Quite right, we should have stuck with the results of the 1945 general election and not bothered having any votes in the UK again.
Because a decison hasn’t been made, and seemingly can’t be made, namely, what deal do we leave with?
Is the majority decision a hard brexit, a soft brexit, a BINO, Norway plus or minus, some other bespoke deal?
As there has been no decision made as to how to leave, then yes, a 2nd referendum is imho necessary to ask people to agree on the deal offered.
They should structure it:
Should we:
- Stay in the EU, revoking Article 50 and going back to the situation before June 2016?
- No deal Brexit
- May’s deal (with backstop)
- Norway plus
And then see what the majority want.
Never promised anything, was an advisory referendum. This current mess is of our own making. We could have taken the results of the referendum, then worked out what exactly we wanted, and then started Article 50.
Why bother having national elections every 5 years or so?
I mean, you chose once, that’s enough right?
Or…maybe…the situation on the ground has changed?
Not to mention, the majority result was based on not a majority of possible votes, and not to mention that certain of the population, those most likely to be affected, i.e. those Brits who have lived in Europe more than a certain amount of time, were disenfranchised.
If the Brexit people didn’t want a second referendum they should have made sure to shout “No Backsies!”. I learned this by the time I was four years old, for cryin’ out loud.
And there is enormous leeway in how Britain can treat EU immigrants anyway if they want to discourage others.
I keep bringing it up, but I had to pay health insurance for a year to be able to register myself as living in the Canary Islands, despite already having a bank account, and despite already having previously lived here, and despite having a social security number, and despèite being an EU citizen.
If an autonomous region of Spain can make the process so uncomfortable, then Britain could do, if it so chose, without this huge kerfuffle over leaving the EU.
If people are genuinely worried about benefits scroungers (this being one argument I keep hearing repeated in various places, that Magnuski and his mates are out to rob us) then tighten the system up in general, and make it apply to citizens only.
I find it amusing that after the several years of work to take the UK out of the EU some people assumed that once they got the answer they liked the matter would be over, and not just the start of a counter move by the people who want to be in the EU.
Also point of order there have already been two referendums on the UK being in the EU. One “yes lets join” one “no lets leave” So the peoples vote will be the third.
Each referendum is fully justified in that circumstances changed.
The 2016 one could reasonably argue the EU the UK was in was not like the one agreed by the first referendum in 1975.
Likewise the 2019 one will be able to reasonably argue that the leave arrangements are not like the ones agreed in the 2016 referendum.
You know, in all the newspaper articles, online flame-wars, TV debates, radio phone-ins and pub arguments, this is something that absolutely nobody was saying. No-one believed they were taking part in an opinion poll. We all knew we were making a decision. This is a thoroughly dishonest rewriting of history by people who can’t bring themselves to accept a democratic process that went against them.
The referendum decision did not automatically create law for obvious practical and technical reasons.
Should we argue for a second referendum? Sure, I’m completely on board. We know far more in 2016, we’re aware of risks and complications that no-one was talking about then. And I bet that if that second referendum is a vote to remain, neither you nor anyone else on your side of the argument will be calling that one “advisory”.
When the Brexiters can champion and put forward a team of people capable of delivering what they want perhaps they should try it again.
but nope, they decided to be lead by Johnson, Fox, IDS, Davis etc and expected those idiots to do the job. They failed.
Revoke Art 50, let the Brexiters eat shit, I really don’t care what the ultras and fanatics left in the Brexit who still support it think, they are all racists or racist apologists and enablers and deserve to lose. They wilfully and knowledgeably want to inflict pain, misery and suffering on people.
Yes, it would.
Well…not white people, at least…
Yep, because referendums are incompatible with our system of government, for reasons we are currently seeing. It was only until recently that referendums were thought to be unconstitutional, and tools of Nazis and demagogues.
Everyone. Unborn British kids denied the opportunities of Europe. A seemingly endless list of closing or moving businesses and jobs. Science and research impacts. This is going to affect the standard of living for everyone for generations. The main people it wont affect are a majority of the Brexiters, because the boomers will all be dead soon.
Brexit = putting Trump in power for decades, and the opposition want to build The Wall too. Like the rise of Trumpism Brexit is an ethno-nationalist project, the last grasp of the Western 1% to maintain power and control, with a heavy leaning towards supremacy. Fox News and the Brexit press pumping out the same propaganda but with a US or UK slant on it. It’s vulture capitalism circling above to strip the public domain of everything it has left.
Except, for obvious reasons, we couldn’t have been making a decision as we didn’t know what the decision was to make!
And legally, it was advisory.
Was it a binding referendum? No.
If not binding, then, legally, advisory.
If the referendum is set up to be advisory, then yes I shall call it advisory.
If it is set up to be legally binding, then it shall be legally binding.
You seem to be under the impression I pulled this out of my arse.
It is an incorrect impression.
Isn’t this a statement about what advocates and opponents were saying? And not about what the government said?
In the USA, are Trump and FOX News the media or the government? They just kind of blur into each other.
I dunno about anyone else but my understanding was always that the result had been promised to be implemented. Nowhere before or during the campaign was it stated that the referendum was just a “poll”. It was “the decision”.
Even the official Remain documentation states as such:
“A once in a generation decision”
“The referendum is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
You lost my vote. Thats the only bit about Brexit I was looking forward to! :)
A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way.
So, purely as a matter of law, neither the government nor Parliament has to do anything about the referendum.
SO, legally, we didn’t and don’t have to implement it.
Politically that’s another question entirely, but this particular argument arose from the claim made by Draxen.
which is demonstrably not true, as has been demonstrated.
Huh… but I just linked you the documentation where the government states they will implement the result. confused.