Brexit

No the next time it will count as we're all aware of whats involved now, so we will make an informed decision where as in the first vote we knew nothing, yet most of the stuff that was said about what would happen the day after we voted to leave never came to fruition.

 

The fact a second referendum is mooted at all, is bringing the process into disrepute.

As for the Lib Dems, how on earth are they allowed to have Democratic in their party name still?

 

Unless there is a General Election I can see this situation running and running (unless the EU say enough is enough) and they want us to stay so I cant see that anytime soon.
If we have a General Election it will be interesting how the remain parties play there cards if it's a free for all because any single party believes they can get a majority it could let a Tory/Brexit coalition in, Farage saying he will not join a coalition unless the Tories are prepared to leave without a deal, would Boris if he's still the leader of the Tory party agree to that sort of demand.

 

Personally I think referenda are a terrible way of implementing democracy when we have a functioning governmental democracy that is supposed to be sovereign. It only ends up in this kind of situation.

That said, and in that spirit, if a government got elected on a manifesto to run a second referendum, then I don’t think you can argue as to the democratic legitimacy of that. If a government was elected on a democratic mandate of a no deal Brexit, it would be similarly difficult to argue the legitimacy of such a position.

This is how democracy works. Government by referenda is an unworkable companion.

 

This is certainly a legitimate opinion to have, but it’s not a given to allow it to be democratic. No government can bind the hands of their successor, and that’s the way it should be. If you don’t like a government’s proposed way of doing things then you simply don’t vote them in.

 

Couple of corrections. Number 3 is not ‘Corbyn’s deal’ - there isn’t really any such thing as Corbyn’s Brexit at the moment, which is perhaps a different criticism to level at him.

Secondly, it’s not as undemocratic as you think it is. The Tories had fox hunting and grammar schools in their 2017 Manifesto - and here we are without them. Let’s take 2015 where the Conservatives actually won a majority - pledges to get immigration down to five figures and eliminate the deficit. My point is that neither of these happened, but undeniably gained them votes - thus people not getting what they voted for. It’s extremely common.

We had an election in 2017 that changed both the goalposts and the scope of what was achievable. Had a Liberal Democrat majority been elected, we’d have a perfectly legitimate democratic mandate to remain. There should be absolutely no reason a referendum carries more democratic weight than a general election - just as it is problematic for future governments to be saddled with a binding execution from a previous government.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be frustrated by it, they absolutely should and it’s outrageous that we are where we are. There is an alternative! Vote for the Brexit Party! The current situation is an affront to leadership, not democracy.

 

MPs are representatives, not delegates mandated by their constituency electorates. There is no requirement for MPs to canvas the majority view on any given issue and then follow it. Our political system does not, and cannot, work like that. You'd have to abolish whips and abandon cabinet joint responsibility if it did.
Expecting MPs to act as mandated delegates is one reason why we're in this mess. As well as presenting a complex, multi-faceted concept like Brexit, with numerous potential nuances, as a single simplistic 'leave' on a ballot paper. Not all leave voters were voting for the same thing at all - a third are opposed to No Deal and without their votes Leave would have lost the referendum. Yet that tiny majority is now being cited as a mandate for No Deal Brexit. Democracy, my arse.

 

You say this despite countries like Switzerland and some other countries using them to decide issues regularly, Also some US states use that method especially California, Referendums work well as long as the government that asks the question implements the result, That is true democracy by the people for the people

 

And as long as what is being voted on is clear and explicit. Lumping those who voted for No Deal together with those who voted for a Norway+ type soft Brexit (as was being heavily touted at the time) together is not democracy for the people by the people, it's a recipe for confusion, chaos and discord. At least a third of those who voted Leave did not vote for the car crash No Deal Brexit that the ERG and others are now pushing us towards.

Also, those countries that regularly use referenda invariably require a super majority. Nobody, except us, makes sweeping constitutional changes on a simple majority, precisely because it's so divisive. Those wishing to change the status quo have to demonstrate an unambiguous mandate for change, not 52/48 when one voting option is totally undefined..
Everything about the way the referendum was set up was absurd and undemocratic.

 

Not quite, it's an entertaining and educational mess,
found out alot about parliament,democracy,amendments,the pm,a supreme court,queeny,mp's that dont represent the wishes of their voters, etc etc.

Even when we do leave this will not be the end of brexit.
Only the end of the beginning.