To ask if you see a second EU ref as a sleight against democracy?

[VladmirsPoutine]

Is there anyone that thinks that the 2016 outcome should be respected regardless of anything else? If so - how do you square that with the fact that Theresa May has tested her 'exit' deal to Parliament twice and both times been shot down?

How can this be the 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE' given the initial result was 48%/52%.

Just curious where people now stand given we are 9 days away from Brexit. No judgement here just curious how people are interpreting the various outcomes and ongoings...

[Cwtches123]

People voted on a concept in 2016, I don't see what is wrong with going back to the country and asking them to vote again now that we know exactly what is evolved.

[FaFoutis]

Democracy cannot cancel out democracy. It's an incredibly stupid argument. But those making it from the top are just using it as a straw man.

[AnnPerkins]

I don't believe a second referendum would be undemocratic.

I don't think I've got the stomach for one, though, unless the polls were saying something like 80/20 for remaining. Society is just too entrenched in its different views now, the campaign would be unspeakable, yet more of the current ugly discourse with added violence. It was bad enough seeing all the 'I Want My Country Back' posters popping up in people's gardens in 2016, as their previously-unacceptable views became legitimised by the Leavers' rhetoric. How much worse would it be this time?

It may be the least democratic solution, but I would prefer to just rip off the Band Aid; revoke Article 50 and deal with the fallout.

[mothertruck3r]

I think we should have a referendum every 3 years just in case people have changed their minds.

[Lifecraft]

It's pointless. A recent survey showed that 25% of people think that a no deal Brexit means we stay in the EU.

The public haven't got any cleverer since 2016. And that's the issue. Most people are far too stupid to vote on such a complex issue, which is why there never should have been a referendum in the first place.

If we are going to have a second referendum, there should be 10 general knowledge questions you have to answer at the polling station, nothing too hard, just basic stuff a reasonably bright person should know, and you don't get to vote unless you get at least 7 right.

[MulticolourMophead]

People voted on a concept in 2016, I don't see what is wrong with going back to the country and asking them to vote again now that we know exactly what is evolved.

This. We were voting on a concept back then. There were no real plans, nothing to show what might happen, or how it would all pan out.

Today it is different. We have a better understanding of what it might mean, that it's not as simple as was made out to be.

So I see nothing against democracy for a second referendum. But the question has to be worded properly, nothing to mislead people.

[Gronky]

If we are going to have a second referendum, there should be 10 general knowledge questions you have to answer at the polling station, nothing too hard, just basic stuff a reasonably bright person should know, and you don't get to vote unless you get at least 7 right.

Are you looking to disproportionately disenfranchise women:
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/11/women-know-less-politics-than-men-worldwide

It's unlikely to make much of a difference to the outcome unless the questions were specifically biased to include ideologically convenient questions:
whatukthinks.org/eu/are-leave-voters-less-knowledgeable-about-the-eu-than-remain-supporters/

[Walkingdeadfangirl]

Second referendum is just not so secret code for staying in the EU. It will just split our country further, so a very very bad idea.

[ShartGoblin]

The way I see it these are the options:

-TM's Deal - It's a bad deal that makes both sides unhappy. People will be angry and it won't work
-No deal - once the realities set in, no-one from either side will be happy and it won't work
-A referendum - Leavers (and a decent chunk of remainers) do view this as trying to trump democracy and stay in the EU
-Revoking article 50 without a referendum - I can see this causing all sorts of angry responses including extremist reactions because the will of the people would be totally ignored
-A better deal - Never going to happen, it's stupid to think that the EU will give us everything we want when they hold all of the cards.
-Delaying Brexit forever and arguing about it indefinitely while nothing else ever gets priority in parliament - my money is on this one

There is no good option here, it's all shit and I despair. We all should whatever side of it we're on.

[mothertruck3r]

If we are going to have a second referendum, there should be 10 general knowledge questions you have to answer at the polling station, nothing too hard, just basic stuff a reasonably bright person should know, and you don't get to vote unless you get at least 7 right.

Only people who appreciate brisk walks on Hampstead Heath should be allowed to vote and only those that shop in Waitrose. It's for the best. The plebs just don't know what's best for them. Some of them have never even tasted hummus!

