by 52.2% to 47.8% against joining.
It is also worth noting that France in 1972 held a referendum on whether four nations – the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Norway – should be allowed to join the EC. The French voted 68.3% in favour – had they not done so, France would have vetoed all of them joining.
READ MORE: Theresa May can learn from Harold Wilson's 1975 campaign
WHAT ABOUT OTHER MULTIPLE REFERENDUMS, AND WHO CHANGED THEIR MINDS?
STEP forward Denmark and Ireland. In 1992, Denmark held a referendum on whether the country should accede to the Maastricht Treaty and the result was rejection by 50.7% on a turnout of 83.1%. The Danish government went to the European Summit in Edinburgh in 1992 and squeezed four “opt-out” concessions from of the rest of the EU. With the Danes being told of the disastrous consequences of not accepting the so-called Edinburgh Agreement, a second referendum was held in the country in May, 1993, which saw a change of mind, the Danes voting 56.7% in favour on a turnout of 86.5%.
In 2001, the Republic of Ireland’s constitution demanded that a referendum needed to be held for the country’s government to approve the Treaty of Nice. To major shock in Ireland and across Europe, the Irish voters rejected the treaty’s incorporation into their constitution by the 24th amendment by 53.9% to 46.1%.
The turnout came in at just 34.8%, and the Irish government then went to the EU and negotiated an opt out, most notably on the common defence policy, and the second referendum on October 12, 2002, approved what was then the 26th amendment to the constitution by 62.9% to 37.1% on a much higher turnout of 49.5%.
Ireland did it again, rejecting the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008, only to approve it the following year on a bigger turnout.
SO THE UK COULD HAVE A SECOND REFERENDUM?
ABSOLUTELY, and the Scottish Six’s successful court case shows that the UK could cancel Brexit. And as the two changes of mind in Ireland show, the key to a successful Remain vote second time around could be a bigger turnout.
The turnout in 2016 was just 72.2% of the total electorate, or 33.5 million votes out of 46.5 million registered voters. If a second referendum was to get a turnout similar to Scotland’s 2014 referendum (84.6%) then more than five million votes could be up for grabs. So even if nobody changes their vote from 2016, there are still plenty of votes to be chased to get a UK change of mind.
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