Anyone else feel uncomfortable with the idea of a second referendum, given the first?

[MuseumofInnocence]

Apologies, as I'm sure this has been done elsewhere.

I've been thinking a lot about the role of parliamentary sovereignty and how it differs from direct democracy. I was listening to Michael Heseltine again who gave a great speech at the March yesterday. He talks a lot about Parliament and how it is the foundations of our freedom, MPs do a great job, commit great service and so on. And then he concludes that "we the people, must be given the final say". I am a remainer and therefore sympathetic to this view, but given how the first went, and the argument for representative democracy, am I being a bit intellectually dishonest if I go down this road? If MPs were able to fulfil their duty, they would see that Brexit was not in the interests of the UK, and revoke Article 50?

[Topseyt]

I should add that my preferred option would be revocation of the ridiculous Article 50 without another referendum.

Just put an end to the shit show.

[lljkk]

Feels to me like Brits are only people in the world who object to democracy. They say they want more direct democracy & democratic expression but then screech "undemocratic!" when offered it. Pah.

[hayf]

3 years after 38% of British people at the time voted leave, I would say leavers have had their chance to implement whatever version of Brexit they wanted and they've failed.

Leave MPs had the chance to contest role of PM and they didn't. There were then three wholly incompetent Leave voting Brexit Secretaries who jumped ship because they suddenly realised their cluelessness about the EU had been exposed.. where are they now? Bleating on about no deal because they realised everything they promised about a good deal was impossible. They want to retain a modicum of a career and know their incompetence is blanketed by shouty politics. Theresa May gave some of her most prominent cabinet roles to Leave MPs who then quit because they were out of their depth.

So i would personally say that leavers won the battle but they've lost the war, it was theirs to lose and they alone are responsible. If leavers had any kind of unity, shared vision and evidence based argument for a clear outcome we wouldn't be in this mess.

People who say that we can't just keep voting until we get the outcome we want, I would reply by asking why anyone should allow the country to be screwed over repeatedly whilst we wait for the apparent winners to battle it out for the imaginary outcome that they say they wanted but doesn't exist.

You've had your chance, stop blaming other people for your mess and own it. Brexit has failed, and even if we do actually leave the EU we will be remembered as the most incompetent and ignorant generation in modern history.

As for a second referendum, I don't believe we should have one as I think there would be too much money thrown at the leave campaign to try to cover up mistakes and save face again without putting forward anything constructive that is actually in the national interest. I don't know what the solution is, but I know that it has to go far deeper than leave or remain, tory or not to stand any chance of stopping us completely self destructing.

[PizzaCafe2016]

3 years after 38% of British people at the time voted leave

Where does 38% come from? I thought it was 52% leave and 48% remain?

leavers have had their chance to implement whatever version of Brexit they wanted and they've failed

Implementation of a voters instruction is the Government's task. Brexit is a mess for various reasons such as:

T May voted remain, but was given the task of leading the leave negotiations. Never going to work out.

MP's voted remain overall and want to ignore the result of the 2016 referendum.

Labour seems to object to whatever the Conservative party put forward in an attempt to force a General Election.

The list could go on and on.

[Mistigri]

the referendum only being advisory

People say this because it is legally and factually true. Some of us are still interested in facts. The referendum legislation could have been drafted to make the result binding. The government chose not to do this.

[Decormad38]

Yes heading into an inmitigated disaster is a great idea. Anything to maintain democracy!

[PizzaCafe2016]

The government chose not to do this

I remember Cameron saying that UK government would honour the result of the EU referendum. Also remember that both Conservative and Labour saying in their manifesto before the 2017 general election they would honour the result.

General election was 8 June 2017, 71 days after Article 50 was invoked on 29 March 2017. So people knew what they were voting for in 2017.

Article 50 can be revoked, but I think; T May, the conservative party and the labour party all know they will suffer at the next general election if that action was taken.

[Mistigri]

I remember Cameron saying that UK government would honour the result of the EU referendum.

Why do you think that he refused to legislate to make it binding then?

Governments promise stuff all the time. Only when it is law is it binding.

[PizzaCafe2016]

Only when it is law is it binding

Have a look at the following article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_of_Withdrawal)_Act_2017

I am not a legal person, but the way is reads to me is that an act passed on 16 March 2017 gave effect to the 2016 referendum result.

[Mistigri]

I am not a legal person, but the way is reads to me is that an act passed on 16 March 2017 gave effect to the 2016 referendum result.

You're plainly not a legal person, because otherwise you would understand that a feature of a non-binding referendum is that it cannot take effect without subsequent legislation.

[sweetheartyparty]

If people haven't changed their minds and they just want out whatever the costs, then a second referendum will ratify that opinion. If it is truly the will of the people then the leave vote will win. It will at least help break this deadlock in parliament.

[BelleSausage]

I’m now of the opinion that we need to crash out for most Leave voters to see how horribly dupped they’ve been.

