The Shadow of Brexit and the new re-entry debate

The prospect of a future referendum on the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union inevitably brings back the ghosts of 2016. A decade after that fateful vote, national polling consistently shows that more than half of the British public now considers leaving a mistake, with a clear majority expressing a desire to rejoin or negotiate a much closer relationship.

I feel queasy about what happens now. I personally didn’t want to leave the EU but felt it was marginal. Staying in was the best economic decision. But getting out gave us certain freedoms and a feeling that we were carving our own path unencumbered. The problem with having been in and staying in was that we never seemed to have the influence in the EU that we merit given the size of our economy. It was always dominated by the France/Germany axis.

What we endured was a bruising, deeply polarising campaign that left close relations at war with each other. Followed by lasting resentment. The decision was made with a straight majority. 51.9% followed by regret is not a decision for a generation, whatever anyone seemed to promise at the time. Years of political paralysis followed the vote, and then we found out the economic realities of being outside a trading bloc which had been our biggest export market.

To repeat that exact process seems like folly.

So the question is this: how can the UK make monumental, generation-defining decisions in a way that builds a lasting national consensus rather than permanent societal division?

What’s wrong with where we are

The current UK constitutional framework relies on strict Westminster majoritarianism, governed by a single rule: a simple majority, 50% plus one, wins. This may work for passing seasonal finance bills or choosing a local MP, but it is a uniquely dangerous tool for massive changes that are difficult to reverse even when it becomes clear that they were an error.

The Tyranny of the Fluctuating Margin. A shift of just 1% to 2% of the population, whatever causes it, a temporary economic situation whether upturn or downturn, or a highly effective single-issue campaign, can permanently alter a nation’s geopolitical trajectory.

The In-Built English Drag. Because England accounts for roughly 84% of the UK population, nationwide simple-majority referenda can easily allow English voters to completely override democratic majorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Exactly what happened in 2016. This places a big strain on the fabric of the Union.

The Binary Trap for Moral Issues. For deeply personal issues of conscience, a simple 50% plus one referendum forces a complex ethical debate into an aggressive “Yes/No” box. It provides no room for nuance, protections for dissenting groups, or medical guardrails, turning deeply private matters into a public culture war.

And the binary trap applies inside Parliament too. On 11 September 2026 the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was defeated at second reading by 286 votes to 270, even though polling has consistently shown around three quarters of the public supporting a change in the law. The striking part is that the same House of Commons had passed a near-identical bill by 314 to 291 in June 2025, after backing it 330 to 275 the previous November. The chamber reversed itself within fifteen months on a question of life and death, because a handful of members changed their minds and others stayed away. That is not a settled national view. It is a coin landing differently on a different Friday.

What other countries do

Those of you who read my work know that I always consider what other countries do better than us, and grab it. It costs nothing.

Preventing knife-edge splitting. Montenegro’s 2006 independence referendum required a 55% supermajority of votes cast to ensure the newly formed state had a stable, unassailable mandate.

The double majority protective guard. Both Australia and Switzerland require a double majority to alter their constitutions. A proposal must win a national popular majority and win a majority in a majority of the individual states or cantons. This prevents a single highly populated region from dominating peripheral areas.

The deliberative alternative. Rather than subjecting complex moral issues to the volatility of a public ballot, Ireland successfully pioneered the use of Citizens’ Assemblies. Randomly selected, demographically representative groups of citizens spend months studying expert evidence on topics like abortion and marriage equality, crafting nuanced compromise frameworks that Parliament then codifies via free votes.

And a warning from our own history. In 1979, the Scottish devolution referendum carried 51.6% to 48.4%, and devolution did not happen. An amendment required the Yes side to reach 40% of the registered electorate, and on a 64% turnout it managed only 32.9%. The lesson is not that thresholds are wrong. It is that a threshold which counts abstentions as No votes invites opponents to campaign for a boycott rather than for a vote.

My solution

To put the UK in a more stable position for future generation-defining choices, we must replace ad-hoc, politically manipulated referendum bills with a permanent, codified framework. The power for such decisions will sit with the public, the elected House of Commons, and the devolved nations.

Issues are funnelled down two separate tracks.

Track 1: Structural and Sovereignty Issues

For changes to borders, treaties, voting systems, or international blocs, including re-entry into the EU.

55% supermajority of votes cast. A decisive mandate, but short of the overly conservative 60% bar that would make any change near-impossible.

4-Nation double majority. The proposal must win overall and achieve a simple majority in at least 2 of the 4 UK nations.

