Why is a second referendum undemocratic?

[MotherOfDragons90]

I genuinely don’t understand.

By the same logic we shouldn’t have general elections every 4 years because the people have already voted before.

I didn’t vote for a few reasons, I was on holiday but also couldn’t really make head nor tail of what the truth in amongst all the information being spread was. My close friend voted leave and would now vote remain.

So I don’t understand the argument that it isn’t democratic - if it’s still what The People want, leave will win again? If they don’t it’s because it isn’t what the people want now they are in full position of the facts.

That’s a very good question.

I get that a second vite could be an issue, creates more problems etc etc
But I don’t get how a second vite could be undemocratic, as so many lies (from both sides) have been to,d during the referendum campaign.
Plus of course, peole are allowed to change their mind.

I think a lot of people who are saying that are Leavers who are worried people have, indeed, changed their mind and Brexit wouod disappeared (as, of course, this would be the new will of the people and they couldn't say anything about it)

It's only undemocratic if you are frightened of losing it.

It's not undemocratic. There was a man on the Today programme (politics lecturer IIRC) from Ireland and he explained that in RoI they sometimes have second/third referenda on an issue to reflect the fact that new information comes to light all the time and public opinion changes over time.

Some people have a vested interest in declaring it undemocratic when it's nothing of the sort.

It’s about whether it is ‘perceived’ to be undemocratic. In the end it’s surely about the promises people thought they were hearing.

I think if Leaving the EU is the true will of the People, the Leave vote would win whether we had one referendum or twenty.

I just can’t get my head around why it’s a bad idea.

The trouble is (and I voted remain and very much want to remain) everyone knows in advance that we have a GE every 4 years. No-one told the voters in advance, by contrast, that there would be a second referendum on Brexit that might lead to a different outcome than the first.
The whole thing is a bloody ridiculous circus and there is no outcome possible that will allow us to recover the respect and standing in the world that we had before the referendum. The erstwhile Empire has no clothes.

I agree with you OP . I voted to leave. I hope for a second referendum so I can now vote remain as I have changed my views.

I believed that our Government wouldn't invoke article 50 until there had been cross party consensus about the best way to go about this. I thought our Government would appoint the best negotiators in the land to fight for the best deal. I thought preparation would start immediately to be ready for any outcome. I did not realise how northern Ireland would be such a big issue.

Also, I now think we are stronger and safer to be a part of the EU. We should stay in the EU to work together for the welfare, health and prosperity of all of us. Cooperation is better than nationalism.

There is nothing undemocratic about the second referendum. My views have changed. Others views have changed. If the leave vote win again then that would be the democratic will of the people. If Remain won, that would be the democratic will. At least there would be no excuse this time round as we should all be more aware of the consequences of our decision.

The first vote was undemocratic - no one knew what one of the options they could vote for would entail it was purely based on speculation from a campaign lead by people with no say in what would actually happen. It's like asking people to vote between having a pet dog and a pet unicorn.

It is not undemocratic.

As a bill passes through parliament it is voted on several times. As amendments are made to the bill it is debated and voted on repeatedly.

In trade union negotiations you go to your members and get an enabling motion - the members vote on it - and this gives you permission to negotiate.
Once the negotiations are complete you take the offer back to your members and they then vote on the details of the offer. Do they accept it or not.

The same is true with international treaties. Several votes are held at different times by different legislative bodies.

A second, advisory, referendum is democratic, legal and constitutional.

Well I’ve signed a petition and written to my MP. I suppose it won’t do much good though!

Its not undemocratic

It’s about whether it is ‘perceived’ to be undemocratic

But i agree that its being perceived as such

The argument runs like this:

"The Irish were made to vote again when they voted the wrong way."

The problem with this is twofold.

Firstly, the Repubic of Ireland constitution requires referendums on constitutional issues.

And secondly, when the Irish re-voted, it was a different question on a different proposal.

The logic of this position is that if there is another referendum (wrongly called a 'second' referendum when it would be a third) then if the people vote to stay in the EU, the people would be betraying the people.

It was remorselessly pointed out in the HoC yesterday that following the Welsh Assembly referendum in 1997, it was Tory policy supported by Theresa May MP to have another referendum in 2001 and 2005.

It's not. The first one was though.

It wouldn't be a second it would be a third with regards to EU

It's not undemocratic. However, I don't think it's needed.