Brexit is a con of massive proportions to allow the very rich to bet against the pound and make millions.

It is not about sovereignty. It’s about Rees-Mogg and the disaster capitalists making a fat wodge out of the ensuing chaos.

How anyone can convince themselves that JRM, NF, Gove, BJ or any hardline Brexiteer has their back and is doing what is best for the British people instead of venally lining their own pockets and political ambitions is dreaming.

[PizzaCafe2016]

a feature of a non-binding referendum is that it cannot take effect without subsequent legislation

Was the Act passed on 16 March 2017 not the subsequent legislation needed to make the 2016 referendum take effect?

If it is truly the will of the people then the leave vote will win

But will the remainers accept the result if the outcome is leave? Or will they want referendums forever until it swings in favour of remain?

[Mistigri]

I don't really understand your point pizza (unless the point is just a bit of pro-Brexit time-wasting).

The referendum was non-binding. Therefore it required parliament to vote on subsequent legislation to put the result into effect. Legislation that can, if necessary, changed by voting again. That's how our democracy works.

[LillianGish]

The first referendum did not specify how we would leave - we were just told we would get a great deal and the world would be queueing up to do great trade deals with us. Two years on we can see what the deal looks like - what we are voting for is much clearer, so if the will of the people means anything I think it would be reasonabale to put the question again and ask do you want to leave with this deal (not some imaginary deal that is never going to happen) or do you want to revoke Article 50 and stay?

[HappyPunky]

I voted remain but I'm not keen on the idea of another referendum.

1 - because I think it would be very close again and leave voters would be campaigning for best of three if remain had the majority

2- if no deal is an option, so many people don't understand what no deal means and how little progress has been made, having it as an option to vote for is so irresponsible and there are people who would vote for it.

I think we should revoke or have brexit in name only.

[Mistigri]

But will the remainers accept the result if the outcome is leave? Or will they want referendums forever until it swings in favour of remain?

I'm going to reply on the basis that you are posting in good faith (even though I suspect you are not), and treat your two points here separately.

• remainers would not need to "accept" the outcome of a binding referendum which offered clear choices that were capable of being implemented swiftly ie within the life of the current parliament.

• if there is a binding referendum that results in leaving, remainers will no doubt pour effort and resources into campaigning to rejoin. A referendum doesn't end democracy and doesn't prevent people continuing to campaign for what they want.

[BelleSausage]

@Mistigri

The point is that parliament did not have to enact any legislation. They did it because they thought they’d get a whipping from the electorate if they didn’t and because TM is constantly trying to placate the ERG.

If someone can explain to me one actually benefit of Brexit (not the stupid lie about sovereignty) I might try to be more upbeat.

[MIdgebabe]

But the anti eu people never gave up. Manipulating the press to report lies as facts, headlines saying.the eu wants to do something stupid paving the way for anti eu sentiment in the uk. Encouraging people to think the eu was separate from the uk, when in fact the uk was shaping eu laws.

38% not 52% I guess because not everyone voted. It’s pertinent as it would be unusual for the none-voters to be as strongly leave as the voters which is why major binding referendum usually have a threshold for change at around 60%

[Mistigri]

The point is that parliament did not have to enact any legislation.

Yes, absolutely. The referendum was non-binding. All the subsequent choices and votes have been matters for parliament, which has mainly voted in the (perceived) party interest not in the country's interest.

[MIdgebabe]

Benefits do not need to be hard financial or social benefits.

People think they will be in more control, that they will have a greater say in the running of the country. That is a great benefit to someone who feels marginalised and left out. Some people believe strongly in the idea of country as a key part of their identity. People can vote for something they believe is right even if it disadvantages them personally.

[BelleSausage]

@MIdgebabe

But that is a lie on the scale of ‘Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’

It is a harmful bit of jingoistic claptrap.

[PizzaCafe2016]

Setting a question for a 2nd referendum would be a sticking point as it would have to be equally balanced between remain and leave. However, some would argue that remain should not even be a question as it was already answered in the 2016 referendum.

Many think that T May deal is remain in disguise so if the question was:

T May deal

or

Remain

Many would see that as a choice between remain and remain. Don't forget that T May deal was blasted out by MP's twice in succession. First by the biggest defeat ever seen in the UK with a majority of 230 and second time by 149 majority.

Whilst MP's overall voted against no deal that does not mean the voters would not support a no deal exit from the EU.

[Oblomov19]

I can't see how another poll would help. All those questions make it too complicated. It needs to be simple. But it's not.

Cameron never ever considered that leave vote would win. He thought remain would win with a big majority. So did all the prediction polls. The actual result was a big shock.

17 million leave voters. Have they all changed their minds? There was literally a 50:50 split between voters( yes I appreciate that this only relates to the voters on that day, not necessarily a 50:50 split of the population as a whole. )

So that's too close to call. This could get worse. What if we had another vote and it was close again? What would we do then? We'd be in a bigger mess.

I honestly see no easy option here. I don't know what the answer is.