If a new referendum on Brexit was announced..

[bbcessex]

Would you be up in arms about that?
Discussing last night.. I think given the margins in the last vote and the (being charitable) confusion and uncertainty over the Brexit plans, a new referendum would generally be accepted.

DH (remainer) thinks a re-vote is not constitutional & would cause uproar (amongst all).

Who is unreasonable ?

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

I agree with your DH tbh... and I think the other countries in the union would forever take the piss.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

I dont see how a re vote would be unconstitutional

It would definitely cause uproar

Im in two minds

A) farage woukdnt be off the sodding telly and by christ the whinging!!!

B) it would be fun to watch...may you live in interesting times

But there seems to be a fair few remainers that would now vote leave (cos someone on here was mean to someone who voted leave once) so im sure the answer would probably Be leave again

[fionnbharr]

A new vote would not be unconstitutional given we have no written constitution and the first vote was advisory.
It would however be politically challenging - and their is a risk that Farage and Co would try and whip up social unrest. Elderly Brexiteers would not join in and if he managed to mobilise the right wing thugs it would highlight a disturbing aspect of his support group.
My best hope is Parliament voting against the deal. The vast majority of MPs across all parties know that Brexit is not in the national interest. One has to hope that they will fulfill their duty and vote against the deal.
This will bring down the government and force another general election.
What is interesting is that this will bring the divisions in the Labour Party into sharp relief. It will not be possible to implement Corbyn’s state aid/state intervention agenda under EU rules. So I would expect the hard left to support any Brexit deal. But the majority of the Parliamentary Labour party are more sane - and doubtless realise that this will be their last chance to prevent a hard left takeover of the party.

[HashiAsLarry]

There's nothing wrong with being given an option to review decisions as more and more facts become available. In countries where they run referenda properly it's not uncommon to have several on the same subject. I'd only be up in arms if they ran it as stupidly as last time, as in advisory but taking it as gospel. That was always the mistake in the first place, they should have put safeguards in. In fact they were strongly advised to but chose to ignore it.

[Laiste]

If there was a re-vote i wouldn't bother voting again.

I feel voter apathy as it is - i'm not going to keep voting over and over on the same issue.

[SloeSloeQuickQuickGin]

Brexit was not what I voted for (irrelevent) BUT I am sick to death of the anti-Brexiteers - we had a referendum, the result was shite BUT thats the price you pay for democracy. You cant keep having referendums Nicola Sturgeon are you listening until you get the result you think people want.

[mothertruck3r]

I think it would send a very dangerous message and confirm to Brexit voters that there is an elite who look down on them and dismiss their issues and concerns and walk over them roughshod - "We know what is best for you pleb" kind of thinking. What is the point of having any kind of future vote on anything if vested interests can just reverse it if they disagree with the result?

Also, over 1 million more people voted for Brexit than Remain. I don't understand why that is considered a close result?

[Crackednips]

Elderly Brexiteers would not join in and if he managed to mobilise the right wing thugs What a horrible comment..

[M4Dad]

Brexit was not what I voted for (irrelevent) BUT I am sick to death of the anti-Brexiteers - we had a referendum, the result was shite BUT thats the price you pay for democracy. You cant keep having referendums Nicola Sturgeon are you listening until you get the result you think people want

[BertrandRussell]

How about a referendum on whether, knowing what we know now, we still want to go ahead with Brexit? Because we don't actually have to- the referendum was advisory only.

[mothertruck3r]

Perhaps we should have a referendum on whether there should be another referendum?

[whatwillhappen2]

I would rather a vote in parliament as well - or a General Election.

I am a remainer to the core, but I never want to be involved in another referendum. Since the last one was advisory though - and not binding as the awful Cultural Secretary said on Breakfast this morning - having another one would not be a big deal legally. They are basically uninformed opinion polls.

[PodgeBod]

My personal opinion- the leave campaign has lost momentum and there has been so much anxiety in the media about how Brexit will go. Most of the politicians were clearly Remain. If they call another referendum I would feel that they were just trying to get the result that they wanted instead of respecting the result that they got and their voters. That's how I would feel as somebody who isn't very political.

