AIBU as a remainer to think a 2nd ref would obliterate political trust?

[Lfoxbar]

How can the government disobey the instruction of the electorate? Surely it would not only destroy trust but also set a nasty precedent. Aibu to ask how a 2nd referendum could ever be justified?

Some people like to say that public opinion has now changed but there's no real evidence for that.

There is some polling information to suggest that - there're more likely to be accurate than marches or government on-line petitions. They at least aim for representative sample population.

The best evidence to see if the population has changed it’s mind would be to hold a second referendum – that would tell us and that’s exactly what the OP doesn’t seem to want to do.

The referendum attracted the highest voting turn out in British history and leave won. I would have liked remain to win but the fact is that they didn't. The people have spoken. I think those saying public opinion has changed are living inside an echo chamber and clutching at straws.

Leave didn't 'win.' More people voted to leave the EU than to remain, but they didn't 'win' anything - they expressed a preference for what the Leave campaign was promising. The problem is that none of what was promised is actually deliverable, making the 'win' worthless.

Lfoxbar you new around here?

People calling for a 2nd referendum are assuming remain will be an option - giving what's gone on over the last few weeks that is in no way a given.

Worded my post a bit sloppily

Europe (not the EU) is a culturally diverse beast, and I think that asking all members to bend to the will of one overseeing body is not right.

That why in the past we have opted out of so much that we can and dont want (hence the Euro)

The problem being is that if we want to trade with Europe we will still have to uphold to many of those standards anyway in order to do so. The irony being that leaving will actually give us less control over some of that than being in (where we always were one of the bigger voices)

As it happens I agree the EU has completely overstretched itself and really should look at ways of bringing it back inline with its original ethos. I just happen to think its better for us to have a say in this (which given our voting record and who we voted for as MEP was never high up our list) that being out

What political trust? The last 3 years have decimated any that there was. And the original referendum was a travesty of democracy. Now that we have more idea of the reality of leaving the EU 'the people' are in a better position to decide. The referendum should always have been on the basis of a proposed deal, no deal or remain - not the magical thinking of 'brexit means brexit'. YABU.

It was 3 years ago, and that was the 2nd referendum on membership anyway.

If brexit goes through, its going to be years of dealing with pissed off young, very poitically active people whove been taken for a ride yet again by their parents. You will prbably be looking at us rejoining within 10 years.

Also democracy is already ruined for these people. When theyre vote is equal to that of somebdy who is demonstrably misinformed (or worse informed by the Sun), or so easily tricked by people like Farage or Boris bloody Johnson, they conclude what a lot of ancient athenians did- its a rule of the idiots.

I’m sick of hearing the same regurgitated shite from people who don’t understand democracy, how parliament works or have a clue about what that referendum actually meant.
People hear an argument ‘because democracy’ and they think ‘ooh that’ll make me sound intelligent, I know - I’ll talk to all my friends about it and post it on mn’
Honestly, the people who keep posting to explain to you people why you’re wrong must be so bored of this shit by now?? Unless you’re just copy and pasting

beebee I like that.

I was on the fence about this for a while but have come down on the side of a second referendum, on the basis that asking people what they think cannot possibly be undemocratic. Agree it's a divisive move but then whatever we do will be profoundly divisive, so there really are no good options here. My reasoning for a second ref:

1. Whichever way you voted, it seems obvious that the outright lies and illegality of the Leave campaign should at the very least be taken into account. A slap on the wrist doesn't cut it for me.
2. It wasn't an informed decision because there was no (realistic) attempt to define what Leave would look like
3. Now that we have more information about the real world consequences, and the options that are actually on offer, it would be genuinely bizarre of us to ignore the facts
4. People should be able to change their minds!

I mean Jesus fucking Christ, doesn’t Microsoft office even still ask if you’re sure you want to close a document without saving it first before losing all of your work?? And people don’t get that we can do it with Brexit?

Do you want to leave the eu?
Meh, well we think so
Are you sure?

If you want to leave, just vote leave again! It’s very simple really!

*their

People should be allowed to change their minds.

So that means we have referenda every few years to check people are still happy with EU membership?

Or if there is another ref and remain is the majority, that's an end to the matter?

It's entirely democratic - even as an ardent remainer first time round, I was voting purely with my gut and not with any true knowledge (and it pisses me off to this day that a completely simple question was offered to the people about a highly complex decision), and now we know a whole lot more about the implications of leaving and remaining. The leavers can vote leave again if they still think it's a good idea. I'd not change my original opinion, knowing now what I didn't know in 2016. And if the vote is still for leave, then I'd make my peace with that, even though I'd still think it the wrong decision for Britain's future - at least people would be voting from a position of knowledge.

Clarice

No.
They have one more referendum to see if that’s still what the people want after being presented with actual facts.
The outcome, whatever it is, is then adhered to.
Is it so hard to grasp?

beebee8

Nice, but a misrepresentation I think?

The vote between the 5 friends would have been whether to go to a restaurant or not.

3 vote Yes.

You could draw parallels to restaurant A and no-deal or ‘A’ and TMs deal depending on your position.

Ethelfleda

It was rhetorical. But thanks for the dumbed down response.

You’re welcome

1. The vote was 52/48. That by definition, is a soft brexit vote. Remain lost, which we all understand. But so did hard leave, which few people seem to grasp. Therefore anything other than leaving with a soft Brexit is a betrayal of democracy and should be put to the people before it is enacted.

1. The leaders of the leave campaign promised us we would leave with a great deal. Gove and Boris both said this would be the case. Many people voted leave on this basis. Therefore, leaving with a crap deal or no deal is a betrayal of democracy, and should be put to the people before being enacted.

1. You do not destroy democracy by doing more democracy. You enhance it.

I don't think you could really lower trust in politicians now. All the more reason to offer the people a confirmatory vote on a specific sodding deal rather than letting a minority government decide themselves on the basis of what will hold their sorry party together.

“Writing off the views of the millions who voted leave the first time around as bigotry and xenophobia is so patronising and rude. I think this attitude will anger people and we will just end up with another vote to leave.”

Literally everyone I know who voted leave said they did so we could stop immigrants coming in. I had numerous conversations with people about this. People aren’t just pulling this out of thin air.

But ...

There has already been a second referendum!

When we voted in the first referendum (in 1975, as I recall), we voted to remain -- by a margin of more than two-to-one. (I voted then, as did many of my friends and family.)

It would certainly be unreasonable, not to say blatantly contradictory, for 'leavers' and their apologists now to claim another referendum would be 'undemocratic', or as OP suggests, 'unjustified'.

If, as OP and others try to claim, a second referendum should be considered undemocratic, the referendum in 2016 was undemocratic.

To even approach being reasonable, we need either to have another referendum ... or simply to annul Article 50 on the grounds that the 2016 vote was undemocratic (and anyway in the end did not contradict the first referendum either on number of votes or proportion of votes cast).

Overall, in the two referenda we have already had on this issue, many more votes were cast in favour of remain than the contrary.

We would be wholly justified, democratically and reasonably, in annulling Article 50 based just on this fact alone. Unfortunately, Cameron, Mogg, Johnson and other Etonians and their associates ... oh, and of course May ... ...

Practically speaking, yes we need another referendum, confirmatory vote, call it what you will.

It's one-all, going into extra time! Vote Remain! We love EU!