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...

[exculpatrix]

will there be talks of a Scottish backstop too!

No, because Scotland doesn't have a history of violent conflict on this issue (well, not in living memory, anyway). Any kind of hard border brought on by a no deal Brexit will screw the Good Friday Agreement and herald a return of the Troubles. The Scottish can, and probably should, leave the UK with a clear conscience.

[VladmirsPoutine]

Yes I'm aware of that but if you are to maintain the integrity of the single market there would need to be a hard border and therefore you'd essentially be carving up GB whether you liked it or not.

[exculpatrix]

Well sure, but a couple of points:

1. We can have a hard border with Scotland, no problem. The GFA prevents one between NI and Eire, but there's no similar agreement preventing a hard border between Scotland and the sad remnants of the UK.
   
   
2. That assumes Scotland would remain within the single market. A 2nd indie ref is unlikely to be finished before Brexit, in whatever form that takes. So we'll drag Scotland out of the EU with us. If they then vote for independence they'd likely have to apply to join the EU as a new member, with all the years of bureaucracy that entails.
   
   So, if Scotland wanted to leave us, there'd be no need for a backstop like there is with NI.

[BloggersNet]

I don't think a second referendum is undemocratic, more just delusional. What would be different this time? Most people haven't changed their minds. The government is still clueless on how to run anything. What would the options be? What, if any, would the parameters be? No, what we would have needed from the start is a cross party committee working on brexit to determine if it's feasible. Would that happen after the second referendum? I doubt it.

[VladmirsPoutine]

This being in theory that the rest of GB would want to remain close partners with an independent Scotland.

[VladmirsPoutine]

If we dragged Scotland out with us; I doubt it would be a matter of even months before their application for EU membership was approved.

[Spiritinabody]

I believe the outcome of the 2016 EU Referendum should be respected above everything. If it is not then I don't think it is a slight on democracy, rather the death of democracy.

I believe Theresa May's deal is worse than a 'no deal' and am glad it was rejected. Whilst I truly believe she thinks it is a good deal, I beg to differ.

What I am disappointed in is:

1. Theresa May re-running the vote on her deal and trying to get MPs to accept it because they fear the alternative;
   
2. MPs voting with their own conscience rather than voting in such a way as to represent the majority view of their constituents.
   
   
   I don't"t understand the OP's comment about how it can be "the will of the people" when the vote was 48% v 52%. If there were only 2 parties in an election then the MP with 52% would win wouldn't they? First past the post.
   
   It may not be a fair system but it is the system we have. When we had a vote on whether we wanted a form of Proportional Representation some years back it was rejected by the electorate.
   
   My personal view is that we should leave with no deal on 29th March. Both sides will suffer temporarily but I'm damn sure it will focus everyone's minds to achieve an outcome which is beneficial for everyone.
   
   I'm not in the slightest bit worried. A lot of economic growth is down to confidence in the markets. I believe, after an initial jitter, that the UK will thrive with trade agreements with other countries.
   
   I think too many MPs are 'glass half empty' rather than 'glass half full" people.

[LittleChristmasMouse]

It was certainly the majority of those who voted, but NOT the majority of people. Non-voters did not vote to change the status quo i.e. to leave the EU. Therefore the percentage of people voting for Brexit was 38%.
Then the % of people voting to remain was even less than 38%.

This argument makes no sense.

[Limensoda]

Most people haven't changed their minds

'Most' people don't have to.
Enough may have. Either to increase the original majority or change the previous outcome.

[Angelicinnocent]

I don't think we should have another referendum but not because it would be undemocratic, simply because I think people overestimate a swing to remain. I don't think anything would change in the result and it will just be a waste of time that will further divide the country with more insults and campaigning by both sides.

Whatever way people voted, I think most people voted with their hearts and although you can change minds, you rarely change hearts.

[Noname99]

I really honest thought we as a country were moving away from the notion that the ruling class has the right to ignore the people because “they know best.”
But now people are actually advocating this!
Leave won - not by much - but it won.
However, most politicians did not want to leave the EU, they wanted to remain.
They have ensure that agreement was possible by spending two years throwing every spanner in the works possible and making absolutely sure the EU knew there was no unity on the British side. Having deliberately sabotaged any negotiations and fucked it up, politicians can now declare that “they know best” and can ignore whatever was voted for by the population because “it’s in their best interests.” It’s a mindset from a hundred years back - “we, the ruling class know best, the peasants can be ignored because they don’t understand/are a bit thick really but we know better!”
Ffs!

