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...

[Inertia]

I do have to take issue with those who imply that MPs are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit because they are secret remainers, trying to stop the leavers from reaching some kind of glittering trophy.

Part of the reason the government has failed is sheer incompetence. Part of it is the Tories' efforts to maintain the integrity of their party above all else (even the integrity of the UK), and sod what happens to the country. The shambolic opposition presented by Corbyn is a disgrace, frankly. But the main reason why Brexit negotiations have failed is that politicians are trying to negotiate something which is essentially impossible.

UK Parliament is sovereign. The current Parliament cannot be bound by a previous one, and so it can implement laws which revoke previous ones. Cameron didn't actually have the power to make the promises he made. And MPs are not bound to do what their electorate says- their job is to act in the best interest of their constituents (which might not be what the constituents say they want). Those who shout loudest about wanting sovereignty back often continue to shout when Parliament exercises the sovereignty it already possesses.

The spectacular cock-up that is Brexit isn't some kind of conspiracy against those who consider themselves true patriots- it's a spectacular cock-up because it's a stupid idea, it's impossible to achieve in a clean and mutually agreeable manner, and it's being led by incompetent donkeys.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

I have no problem with another referendum.

But it would have to be in stages to be fair

stage 1

Leave
remain

stage 2
WA
No deal

Not
WA.
No Deal.
Remain.

[Desperateforspring]

Inertia I think the more stupid Idea....is to get countries too join a trading block and then gradually by stealth try and unite us all to the deep degree we are now trying extracate ourselves from!

That was the stupid Idea.

[DropZoneOne]

If TM is so adamant that the public voted for Brexit and that vote should stand, why doesn't the same apply to her deal? MPs voted against it, so why is she allowed to keep presenting it?

[Justheretogiveaviewfrommyworld]

Leaver here, who doesn't the issue re a second ref. I would have my one vote and could choose use it as I saw fit at time of the vote, just as before, so why not. My main issue is this though, if the result were reversed on exactly the same margin as before, surely we'd have to go again? Leavers could say, well my 16 yo hasn't been able to vote and its their future. If we hold a second ref on these arguments than we would have to have a third go, no? Tbh, the lament of the 'young people have not had a say' is what pisses me off the most. I and lotts of others were to young to vote when we went in, we still went in. What's different now?

[icanhearapindrop]

Exactly my point justhere! I wasn’t even born in 1975, so obviously couldn’t vote on what was also an advisory referendum. By all means let us vote again, but this can’t be the end of it, as things are forever changing.

[scaryteacher]

Mamama 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.

The information was there if you cared to look for it, both about what the EU is morphing into, and the methods it uses to get what it wants - no-one has yet commented on the current situation it has engineered with Switzerland and the deal that it is trying to bounce Switzerland into, and which will extend EU reach into a non EU member state - and it was possible to work out what the alternatives would be with leaving - no deal or a WA.

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. See above - I can't understand how some people don't get that some Leavers are well informed, can read the Commission work programme and see what is coming down the track, and want to be well out of it. I would have voted No to Maastricht and Lisbon had I been asked, and as I was too young to vote in the referendum in the 70s, this has been my chance to have a say on the EU. I don't like it, I don't like its methods and I don't like the acquis or ever closer union.

[Lifecraft]

People are being born and dying every day

Sad isn't it, not even making it to your second day.

[Lifecraft]

I voted out. Out of the Eu, out of the customs union, out of the ECJ out of everything. I didn't ask for a deal. I voted to go.

Maybe you did. But seeing as some of the main figures in the leave campaign, Gove and Boris, told us that the EU would be falling over themselves to offer us a wonderful deal, then it's safe to assume that many people who voted leave did so on the basis of the great deal we were going to get.

[MutantDisco]

@littlemeitslyn 'sleight' is pronounced 'slight' but spelled 'sleight'.

[brizzlemint]

It's not a 'best of three'

I think that the whole embarrassing debacle should be swept under the carpet (and DC should be swept into the Thames or nearest sewage processing works) and forgotten out.

Oh how we laughed at the Americans for electing Trump but look what we've gone and done.

[KittyWindbag]

I don’t see it as undemocratic as it is not the same as a general election. It would be undemocratic to repeatedly hold elections for perceived desires outcomes. A referendum is basically a massive opinion poll. It’s not binding. Opinions change.

We’ve had two years since the last one. In a world where people shouldn’t go absolutely off their trolley with anger at another referendum, I’d be all for another one as i’d love to know where the country now stands. However, I think it is likely to increase the anger and irritation ten-fold so I think it’s probably not a good idea.

[OnlineAlienator]

No, i dont, please, just make it stop!

[Iggly]

The information was there if you cared to look for it, both about what the EU is morphing into

You make no sense.

We will continue to trade with the EU as a bloc once we’ve left.

We need to set the terms of that trade.

No one knew what those terms would be, so they were not made clear during campaigning. That is what people mean when they say we don’t know what we were voting for.

You are talking about the potential direction off the EU itself. Which, as a member, we could have had influence over.

