To wonder if a second vote is possible?

[LEMtheoriginal]

Could there be a 2nd referendum or is it too late?

Constitutionally, we have a Parliamentary democracy - the MPs could, if they chose, vote themselves out of existence and vote for some other form of representation. Or none at all, if one party got a sufficient majority and instigated a dictatorship.

Peregrina

Side note but I think the Roman republic did just that!

I don't think anyone was ready with anything concrete Pere - purely because an Activist, such as Pete North, publishes his own view doesn't mean that everyone holds the same perspective.

Actually, I believe that Activism is a strong influencer and has many Guises in its Role. I'm thinking of Environmental Activists influencing Govts into adopting more environmentally sustainable laws that help to protect our Planet.

My often Ecology and Green Party votes weren't given as Party Winning Votes, but Pressure Votes.

I hadn't heard of Peter North before you told me about him, he certainly didn't influence me.

Thanks for the good-natured and informative debate, must go now, night-night.

Oh, please, please, please let there be a second vote, on the grounds that the electorate would be given concrete proposals to vote for/against. I dream of this. There should never have been a first referendum.

I literally know people that voted leave because they thought it would help keep terrorists out

They have a point.... Did you vote remain to make sure terrorists were welcome in the UK? Is your name Angela Merkel?

Ladyhooha

Concrete proposals?

Such as...?

@10degreestostarboard an impressive piece of dissembling hmmmm...ok.

What I am commenting is is not what I want or like. It is the way the British constitution works. I would like a very different set of rules. However, we live in a representative democracy with a sovereign parliament. So I am explaining how the system works. The system that Brexit supporters want to be saved from the EU. The system that governs the country YOU live in.

If you don't like it don't complain to me campaign against it.

My thought processes are not the point I am explaining how the country you live in chooses to govern. The system YOU want to save from the EU.

It is more than bizarre that you complain to ME about the system YOU want to preserve. I merely report what passes for fact under the British constitution.

Moose

Or... you have no idea what you are talking about

But , hey, put the word ‘constitution’ in a comment often enough and it sounds the part

I see you ignored my Lib Dem’s example and the prospect of annihilation at the polls

I'm of mixed views here: I think we, as the general public, were misinformed as to what 'out' really meant. So we should have another more informed vote, without the Borris and Farage bollocks.

However, I also think that democracy isn't 'let's have another vote if we don't get the answer that we're looking for'.

...although I voted remain and I would again

Out meant out

Hard Brexit and wto terms

@Dadaist might be my new favourite mumsnetter

I didn't say Peter North influenced anyone, although he may have done. I was merely pointing out that it was perfectly possible for a long time Leave supporter to make comprehensive studies of what leaving would entail and what options he felt were likely to work. Something which our Leave voting MPs have singularly failed to do.

@10degreestostarboard that's right if you say I don't know what I'm talking about it must be true.

I didn't ignore your comment about the Lib Dem's it was simply irrelevant.

Yes, if a party chose to adhere to the constitution it may be annihilated at an election. That doesn't make the decision unconstitutional.

Another referendum isn't required by what passes for a constitution in the U.K. but as I have said ad nauseam it may be required politically. As I have also said we now rely on the integrity of our MPs. In a representative democracy this is essential.

For total clarity this isn't about my personal whims or beliefs I am explaining how the country YOU live in governs itself. I am explaining how the the parliament you wish to save from the evil clutches of the EU works.

Considering your desire to retain this system I really think you should know how it works.

To back up Moussemooses statement - there had to be an Act of Parliament passed before Cameron was allowed to hold his Referendum.

Thank you Peregrina.The Act was needed because Parliament is sovereign. It gets to make the decisions.

Because of what we laughingly refer to as a constitution.

And what would the electorate say to ‘the integrity of mps’ who decide to overlook the 2016 result?

Even some remainers are likely to punish those mps at the polls for such duplicity

Your technical points ignore the political reality. Brexit has become so politically charged as an issue that the political classes will be loathe to rock the boat. That’s why the Lib Dem / student fees example is germane. What they did wasn’t ‘unconstitutional’ but they were still punished by the electorate to the point where recovery is years away if ever for the party despite - note closely - the fact they are rabidly pro remain. Where are the voters flocking to support them?

And that was just over an issue like tuition fees...

You are basically clutching at straws at ‘coulda/ woulda/ shoulda’. There will be no ‘people’s vote’ because politicians fear the silent majority

And what would the electorate say to ‘the integrity of mps’ who decide to overlook the 2016 result?

Loud cheering and choruses of 'thank fuck for that' spring to mind....

I'm not clutching at straws I'm explaining the constitutional situation as - and I'll repeat as I have said ad nauseam it may be required politically.

A referendum may be required politically to convince the public but it is not needed constitutionally. The one thing this whole debacle has demonstrated is how woefully uneducated the British public are in relation to our political system.

I am fully aware my points are technical and I have made that clear, they are still, however, correct.

There may well still be a 'people's vote' (I shudder at the term) because the electorate will not tolerate a change of policy without one.

Ref 2 is politically and constitutionally possible.

The job of an MP in a representative democracy is not to do what people want but to do what is right. The example I have given repeatedly is capital punishment. It was abolished in 1965 but it is only recently the majority of the public has supported the abolishment.

MPs not slavishly following the 'will of the people' but following their own conscience. That is how our system works. Or should work.

I live in a country where referendums are common. We have an independent referendum commission that sends literature to every house explaining what the question is and what the consequences will be of a Yes or No vote. The government also communicates to the public how it intends to proceed if people vote for a change, often producing draft legislation advance of the vote. Brexit had none of this, Cameron did not explain how the government would action a Leave vote.

Some countries like the RoI and Switzerland are considered direct democracies and referenda are catered for in the constitution as needsomepeace321 explains.

The U.K. is not a direct democracy.

That's just it needsomepeace. It's perfectly possible to have a system of Government which uses Referenda. I assume, as with our Parliamentary System, that the rules in your country have been honed over time. What Leavers seem unable to explain is why the 2016 Referendum result should be cast in stone for all time.

Because they know they'd lose a further vote on the actual realities of the impending cluster fuck

@10degreestostarboard You won't get much argument from me, really. I voted Remain, not terribly enthusiastically - but am very glad I did, now, and would vote the same again twice over if I had the chance. I am a lifelong Tory, so agree that the country will be fucked if Labour get in. So we are not entirely poles apart. But I do think Brexit was a massive mistake. And putting it to a referendum was, I think, on a par with putting 'war against Iraq' to a referendum. We vote politicians in (often on a slim majority, it's true) so that they make these decisions, on the basis of advice given to them by civil servants who largely know their stuff (the politicians are, on the whole, just the figureheads for the people behind the scenes). I think it was just a game for Cameron and Johnson, and neither of them expected Johnson to win it.

You ask about "the facts", 10degrees. You may well ask, because very few are forthcoming. Once they are, we ought to have a vote on them, given that DC was stupid enough to ask us to vote in the first place.

@10degreestostarboard

Out meant out
Hard Brexit and wto term

And how should we deal with economic impacts? How do we recover and make a success of it?