Is the UK legally prevented from having another referendum on Brexit?
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
united-kingdom brexit
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
edited 14 hours ago
JBentley
29047
29047
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
asked 16 hours ago
MocasMocas
1393
1393
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago
add a comment |
4
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago
4
4
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again.
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38969%2fis-the-uk-legally-prevented-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again.
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again.
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again.
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again.
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
edited 14 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
answered 16 hours ago
ouflakouflak
1,021411
1,021411
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
2
2
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
16 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@JohnDallman Another problem is that the country is not facing precisely two options. They could try to stay in the UK, they could accept the deal on the table, they could try to keep negotiating a better deal, they could exit with no deal. It's not clear how to handle such a case with a referendum.
– David Schwartz
4 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz When you want to choose between multiple options with some of them being similar, then ranked choice voting is a possible option.
– Philipp♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
edited 15 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
answered 15 hours ago
FlaterFlater
33715
33715
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
19
19
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
14 hours ago
3
3
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
2
2
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
@JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
– alephzero
13 hours ago
2
2
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
@JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
– alephzero
13 hours ago
6
6
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
@alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
– Chieron
13 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38969%2fis-the-uk-legally-prevented-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
– JBentley
13 hours ago