[HotpotLawyer]

Democracy is shot to hell anyway.

Referendums are advisory.

I voted for an MP who is a Remainer, the overwhelming majority of constituents here voted Remain (many more than the sum total of leavers and abstained) so ad far as I am concerned my MP should push to represent their constituency.

But they are not voting according to their party’s line.

I voted partly for their party allegiance...... but don’t share their view on Brexit.

So where do I look for accountability to my vote in a democracy?

Why is the referendum trump all?

[HotpotLawyer]

Noname: my MP is hardly a rep of the ‘ruling class’, and MPs are not the ‘ruling class’, they are elected.

[FriendOrFaux]

Noname99

Agree entirely.

[Aquilla]

Yes.

[Noname99]

🙄 In the history of the world, it is accepted that when a binary vote is taken, the side with most wins.
So long as everyone has a vote and no one has prevented from voting, the side with the most wins. Even if other people think what they are voting for is stupid. People who didn’t vote, don’t count as for or against.

[Noname99]

They are not behaving as if they are elected - people who are elected should represent the majority vote of the electorate. They are not.
This has nothing to do with whether I believe in brexit - nothing to do with being a remainer or leave voter. This is about the sheer arrogance of our current politicians who now seem to believe that their opinion is what counts not those they represent

[icanhearapindrop]

In my opinion, the only way to get another vote through, is to promise another vote in say, 10 years. I said this in another thread, that we were told the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime vote, so if we are going to have another referendum, we also need to know that we can reverse that result in future if opinions change. People often say that it is our democratic right to vote on the government every 5 years, but how would you feel if you were told you could vote on the government once, and that was it for your lifetime? Do you think you would maybe vote differently to knowing you can change your mind in 5 years?
I voted leave because I don’t believe the EU works in our interests a lot of the time. That’s not to say they don’t do good things, but if I knew I could vote again in 10 years, I would probably have voted remain for now.

[Inertia]

The 2016 referendum was the second referendum- a further referendum would be the third.

I don't think it would be a slight on democracy to have a further vote. I don't actually think it would be a slight on democracy to simply revoke article 50 either.

The 2016 referendum was advisory. The outcome advised that those who voted were fairly evenly split. The outcomes from the four home nations were not unanimous. So the advisory referendum advised that there wasn't a clear mandate for any path- the sensible thing to have done would have been to establish what the UK public actually did want before invoking A50. And in fact, several leaver MPs such as JRM suggested beforehand that there ought to be a further referendum once negotiations had taken place.

There's an added complication, in that the 2016 referendum was not compliant with electoral law, and would have been overturned as a legally-binding vote.

The questions in a future advisory referendum would need to be different from 2016 , and would need to include the consequences of each option. A yes/no vote isn't going to tell anyone anything new- Parliament needs to know exactly what people are willing to accept.

The country is already split. It's only going to get more split, whatever happens,and even people who think Brexit will solve all their problems now will still be angry after we've left- issues around lack of resources, cuts in services, NHS overcrowding , cost of living etc are not going to get better after the UK leaves , due to the financial hit / unfilled NHS positions/ increased food costs.

[Weebitawks]

Urgh mummymeister the term "remoaners" is both moronic and ignorant. Yes remainers want a second vote. Brexiters don't....because they'll probably lose now people have a better insight into what it entails.

[icanhearapindrop]

The 1975 referendum was also advisory.

[HotpotLawyer]

Inertia could you explain more about this please:
“There's an added complication, in that the 2016 referendum was not compliant with electoral law, and would have been overturned as a legally-binding vote.”

[Desperateforspring]

How many votes does anyone feel is good enough to win any vote?

I don't see another ref as a second referendum. The one we just had was the second ref. Any more would be the third

[strathmore]

Well TM has just address dates nation- incas you missed it.

Inspiring-not

[littlemeitslyn]

'Sleight' ? Do you mean slight?