[Hanumantelpiece]

I feel that there was misinformation on both sides, but unfortunately my experience of leavers have been people that have not fully considered the implications. Many are saying that we should scrap all the EU laws and make our own, but they don't actually know which ones we already have implemented, or why, or what effect they have.
Given that our NHS is already failing, human rights are being eroded (particularly with regard to people with disabilies) and the far/alt-right seem to be on the rise, I feel that we are in a dangerous position.
There's also lots of talk about 'being dicated to by people we didn't elect' but if you see the poor turnout of people we DID elect to any meetings of importance (MPs wages excepted), then I can't see that there is any value in trusting those we have elected.

[scaryteacher]

But I don't live near Hampstead Heath Mother !!

[Lifecraft]

Only people who appreciate brisk walks on Hampstead Heath should be allowed to vote and only those that shop in Waitrose. It's for the best. The plebs just don't know what's best for them. Some of them have never even tasted hummus!

I think if that had been the criteria for voting in the first referendum, we'd be in a damn site better place than we are now.

Although I'd allow those who walk on Primrose Hill as well as Hampstead Heath.

[SemperIdem]

I think it would be extremely democratic to hold a second referendum.

I don’t see an advisory referendum, which was poorly handled from start to finish, being treated as binding as being democratic at all.

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

Weren't there a few referendums before we joined in the first place?

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

Wikipedia says we already voted to stay in 1975 so really this would be best of 3.

[ShatnersWig]

Anyone who says a second referendum wouldn't be democratic is an idiot and patently doesn't understand what the word means.

They can say they don't want one or don't like the idea of one, but it's not undemocratic.

What is a nonsense is that MPs have had two identical votes on the same question (and she'd like a third) but that the notion that the People can't have a second vote, which could be the same question (Leave v Remain) or a different question but same subject (Deal v Remain) just isn't on.

Even if the deal (the WA) goes through, we then have other negotiations to conclude.

But we now know more. The best analogy in my opinion is that of buying a house. You like the look of it and put an offer in and a deal if struck. Then you have a survey and you discover what looks good is nowhere near as good. What do you do? You either change the deal or you walk away and stay as you are. But you base the final, second decision on the FACTS not the IDEA.

[scaryteacher]

It would have to be the same question if there were to be a second referendum, or no deal would have to be on there if you wanted the WA and remain on there, as some want neither of those things.

[scaryteacher]

Oh I see Lifecraft No-one outside the M25 gets a say then?

[MaMaMaMySharona]

I am against a second referendum; if leave wins again, then would we have to have a third go, until the desired result was achieved?

I'm actually dumbfounded that this question is still being bandied around. For those who still don't get it - the idea of a second referendum isn't for remainers to get the result they wanted - although of course that is a possible outcome. It is an opportunity for the British people to vote on something that directly affects all of them now that they have more information about the task at hand.

It is widely known that the initial referendum was done almost blind - no one had any idea what was possible and how it would affect our economy. Now we know more. I cannot understand how people don't get this.

[bibliomania]

In 2016 voters bought a pig in a poke. Now that we've had a chance to see the pig up-close, I think it's only fair to ask voters if we're still happy with the bargain.

[PlainSpeakingStraightTalking]

I'm somewhat confused, much like the rest of the country, it appears, all suffering with Brexit fatigue.

The referendum question was leave or remain

No details, just stay or go . All this 'it wasnt what we voted for' malarky, well it was, there were no details, one persons vision of leave is not another persons vision. There were no leave details. You got what it said on the tin, only the the tin didnt list any ingredients.

On the other hand, if you voted remain, then you knew what you were getting as you already had it.

For clarity:

The question that appeared on ballot papers in the referendum under the Act was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

- Remain a member of the European Union
or
- Leave the European Union

[gamerwidow]

Democracy isn't static, if was we wouldn't have any elections.
The original referendum was corrupt and Leave campaign broke the law.
The public deserve the chance to have another vote with the facts as they are known now rather than a campaign based on a pack of lies.
If it's still the will of the people Leave will win and if it's not still the will of the people Leave will lose.
I honestly couldn't tell you how the result would come out but it is undemocratic to force through a deal so different to what was promised without making sure it is still what the public want.

[ChardonnaysPrettySister]

No.

Brexit cannot be delivered safely, it’s only fair to ask the electorate again.

[BananasAreTheSourceOfEvil]

Move to Ireland- we get to vote until we get the 'right' answer