[Iggly]

*of

[foxtiger]

1. It's not a second referendum, it's a third referendum (there was one on the same subject in the 1970s).

1. You wouldn't expect the results of a general election to dictate who was in charge for the rest of your life, so why is the result of a referendum nearly 3 years ago considered to be true for all time?

1. We know that that demographic has changed over those 3 years so that a Remain result is far more likely now.

1. The result was so close that time that in many countries it would not have been allowed to stand as binding. The Leave side had even stated that if the result went 52-48 in favour of Remaining they would want another vote.

1. The 2016 referendum did not give any information about the type of Leave deal we would be having - lots of Leave voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the way things are going now. Those of us who campaign for a People's Vote are basically asking for a chance to choose between the actual deal that is on the table and remaining. We believe this is the only way to ascertain what the people really want.

In summary, I don't see it as against democracy at all. Democracy surely means regular elections and a chance for voting to reflect the current mood of the country. (Leaving aside for now that fact that the first past the post system means the results of general elections may not always be an accurate reflection of that.)

I am massively puzzled (as well as angry) that the PM is still telling us this is what we wanted. She must be aware that at least 48% of us don't want this, and IIRC she doesn't really want it herself, so why not use a People's Vote to help get justification for saving us from this extreme and damaging course of action?

[Rufusthebewilderedreindeer]

absolutely mothertruck3r. every person calling for a second vote is a remainer

This is bollocks im afraid

There was a thread on here with some people who either voted leave or didnt vote saying they wanted a 2nd referendum

I really dont think it helps when people make huge generalisations

Its what has got us into this mess and its dividing the country

No one who voted on this thinks the same as everyone else who voted

Thats the fucking problem

[GottenGottenGotten]

'sleight' is pronounced 'slight' but spelled 'sleight'

@MutantDisco but in the context of the op, the correct spelling is slight.

Sleight - dexterity
Slight (in this context) - an insult

[Elphame]

If there is a second referendum then I for one will probably never bother voting again,

No point if the losers keep making a fuss and get a second chance.

[GottenGottenGotten]

Elphame, this isn't about losers making a fuss.

This is about people being able to make a decision now they have a better idea of what they are actually voting for.

That's not taking into account the fact that the referendum's leave campaign was funded, in part, illegally, and the funds used in such a way that people that are smarter than me say could well have skewed the result.

But do feel free not to vote again. I don't suppose anyone else will be that bothered by it.

[BorisBogtrotter]

Its not anti democratic at all.

Its checking with the people once the terms are known, wonder who suggested that first ?

Forcing through constitutional change follwoing a one off, advisory referendum that was tainted by corruption, is anti democratic.

Picking and choosing which buits of the leave campaign to build the future change on, whilst ignoring other because its politically expedient to do so, is anti democratic.

You only object to a second referendum because you know leave would lose, your side threw everything at the campaign last time and made promises to all sorts of special interest groups that they now know will not be fulfilled.

Oh, and when you use democracy as a defence but then bang on about the will of the people ( against UK parliamentary democracy) and criticise those fulfilling their constitutional roles, then you are just using it as a slogan, not because you truly believe in it.

Typical leavers, just repeating soundbites, and then complaining when people call you stupid.

[woodcutbirds]

I don't see it as a slight against democracy because the first referendum was run so badly. We should have been given clear overviews of pros and cons, and if that wasn;t possible because there were too many unknowns, then the government should have postponed any referendum until clear honest guidelines could be offered as to what we stood to gain and lose.
Everyone I know who voted leave did so because of Farage's bloody bus. That shows the extent of misdirection that was allowed. I don;t see how the outcome has been allowed to drag things this far into the mire withou a proper review.

[LittleChristmasMouse]

She must be aware that at least 48% of us don't want this, and IIRC she doesn't really want it herself, so why not use a People's Vote to help get justification for saving us from this extreme and damaging course of action?

Imo, she won't back down because she has painted herself into a corner with all of her promises of leave means leave etc. To revoke A50 now means such a huge loss of face that I can't see her doing it. It would have been much better if she had put it back to the people (though I don't want a 2nd referendum) after the defeats in Parliament, either as a GE or PV, rather than try to force it through and then have to go on bended knee to the EU.

She is looking weaker and weaker with every step. I do think now that she has to admit defeat and resign rather than continue flogging her dead horse.

[Pinkcat231]

No, I think there should be another vote for all the reasons given here. There needs to be a bigger majority either way as with the first vote in the 70s.

I hate the winners/losers mentality of it all, we are all going to win or all going to lose depending on this outcome. There’s no trophy for getting your own way just a potentially very bad future for everyone.

[mothertruck3r]

Why not address the real, lived experiences and concerns of the millions of people who voted leave - actually talk to people in the north and outside the London bubble who have been left behind, seen their quality of life diminish, have seen rapid and unprecedented change to their communities and actually deal with their concerns rather than just arrogantly dismissing them and calling them racist.

If you actually deal with these issues rather than brushing them under the carpet perhaps these millions of people won't feel the need to vote leave. Otherwise you will just have a situation where this anger and sense of neglect ferments and creates even larger problems down the line.