The first referendum was apparently advisory but David Cameron said he would implement the result and so did the leaflet that was sent to everyone beforehand. So ok, politically at least, the result needed to be implemented.

The result was a narrow vote for leave.

So it was reasonable to say to the EU, the result was leave and we want to leave please. So far so good.

HOWEVER. What was not decided by that referendum result was how to leave or the relationship we wanted with the EU going forward. And lots of info has become available since the referendum that simply wasn't to hand until peoples' minds were concentrated by the result.

My view is that the government has every right to say "we notified the EU, we came up with a deal, but it won't work and parliament has rejected it, so we are staying in the EU".

No need for another referendum. It's not a sell-out or a terrible betrayal, the government did implement the result but then discovered that it was too much of a mess to continue with it.

OK so, follow the process through please...

-A party stands on a manifesto where it offers a referendum on EU membership and it wins a general election on that basis

• Once in government it legislates to allow the referendum to happen
• The referendum campaign begins, the government advocates for a "Remain" vote
• The government sends a leaflet to every household in the country making the argument for Remain. This leaflet also says "The government will implement what you decide"
• Result on 23/06/16 = that Leave receives more votes than Remain
• Parliament votes to trigger Article 50 - initiating the process of leaving.
• A general election is held in June 2017 at which both prospective governing parties agree to deliver Brexit
• A "deal" for a withdrawal agreement is agreed with the EU in November 2018.

The situation with general elections is that the party with the most seats gets to form a government. i.e. the result is implemented.

Implementation of the result of a vote to leave the EU means that we leave the EU. Until this occurs, the result has not been implemented so overturning it would be a contempt of democracy. Its like saying "your votes don't matter, the people who know best have decided differently". If people think that is a legitimate position for a government to take after the process I outlined earlier then I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

The very very big issue is that the Remain and Leave vote are nitbrepresenetes by the usual poloiticak parties.
People who wild got for the Tories or Labour can. Be either Remain or leave so it doesn’t follow that because the Conservative are in power THEN people want to leave and the government has to implement that.

Actually because none of the MPs have been elected in the basis of their leave or Remain vote, you can argue that they dint represent the country either on that particular question.

On the top of that, I think people voted leave for various reasons including as a way to scream their discontent at austerity measures etc... Like it is in most countries btw, incl when said countries are quite used to referendum. So it’s impossible to say what people actually wanted.
And a vote that is close to 50/50 as it was (and I suspect as it wouod be with another referendum) doesn’t actually say ‘what is the will of the people’. To be able to say Yes or No to leave the EU, I believe we need a much bigger majority than that (at least over the 60% from the very first referendum that saw the U.K. joining the EU. As we have seen, this wasn’t enough to show that the country as a whole REALLY wanted that and it’s still an open question now).

The original referendum was based on a concept (leaving the EU) without any knowledge of the difficulties involved in leaving and the real impact on every aspect of life in the UK. Now the consequences are much more quantifiable I think it's the government's duty to go back to the people to confirm that this is what they really want.

Implementation of the result of a vote to leave the EU means that we leave the EU. Until this occurs, the result has not been implemented so overturning it would be a contempt of democracy.

No parliament can bind another.

And in practice, it is extremely difficult for a minority government to implement a divisive policy. May should have reached across the aisle and looked for a compromise, but she chose not to.

How can it be undemocratic. We has a referendum in the 1970’s about joining the EU. So if it’s undemocratic to have another referendum, we shouldn’t have had the 2016 referendum.......

Agree with SarahLou63 and Satsuma. Now we understand more of what it involves we should have a more meaningful vote. I know people who voted leave because they genuinely believed there would be £350million per week for the NHS!
I don't think we should have had the 2016 referendum, which was my 2nd vote on Europe.
However, to answer your question- those who say it would be undemocratic are scared they will lose.

raglansleeve. no we didn’t.

We had a vote in 1975 on joining a voluntary trading block, not a federalist group with a political structure a unified currency and it’s own army.

I think a second vote is fine, but in 30 years. This country has been in and out of Europe several times.

If there's a second vote and remain wins there will just be calls for a 3rd vote.

Seniorschool
Yes and since then we have been involved with decision making and had the veto. we have been involved with all the decisions. We chse not to join the Euro forexample
Fed up hearing of how Europe imposes on us.

I didn’t say the EU imposes on us.

I said we’ve only had one referendum on whether to be in the EU or not, and that was in 2016.