As things stand, England can carry a UK-wide vote entirely on its own, against the settled view of the other three. Under this rule it cannot. England must persuade at least one other nation to come with it, which is a real constraint and a material improvement on what we have now.

I have deliberately not set the bar at three of four. That would hand a blocking vote to whichever two nations happened to disagree, and it would stop changes that command the overwhelming support of the people actually affected by them. The point is to stop England imposing, not to make the Union ungovernable.

A 40% approval floor. The winning side must command the support of at least 40% of the whole registered electorate. This ensures a result reflects active public engagement rather than apathy. Unlike the 1979 rule, it applies to whichever side wins, so there is nothing to be gained by urging your supporters to stay at home.

And it applies symmetrically. This is the part people will argue with, so let me be plain about it. These rules would have stopped Brexit in 2016 on 51.9%. They would equally stop re-entry on 54%. I am not proposing a device to get the answer I happen to want. I am proposing that we stop making irreversible decisions on reversible margins.

Track 2: Matters of Deep Conscience and Fundamental Human Rights

For complex ethical, social or bodily autonomy choices, such as assisted dying or abortion.

Mandatory Citizens’ Assembly. Before any legislation is drafted, a randomly selected, demographically reflective panel of 100 UK citizens is convened to hear medical, legal and ethical evidence. They publish a recommended compromise framework.

Parliamentary free vote. The House of Commons debates the framework, and MPs are granted a free vote, freed from party whipping, to vote according to their conscience or in the way their constituents demand of them.

Simple majority to pass. Because the law has been heavily insulated by deliberative consensus and detailed committee work, a simple majority in the Commons is sufficient, avoiding a tyranny of the minority blocking medical or social progress.

Worked examples: testing the framework

Example 1: Re-entry into the European Union, Track 1

The scenario. The Government holds a referendum on re-entry. The campaign is energetic. Turnout reaches 68%.

The result. Re-entry wins 54.2% of the national vote. It wins in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and takes 53.8% in England.

The outcome. The motion fails. Even though it won a popular majority, cleared the turnout test and carried all four nations, it failed to reach 55%. Frustrating for re-entry voters, but it prevents the UK from re-entering a massive international bloc on a narrow margin, and ensures we take such a step only when a robust, lasting consensus exists.

Example 2: Scottish independence, Track 1

The scenario. A referendum on Scottish independence is triggered. Turnout is high at 81%.

The result. Yes wins 52.5% of the votes cast in Scotland.

The outcome. The motion fails. Breaking up a 300-year-old political union on a 52% margin would lead to economic chaos, a deeply fractured society, and an immediate, bitter campaign by the 47.5% to undo the split. By requiring 55%, independence would only occur if the mandate was strong enough to survive the complex, difficult years of separation negotiations that follow.

The same test that stops Scotland leaving the UK on 52% is the test that stopped the UK leaving the EU on 51.9%. Consistency is the whole point.

Example 3: Legalising assisted dying, Track 2

The scenario. Public pressure mounts to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults.

The process. Instead of a toxic binary referendum or a standard government-whipped bill, a Citizens’ Assembly on Assisted Dying is formed. For six months, with legal and clinical support, the panel debates the ethics, studies how Canada, Oregon and the Netherlands manage safeguards, hears evidence from medical and care professionals and from those affected, and drafts a specific policy: legalisation strictly limited to mentally competent adults with fewer than six months to live, requiring two independent medical sign-offs.

The outcome. The Commons holds a free vote on that exact policy text. It passes with 53% of MPs in favour. Because the law was insulated by the Assembly and contains rigorous safeguards, it passes smoothly, avoiding a public culture war and protecting minority concerns.

Summary

The era of using raw, simple-majority public votes to hack through complex, generation-defining constitutional or moral questions must come to an end. We know now what can happen. It leaves the UK perpetually unstable, vulnerable to sudden swings in public mood, and culturally fractured.

A 55% supermajority coupled with a 4-nation double majority ensures that major constitutional shifts can only happen with a deep, cross-border mandate. Removing moral and ethical dilemmas from the public ballot box and handing them to deliberative Citizens’ Assemblies and parliamentary free votes replaces aggressive public shouting matches with measured, compassionate consensus.

If a change is only worth making on 52%, it isn’t worth making. That is the whole argument.

𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙾𝚗𝚎 𝙼𝚊𝚗 𝚃𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚔 𝚃𝚊𝚗𝚔