[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The argument that it "isn't democracy" if there's a second vote is just plain incorrect to be honest. All that's required for it to "be democracy" is that the will of the majority is adhered to... if the will of the majority is now to halt brexit, and a vote shows that, and that's what happens... that is obviously democracy. Of course there are plenty of criticisms that can be aimed at the idea of a second vote but the statement that it "isn't democracy" is just not true.

Arguably, if people were immediately calling for repeated votes after every result it would be fair to call that a "broken" democracy, or an attempt to manipulate democracy, though it is still technically democracy (as there would still be a majority vote that would have to be won). That would be a major problem.

Holding a second vote 18 months+ after the original vote in a massively changed political climate and with an absolute TONNE of additional information on the table? That not only seems like valid democracy, it seems sensible, and refusing to double check that the course being taken is indeed the current will of the majority of the people actually seems quite reckless. Anyone who would happily watch brexit proceed "because they personally want it and it was voted for in 2017", despite knowing that they may well now be in the minority, I honestly don't believe really gives much of a **** about "democracy" at all. It feels disingenuous. "This is an affront to democracy " = "This isn't what I want and I'm scared that the majority of people don't want what I want any more so I won't get it".

The referendum should never have been binding in the first place. They can be used to poll public opinion and that's what should have happened in the first place... a vote to see if there was a desire to leave the EU, followed by a lengthy in-depth study into whether it was economically viable (or even possible) to actually do so. The whole issue has been handled so recklessly that it would be hilarious, if it wasn't bloody scary.

As it happens, referendums are not legally binding, they are advisory only. Legally, the responsibility rests with MP's and always has.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

As it happens, referendums are not legally binding, they are advisory only. Legally, the responsibility rests with MP's and always has.

Well yes, but if they're announced as a "public decision" then I guess there's an expectation that it will be acted on. However, there was nothing stopping them from calling a spade a spade in the first place and saying that the referendum was to gauge public opinion on EU membership... with it being clear that a leave result would lead to exploring the options for leaving.

Even with it being as it was, it's ridiculous how rushed it all has been. These huge political shifts take time, not 18 months! They shouldn't even have been THINKING about pulling the trigger until 3 to 5 years after the vote.