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?

Brexit is floundering because MP's are following their own agenda as opposed to the result of a vote.

Our democracy is a representative democracy - as you said earlier in your post, but I don't think you understand what that means.

So 'my grandparents voted for a crap Idea so I need to do the same without thinking the circumstances might have changed' is a basis for killing the UK economy

No idea what your grandparents did or do now. Point was that many who have seen the de-industrialization of the UK since 80's vote labour as it is tradition.

Our democracy is a representative democracy

So how does that make the 52% that voted leave less relevant than the 48% who voted remain?

So how does that make the 52% that voted leave less relevant than the 48% who voted remain?

It doesn't, but equally it doesn't put MPs under any obligation to vote in any particular way because they are representatives not delegates. There are hard Brexit MPs representing remain constituencies and vice versa.

The referendum was not binding, so it places no additional obligation whatsoever on MPs, whose first duty remains to represent constituents and the country by following their best judgement.

Well the 48% have been continually ignored since the vote so I can't understand your point Pizza

That's down to MPs talking the talk or dangling the carrot if you like, and then whipping it away (no pun intended) when push comes to shove.

However, if you think being ignored means they haven't done what you wanted. Ie. overturn the result then that's a bit different.

On the bright side you may have better luck this week .

Well the 48% have been continually ignored since the vote so I can't understand your point Pizza

In a two horse race where the choices were a simple:

Leave the EU

or

Remain in the EU

Had either side won by only one vote it would still be a victory. It is called first past the line.

Gold medals are awarded to athletes on the basis they have beaten the others. In the case of a 100m dash the difference between first and second may be only a few 100th's of a second. Sometimes the human eye can't tell and must rely on camera technology to decide.

Not possible to please the 48% minority as well as the 52% majority as what they both want could not be further apart. T May's attempts to please both by UK being half in and half out of the EU have failed.

If I had to choose between pleasing the 52% majority and sickening off the 48% minority I would choose the 52% every time. Logic is that 52% happy people is better than 0% happy people by trying to achieve the impossible which is to please everyone at the same time.

I'm Scottish and I'm really uncomfortable with it. I was a firm remain in the EU but have had to accept that we lost the referendum.

Scottish nationalists are still banging on about IndyRef2 even though the NO vote got a larger majority than the Brexit referendum. If Brexit goes to another vote they will be unbearable. We will be put through referendum after referendum until most people lose the will to live and Scotland is totally ripped in two.

My guinea pig could have done a better job!

So could mine - maybe a cross party of guinea pigs is the way to go !!

Any sensible government would have tried a cross party approach before triggering article 50 so at least we knew what sort of Brexit we were looking for

Not possible as labour has almost in its entirety has opposed T May suggestions with the intent of making the Conservative party look bad. All part of the underlying agenda to get another general election.

Too complex. Just revoke. Most of us are political and economic simpletons. Should never have been a ref in the first place.

Too complex. Just revoke. Most of us are political and economic simpletons. Should never have been a ref in the first place

Can’t see MPs voting to revoke as they know they won’t be elected at the next general election.

Cameron allowed the referendum as he was convinced it would be an easy remain win. That’s why he wound his neck out and said the result would be honoured.

However, as a wealthy person he will experience or see the world in the same way as the average person in the street. What he forgot was that there are lot more average people in the street than there are wealthy MPs

@Hellenbackagen
If you honestly think it's as simple as that I don't think society will miss your vote.

Labour party throughout Brexit has seen it as a chance to criticize the Conservative party in the hope a general election is called.

If only. One of the major problems throughout this process is that Labour hasn't provided a credible opposition because of Corbyn's reluctance to acknowledge all the obvious problems with Brexit. He's had an open goal and has been in there helping May to defend it.

So how does that make the 52% that voted leave less relevant than the 48% who voted remain?

What makes the 52% less relevant is that their votes were obtained through fraud and serious breaches of electoral law. The government's own lawyers have admitted that if they had encountered that in a local or general election the result would be nullified; the only reason that hasn't been the case with the referendum is that it was only an advisory vote.

Can’t see MPs voting to revoke as they know they won’t be elected at the next general election

Will they get elected if we leave without a deal and chaos ensues?

I know which option I'd go for.

the only reason that hasn't been the case with the referendum is that it was only an advisory vote

If only advisory and the result was fraudulent why did UK government proceed with article 50?

I don’t remember any of the scare stories about the UK disappearing off the map, 800,000 jobs being lost and instant chaos only by daring to vote leave before leave even happened? That tells me that a lot of the remain campaign was based on scaremongering.

{I don’t remember any of the scare stories about the UK disappearing off the map, 800,000 jobs being lost and instant chaos only by daring to vote leave before leave even happened? That tells me that a lot of the remain campaign was based on scaremongering.}

Well you ought to be aware that the UK should be leaving on Friday night. That is about 80 hours away. At which point the EU would be legally correct in switching off everything to do with the UK and putting the answerphone on.
Many thousands of jobs have already been lost, the UK has 'spent' well over 4 Billion just preparing' to leave (and is nowhere near ready) and the EU has had to throw Theresa and the cabinet a life raft because the UK government haven't a damn clue what to do.
This is a far cry from 'easiest deals ever' and 'new UK manufacturing powerhouse' and it is only the EU's generosity that will allow planes to fly, ships to sail, meds and food to arrive next week, That means Saturday morning onwards.

why did UK government proceed with article 50

Political grandstanding and a complete failure on the part of most cabinet members and MPs to understand that revoking A50 without a plan put the ball in the EU's court and destroyed the UK's leverage.

All this was known (by pesky experts) at the time.

If only advisory and the result was fraudulent why did UK government proceed with article 50?

If only we knew ... though the answer is in part that, because of May's ridiculous haste in triggering Article 50, the full facts about the fraud weren't known. Please don't tell me that you contest either the advisory nature of the vote or the known fraud involved?

Had you been told before the vote that there would be no deal agreed even a month before Brexit was supposed to happen, I bet Leavers would have dismissed that as baseless scaremongering.

No deal does not scare me.

No deal does not scare me.

How fucking lucky you are, I’m disabled and on benefits and I’m fucking terrified

How fucking lucky you are, I’m disabled and on benefits and I’m fucking terrified

No need to be afraid. I am sure if UK can borrow money to send 13 Billion overseas they will be able to look after those who are disabled.

It is those who are working and think they may become unemployed that seem to be worrying the most?

Comfort from a Xenophobe I’ll pass thanks, even if the foreign aid u seem to dislike it wouldn’t be spent on the poor while the Tory party is in power, I can’t tell if ur just naive or goady af

even if the foreign aid u seem to dislike it wouldn’t be spent on the poor while the Tory party is in power

No problem with foreign aid if you have spare cash, but to borrow money to give away overseas as opposed to looking after your own first does not represent good setting of priorities.