[whatwillhappen2]

And Farage can take a running jump, along with his friends from the AFD. We as a country are better than that I hope.

[cingolimama]

Mother, with other forms of voting (say, elections), you actually can reverse it within a matter of years.

Given that Brexit is going to affect the next couple of generations ... and people voted with no real idea of what Brexit will mean for the UK, I'd say another referendum would be an excellent idea.

[Trampire]

I don't think we should have another Ref. It should never have happened in the first place. The result was a bit shit and totally scary but it's done.

Anything else now would be a breakdown in law and order I think.

[muttmad]

I think if the EU turned around and offered the concessions we asked for and got laughed at for before the referendum along with a little more freedom for our own courts, we may just see a different result?
I don’t think another referendum is the right way to go without some sort of special deal with the EU, and I’m not sure they would offer it as the other members of the block would expect the same treatment and rightly so?
I voted leave for many reasons, and at the moment I’d vote leave again, especially after the way the EU have behaved since the referendum, but I could be persuaded to change my mind if the right deal was put on the table!

[mothertruck3r]

But if the referendum was only advisory and not binding, surely a new referendum in which remain were to win, would also be advisory and non-binding, so we wouldn't be able to proceed with staying in the EU?

[guilty100]

I agree with fionn.

It's a paradox, isn't it. I think it would be very difficult to inaugurate a second vote politically - it looks anti-democratic, like you're trying to avoid the will of the people.

At the same time, in two years I suspect opinion polls will reveal a much stronger Remain vote against leaving for two reasons - firstly, the terms of the deal will be clearer and I think people in certain sectors (agriculture for instance) will be quite shocked by how they look; secondly, demographic change and the tendency of older voters to be Leave and younger voters Remain means that as time passes, the barometer swings ever so slightly to Remain. The question is whether this shift can be manifested in such a way that it makes not having a second referendum look anti-democratic because a majority are no longer in favour. If I were in the Remain camp, I'd not be sitting around on my arse moaning about stuff - I'd be trying to engage with the communities that voted Leave, listening to their concerns and building bridges. But I've noted that those people tend not to want to do any of the actual dirty work of moving outside of their own communities and engaging with others in this way.

[Crackednips]

RE Advisory.

Whereabouts in the EU Referendum Act does it state that the result would be 'non-binding and advisory'? The only mention of referenda being 'non-binding' is in an obscure HoC Library research paper by a junior clerk, which was never seen, let alone been discussed, by the HoC.

Even Cameron acknowledged that the result be be implemented by his Government, whatever the outcome.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

mother

Unless they made it legally non binding then you are correct

I think they shoukd run two...one not binding so its even stevens and another that it binding



I am joking before anyone has a pop or am i?

[M4Dad]

And Farage can take a running jump, along with his friends from the AFD

If Merkel continues with her open door policy to mostly male financial migrants (remember when we told they were actually refugees - they've dropped pretending they are these days) then you can expect parties like the AFD, FP and FN to only grow.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

You have to make a referendum binding

There is nothing to say that its binding

[BertrandRussell]

We have a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory. The government then decided whether or not to follow the advice. They could decide not to.

[WhollyFather]

It may or may not be unconstitutional but it would be unprecedented. We had a referendum. Leave won. There is no basis whatsoever for calling a second one.

fionnbharr I wish ill-informed people would give up with the claim the referendum was advisory. Parliament said it was binding, the government's little pro-EU propaganda leaflet said it was binding: 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.' and Cameron's speech before the big day: ""And remember: they can’t undo the decision we take. If we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe – for good." Not hard to understand, eh?

And if we get a deal out of the EU, which is looking more and more unlikely, Parliament will only get the chance to approve it or not, not debate and amend agreed clauses and terms. If they vote it down we will leave with no deal and revert to trading with EU members on WTO terms, like we currently trade with most of the rest of the world.