The moment David Cameron said that an advisory, non-binding referendum would mandate the government.
From that, all the madness followed.
David Allen Green
This is such an appalling take on so many levels. The only reason why the referendum was not rendered explicitly binding is neither side was talking about not honouring it.
AFIAK the Electoral Commission report and the Lords report both said "we recommend turnout thresholds and a more than 50% requirement for a binding referendum" - at which point the ERG proposed the "advisory" route and Cameron went with it. =>
I am fairly certain this is apocryphal, not least as this isn’t really the Electoral Commission’s remit - their one pre-ref change was to prevent a Yes/No question.
I merged the EC issue (where the ERG helped distort the question) and Lords Report (which dealt with the constitutional ramifications of thresholds etc.) in speed tweeting but you don't buy it, and I don't buy your "it was all inevitable" for a second and there we are.
I don’t think “it was all inevitable”. I don’t buy an argument based on idea more likely or sensible modern based on two exceptional referendums (2011 binding provision about coalition, 1978 about a backbencher poisoning the well) rather than the others, inc its predecessor.