Multiple polls - don't understand!!

[wannabebetter]

How come people keep saying it wouldn't be fair to have a second referendum, and yet TM is allowed to put her deal up for vote for the THIRD TIME!! Surely there is a democratic reason for a second referendum, bearing in mind we vote in elections sometimes after 3 years, and that the first time round people really didn't know what they were voting for & (in my view) was a vote on immigration won by racists! Sorry if I'm not sophisticated enough to post here - just really fed up & mystified (and living in 'The New Hong Kong' Northern Ireland)!!

Good question. The only possible justification is that the Parliament votes are slightly different each time... but then another people's vote would be different too.

But this third vote doesn't appear to be different. I just appears that May might have brow beaten the DUP into voting for her deal. I suppose they think that a 3 month extension is OK because after that they would be able to pull out all the stops to trash the GFA.

Whereas the electorate from 2016 and now has changed as people have died, and younger people have come onto the register. Plus people taking out British Citizenship to enable them to stay with British spouses and children.

Aren't they both different:

1. The ref's different because of the passage of time, also we now know (a bit) more about the economic impacts, and the Russian and US influencers.

1. The meaningful Parliamentary vote is different because No deal is domestically off the table, albeit internationally still on schedule.

I think Bercow is bending the rules a bit - the WA seems to be exactly the same so ought not to be allowed to be presented again, but other events have overtaken it, so this is the pragmatic approach.

It will show up the DUP and ERG for what they are, if they decide to back the WA this time. Although IMO the ERG have already shown themselves up by first calling for a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, which they lost, but then voting for her when Corbyn called for a vote of no confidence in the Government.

I totally agree. The "will of the people" is set in stone, but the will of Parliament is in constant flux. Things change; options are removed; the deal negotiated is far from ideal; yet the "will of the people", whatever that was, is static. I think we deserve a vote on whether to accept the actual deal. I don't understand why that would be undemocratic.

Of course, it would not be undemocratic but it suits the quitters to say that it would be "an affront to democracy", "thwarting the will of the people", "betraying brexit" etc.

If there ever is any brexit-related civil unrest the politicians and journalists who have used such inflammatory language should be held to account.

The crazy thing is that the WA is a plan to leave, so voting for it first time around could have meant the 'will of the people' would be satisfied.
I suspect the HoC hadn't read, and certainly don't understand it they just voted it down. Yes the transition period of (estimated at the time) 2 years APPEARS to be a delay, but HoC and the public expect 'instant' without appreciating that doing this, which is possible by crashing out takes time. Even 'No deal' will actually take about a year to achieve, during which there will probably be mayhem and 'accidental deaths' because all the coordination that happens now will be smashed.