One thing that has come to me recently is the problems that flow from pre-loading decisions as 'generational' (like the Scotland or EU referendums) /1
A decision can be seen as generational in the sense that it will have a long-term impact if we go ahead with it, and that's fine to point out /2
The problem comes when 'generational' is used to mean that you can't revisit this decision for at least a generation (or let's say 20-30 years) /3
This creates expectations that are entirely at odds with how democracy should work, it creates a belief that if one side wins then that is final and no more discussion can come of it /4
But a decision doesn't become long-lasting (in a sense, final) simply by virtue of being very important. Decisions that last for a generation or more are ones that command a wide consensus through society /5
It is consensus-building, not victory or 'getting it done', that can make an event 'generational'. The 1975 referendum for example carried a wide consensus and so was able to provide legitimacy for so long without much mainstream discussion /6
By contrast the 2016 referendum holds very little consensus and so has failed to be 'generational'. It is a divided society, not a conspiring establishment, that is responsible here /7
Nonetheless, politicians prior to the 2016 referendum did build up this expectation that the decision would be a once in a lifetime event and so there is a view among many Brexit supporters that the decision should be immune from challenge for decades to come /8
But who actually has the authority to impose such a requirement? It's one thing for a society to choose not to discuss an issue further, it's quite another for it to be prevented from doing so /9
If consensus does not exist (and it very evidently doesn't) then a subject can be legitimately debated and opposed, the decision questioned. To do otherwise would be anti-democratic /10
In other words, it is society itself, and the presence of a strong societal consensus, that decides whether an issue is one that need not be revisited for a generation, not senior politicians declaring before the event /11
It is very risky language to use as it can create anti-democratic demands and tendencies. Politicians would do well to avoid preempting how society will actually process a decision /end
